Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Mrs X’s priority and eligibility for the social housing register. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her request for a housing priority review. Mrs X’s child suffers with their mental health, and the family feel a move of home would be beneficial. Mrs X wants the Council to reconsider their request and put the family in a higher band which would allow them to move.

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. (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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X has been a Council tenant since 2012 and lives in a two-bedroomed property with her husband and child.
7. Mrs X requested the Council review her priority banding around three years ago due to her mobility difficulty and having to climb stairs to access her property. Her application was unsuccessful and she remained in the same housing priority banding.
8. In December 2025, Mrs X requested a review of her banding priority. This was due to her own continued mobility difficulties and her child’s ongoing poor mental health impacting the whole family.
9. The Council carried out a review and considered all the evidence presented by Mrs X about her child’s condition. The Council also completed a financial assessment to determine eligibility for the housing register. In its decision the Council concluded that a priority banding could not be awarded. It also found Mrs X was not eligible to remain on the housing register after completing the financial assessment.
10. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
11. Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council considered the information provided by Mrs X and applied its allocations policy when making its decisions. It clearly set out its reasons to Mrs X. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman