The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s review of Mr X’s housing priority banding. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify us investigating.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council refuses to upgrade his band on its social housing allocations scheme, despite his family living in overcrowded temporary accommodation. Mr X says the Council has left him without a viable housing solution and affected his mental health. Mr X wants the Council to reconsider its decision.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended) 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.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to us in January 2026, although he has lived in his current temporary accommodation since 2023. I have seen no good reasons Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. So, the restriction in paragraph 3 applies, and we will not investigate the Council's actions before January 2025.
Mr X also complains about the Council's actions regarding his permanent tenancy, which is a separate property. This relates to the Council’s role as a social housing provider. So, the restriction in paragraph four applies and we cannot consider this part of his complaint.
Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme, (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14)).
The Council reviewed Mr X’s housing register priority banding and refused to increase his band. The Council explained its reasons, demonstrating it had considered both its policy and Mr X’s circumstances. The Council also considered exercising its discretion to increase Mr X's band because of exceptional circumstances but declined to do so.
We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision was correct. Unless there was fault in the Council’s decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The law says councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocation scheme.
The documents show the Council considered the relevant information and explained its reasons to Mr X. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its review of Mr X’s priority or its decision to not exercise its discretion. Because of this we will not investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify us investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman