Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision about her priority for housing. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council did not properly consider her medical and personal needs when it assessed her housing priority.
2. Miss X said this had a significant impact on her physical and mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We consider 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council introduced a new housing allocations policy in August 2025. It therefore reconsidered Miss X’s housing priority against the new policy. It awarded Miss X Band C priority.
8. Miss X disagreed with this decision and requested a review of it. Miss X said she should have been awarded Band B priority.
9. Miss X said her medical and social welfare needs were not properly considered by the Council when it made its decision or in its review. This included medical evidence provided as part of her original application.
10. In its review response, the Council said it considered Miss X’s medical and social welfare needs. It acknowledged Miss X’s medical and social welfare needs, but said they did not meet the threshold required for band B priority, as set out in its housing allocation policy.
11. 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 you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
12. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making here to warrant a full Ombudsman investigation. The available evidence suggests it acted in line with its policy. For this reason, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman