Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about her housing register priority banding. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has not fully considered her professional and medical evidence when deciding her housing register priority banding. She also complains about poor communication and delays in its reviews of her case. She says this has caused distress, uncertainty and affected her and her family’s wellbeing. She wants the Council to review her case, increase her housing register priority banding and improve its communication.

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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s housing allocations policy.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council assessed Ms X’s housing application and awarded her band 3 for moderate medical priority. Ms X was unhappy with this and asked the Council to review the decision, but the Council did not change its position.
7. In its final complaint response about this matter in January 2026, the Council re- considered her priority banding. As part of this review, it considered her housing application records, all medical and supporting evidence, a recent housing needs assessment, housing decision and appeal letters and the Council’s housing allocations policy. It decided band 3 was the correct priority banding and it would not increase it. It explained its decision making to Ms X.
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 will not investigate this complaint. The Council re-reviewed her housing application and supporting evidence as part of its complaints process and was satisfied she was in the correct priority banding. Its decision appears in line with its published allocations policy. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
10. Ms X also complains about delays and poor communication in the Council’s reviews of her case. We will not investigate this. Although I acknowledge that any delays are likely to have caused Ms X some frustration and uncertainty, the Council did not change its decision regarding her housing priority, so she has not been disadvantaged by any delay. Also, we could not require the Council to complete a further review or to increase her housing priority. An investigation into these matters would not lead to a worthwhile outcome or achieve what she wants.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman