Summary: We will not investigate Mr X complaint about the Council’s housing register decision because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask for a review of any decisions on his homelessness application.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council mishandled his housing application. He alleged that the Council failed to to follow its allocations policy and exercised poor and delayed communication. He also says that a recent personalised housing plan issued under the Relief homelessness duty did not meet his needs and he did not agree with it.

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
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied to the Council’s housing register and says he was awarded Band C priority. He provided some medical evidence that he may be a vulnerable applicant but says the council delayed re-assessing case. He subsequently was threatened with homelessness as his landlord served a notice to quit.
6. Mr X was considered under the Council’s homelessness prevention duty and issued with a personalised housing plan. He says he did not agree to the plan and was also told that it was unlikely he would be eligible for Band A priority or homelessness priority as a vulnerable person before his medical needs had been properly assessed.
7. The Council later apologised for any impression that the case may have been pre-judged but it was giving him advice about sourcing alternative accommodation in the likelihood that he may become homeless.
8. The Council considered the information Mr X provided, advice from an independent medical advisor and its allocation scheme. The allocations scheme sets out how priority banding is assessed and the relevant paragraph of the allocations policy which is relevant to Mr X’s case. The Council explained its reasons for deciding Mr X’s needs and that Band C was appropriate. There was no undue delay in making its decisions. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
9. When Mr X complained to us he had not been accepted under the homeless Relief duty or had a decision on whether or not he had priority under the homelessness legislation. He had not been told whether or not he had priority under the Housing Act 1996 part 7 or if he would be offered interim accommodation.
10. In early 2026 Mr X told us Council had now accepted him under the Relief duty but there was no detail about accommodation or priority. We would not be able to investigate these matters because there is a right of review of homeless decisions about accommodation and non-priority outcomes with a further right of appeal. We would expect Mr X to use these rights.
11. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or 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.
12. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s about the Council’s housing register decision because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask for a review of any decisions on his homelessness application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman