The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decisions on the priority of her housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Ms X complained about the Council's handling of a review of her priority banding. She believes the Council failed to conduct an impartial review or to re-house her, despite her concerns about the suitability of her accommodation. She also believes the Council's decisions were irrational, biased and failed to properly consider her medical conditions.
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))
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
Ms X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. She was told in 2024 that she did not qualify to be added to the housing register because her savings exceeded the qualifying amount and she did not meet the local connection criteria. She complained to us in 2024 and we did not find fault in that investigation.
Ms X asked the Council to review its decision which is under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996 part 6. The Council carried out a review in December 2024 and awarded her band C priority following a decision on her DWP PIP benefits.
The Council carried out a further review in 2025 when Ms X asked for her priority to be further reviewed and the Council said she did not qualify for any additional priority. Unless she has a change in her circumstances Ms X cannot ask for a further review under s.166A.
The Council considered the information Ms X provided and its allocation scheme. It also carried out a medical assessment of her housing needs. It explained its reasons for deciding that she does not meet the qualification criteria when assessing and reassessing Ms X’s needs. There was no undue delay in making its decisions. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
We note Ms X’s concerns about the suitability of her accommodation (and in particular, concerns about the hostile environment and overcrowding). The Council was proactive in conducting a physical examination of the property and liaised frequently with Ms X’s landlord. In relation to the accommodation creating a hostile environment, we note that Ms X has reported this to the police who are better placed to deal with this element of her complaint. Much of her concerns relate to visitors who are not tenants of her home. The Council confirmed that she was not statutorily overcrowded.
We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decisions were correct. We can consider the decision-making process but, unless there was fault in that process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. Councils have wide powers to design their allocation schemes to meet local needs, but the law says all councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme.
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.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman