The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Miss X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. she says that her transfer application should have been awarded Band A priority because her son is disabled and he is sharing a one-bedroom council rented flat with the rest of the family which is causing overcrowding and unsuitability problems.
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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocation policy.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss X says her housing application was given insufficient priority when she asked to transfer to a bigger more suitable property because her son has disabilities and her one-bedroom flat is unsuitable for the family’s needs. Council tenants seeking a transfer have to apply through the Council’s choice-based letting system with applicants from other tenures.
Miss X asked the Council in October 2025 to review her applications priority and submitted medical evidence. There is no statutory timescale for reviews but government guidance recommends 8 weeks. Miss X submitted further medical information in December and again in early February. This required the Council to ask its medical advisors to consider the new evidence. Miss X also requested that she be considered for a 3-bedroom accommodation as well as Band A which required a separate review by a disability Housing Panel.
The Council’s panel met on 13 February and approved the application for 3-bedroom need. The medical advisor had already awarded priority 1 medical need. The Council informed Miss X in February that her case had been approved for Band A with priority 1 medical backdated to 9 February when the last medical evidence was received.
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.
The Ombudsman 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. In this case Miss X followed the review procedure and this resulted in a higher banding priority. There was no significant delay because she provided additional evidence which required further assessments during the review process.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman