The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Miss X’s application to the housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Miss X complained about the Council’s decision that she is does not qualify for its housing register. As a result, she says her family have been living in overcrowded accommodation which has worsened their 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss X applied to the Council to be included on the housing register. Her application was rejected and in 2022 she asked for the decision to be reviewed under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996. The Council review did not uphold her claim and said that she was already occupying a 2-bedroom ground-floor council property and was adequately housed.
Miss X made complaints for disrepair over the subsequent years and she complained to the Housing Ombudsman who made recommendation about this. In 2025 she asked for her case to be reviewed by a Housing Panel for a management transfer and provided further medical information about her family’s medical needs. The evidence was considered by the Council’s independent medical assessor and no priority was given. The Panel concluded that her application did not qualify for the housing register.
The Council’s Allocations Policy defines Band B housing priority as: ‘Households assessed with a need to move on medical grounds where the current housing conditions are having an adverse impact on the medical condition of the applicant or a member of the applicant’s household. The condition or disability will be severe and remaining in the current home will contribute to deterioration in health. Such needs may relate to: … • A physical or learning disability … If required qualified medical opinion will be sought from the Council’s independent medical advisor (IMA).’
The Council reviewed Miss X’s updated medical evidence that her family needed a larger house with a garden. It also conducted its own independent medical assessment, which concluded that the house was suitable for their health needs and that no medical priority should be awarded.
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.
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.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Miss X’s application to the housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman