Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of her housing application for a high priority band. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council’s refusal to award priority banding is unfair. She says she asked the Council for a review of its decision in May 2023 and received a response over a year later.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss X complained to us in January 2025. Evidence shows the Council refused Miss X’s housing application in April 2023. Mrs X requested a review of the Council’s decision in May 2023. She says she received the review outcome over a year later.
9. The law requires complainants to come to us within 12 months. However, it is reasonable that Miss X waited until the Council had completed its internal review before complaining to us. Therefore, I have exercised discretion on our time rule to consider Miss X’s complaint.
10. Miss X complains the Council refused to award her priority banding despite sufficient medical evidence.
11. The Council’s published policy states that a medical assessment must conclude that there is a ‘need to move’ because the housing conditions have a major adverse effect on the medical conditions of the applicant or a member of their household, for eligibility under band B medical priority. In the absence of an identified need to move, there will be no award.
12. In its review response, the Council said it considered all supporting evidence in its decision making. It said the medical assessment found not enough evidence to support an award under band B medical priority. And that Miss X had no housing need due to being overcrowded either. Therefore, it refused Miss X’s application.
13. I appreciate Miss X is unhappy but there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making. The Council considered Miss X’s application in line with its published policy and explained its decision clearly. I cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision when there is not enough evidence of fault in its decision making. Therefore, I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint.
14. I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about any delays in the Council’s review response. I note the Council apologised for its delayed response. I do not consider any delay caused Miss X a significant enough injustice. This is because a timely response would not have provided a different decision.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman