The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs Y complained that the Council wrongly downgraded her housing application from Band B to Band E based on incorrect information, claimed repairs were completed and treating a disputed rent increase as proven arrears.
She says the Council ignored harassment by her landlord, accused her of misusing funds and failed to act on evidence submitted resulting in her losing her November 2024 start date. They bid on a property without her consent and committed several maladministration faults, disregarding her disabilities and negatively impacting her mental health.
The complaint
Summary: Mrs Y complained that the Council wrongly downgraded her housing application from Band B to Band E based on incorrect information, claimed repairs were completed and treating a disputed rent increase as proven arrears.
She says the Council ignored harassment by her landlord, accused her of misusing funds and failed to act on evidence submitted resulting in her losing her November 2024 start date. They bid on a property without her consent and committed several maladministration faults, disregarding her disabilities and negatively impacting her mental health.
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; or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) 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 we decide 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.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mrs Y approached the Council in late August 2025 about the mishandling of her housing case and misallocation of her housing band. She complained that her housing band had been changed, resetting her start date. She was also threatened with homelessness after her landlord served a possession notice on her.
The Council followed the conditions of its allocations policy; they explained that in November 2024 her housing band was assessed at Band B due to significant disrepair issues. When initial repairs were carried out and rent arrears were identified this was amended to Band E. In August 2025 the Council received evidence from the Mental Health Team, and, exercising discretion, they reassessed her into Band B The Council had advised Mrs Y how to dispute her rent arrears and informed her that not doing so could affect her banding.
Mrs Y says that the Council bid on an unsuitable property without her consent, jeopardising her housing chances, and threatened her with homelessness. Her Housing Officer put in a management bid as it was in her best interest. The property was deemed suitable. The council informed her that if she refused this offer, they may discharge their homelessness duty if she became homeless.
The Council is responsible for ensuring that a housing applicant’s needs reflect their living conditions. Mrs Y had changes in her circumstances which affected her banding priority. The disrepair was considered to be mitigated sufficiently to no longer warrant Band B. The medical advice from the mental Health Team persuaded the Council to change the banding back to Band B.
As with most allocations schemes, for any change in banding priority the effective date of the application is from when the change applied. This is necessary because time on a previous banding cannot be included because this would cause injustice to applicants who were in the higher banding for longer.
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.
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.
It is unlikely that the Ombudsman would find fault upon investigation of the Council’s assessment of Mrs Y’s housing application. Therefore, we will not investigate further.
Mrs Y complained about the personalised housing plan (PHP) which the Council prepared when she approached them as being potentially homeless. she says the plan was limited and did not take her medical and financial circumstances into account. She also says she would be unable to be placed in temporary accommodation.
We will not investigate this aspect o her complaint. It was reasonable for her to ask for a s.202 1996 Housing Act review of the PHP if she believed it was flawed.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reduce Mrs Y’s housing priority banding for a period of time. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman