Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment of his housing application. He says he needs a 2-bedroom home because he has family carers who frequently need to stay overnight and one bedroom is insufficient.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations scheme.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied to the Council for rehousing. He is over 80 years old and says that he needs assistance from family members who frequently need to stay overnight to assist him. He applied for a 2-bedroom ground floor property but was assessed as being in Band D with only one-bedroom need.
6. Mr X asked the Council to review his priority, which is under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996. The Council carried out a review in July 2025 and awarded him increased priority of Band B. It still only considered he had 1-bedroom need because he does not have a full -time carer and although he may require this in future his current needs did not require an additional bedroom.
7. Mr X asked for a further review following the provision of medical support evidence and support form a Citizens Advice centre. The Council re-assessed his application. the Council’s decision was that although he still does not require full-time care, it acknowledged he may need this in future and allowed his bidding to extend to 2-bedroom accommodation for over 55’s which is in less demand and more supply than general needs properties. It made it clear that he still does not require a live-in carer and that he is ineligible to bid on 2-bedroom vacancies which are in demand from couples and larger households in more urgent housing need.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. There is insufficient evidence of any fault here which would warrant further consideration.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman