The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Ms X’s priority for social housing. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her housing priority review while on the Housing register. Ms X feels the Council have not fully considered the evidence she has provided and awarded her a higher priority. Ms X says she and her children have been living in unsuitable accommodation which is worsening her mental health. Ms X wants to move to a larger property.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X lives with her two children in a privately rented one bedroomed property and applied to join the housing register over ten years ago. Ms X has provided the Council with several pieces of evidence regarding her medical conditions to show why she feels the property is unsuitable for her and her family. Ms X asked for a review of her priority banding.
The Council reviewed Ms X’s application and priority in December 2025 and again in February and April 2026, after Ms X presented further medical evidence for consideration. The Council passed the information to its medical adviser for review. The review gave Ms X more points to her application, but her priority band remained the same.
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.
Based on the evidence I have seen the Council followed relevant legislation, information provided by Ms X, and its own allocations policy to decide Ms X’s housing priority banding. It explained the reasons for its decision and how it awarded points in each relevant category. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.
In any event, it is unlikely investigation would lead to a different outcome. Ms X has the maximum number of medical points available. The only higher priority on medical grounds is “overriding priority”. This is for applicants whose conditions are life threatening or who are at imminent risk of serious harm if not moved. Ms X does not fall into this category. There is nothing further, therefore, to be achieved by investigating.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman