The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing register application because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Ms X complained about the Council’s delay in assessing her application, its decision to reduce the priority band from B to C, and its initial failure to agree her son, Y, needed his own room. She also said bidding was suspended without explanation. Ms X says that, as a result of Council failings, the family are likely to remain in unsuitable housing longer than they should before being rehoused.
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 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
What happened Ms X said it took the Council 12 months to assess her housing register application, which it then lost, and she had to resubmit it. After carrying out a medical assessment, the Council accepted the application in March 2024. It awarded band B, effective from June 2022 and said the household needed two bedrooms.
Ms X challenged the decision and the Council carried out a fresh medical assessment in June 2024, which included a home visit. The outcome was the same as the previous assessment, which was that Y met the criteria for medical need and some recommendations were made about the type of property the family need. The Council wrote to Ms X on 11 June with its decision to award band C, effective 24 June 2022 with a two-bedroom need.
Ms X asked for a review. She was unhappy the band had changed from B to C and also said Y needed his own room. In its appeal decision, in September 2024, the Council said it had awarded band B in error in March 2024, which was corrected in June 2024. It explained the reasons for concluding the threshold for “significant medical need” and the criteria for an extra bedroom were not met.
The Council carried out a further medical assessment in November 2024, including considering some new medical evidence and a further home visit. It agreed Y needed his own room. The Council suspended bidding on the application on 25 November whilst it considered the medical assessment and reinstated it on 17 December 2024. It issued a fresh decision on 18 December. It explained the threshold for significant medical need was not met so there was no change to the priority band but confirmed the family need three bedrooms.
On 6 January 2025, Ms X asked for an appeal and the Council acknowledged the request, which it said had been passed to its medical team.
In further communications, the Council again explained why the criteria for band B was not met. It said that agreeing an extra room for Y meant she could bid for a property that would otherwise be considered too large, based on overcrowding criteria in its allocations scheme.
My assessment
We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events complained about. Ms X did not complain to us until July 2025 about delays in 2022 and 2023. There is no evidence to show she could not have complained to us earlier and no good reasons to consider that period now. In any case, when the Council accepted the application, it back-dated her priority to June 2022, which means she was put back into the position she would have been “but for” any delay. Given waiting times for social housing in this Council’s area, I am satisfied she will not have missed an offer of housing as a result of any delay.
I have considered the period from March 2024, when the Council accepted the application.
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 we find fault in that process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. Councils have wide powers when deciding their allocations scheme, but the law says they must allocate social housing in line with their published scheme.
The Council accepts it made an error in March 2024, which it corrected in June 2024. Whilst this raised Ms X’s expectations about her priority, it was appropriate for the Council to correct the error as soon as it became aware of it because it is required to allocate in line with its published scheme. There is insufficient injustice caused by the error to justify further investigation.
The Council also accepted it suspended bidding in November/December 2024. It explained the reason for this in its complaint response and confirmed she had not missed out on an offer during that period. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify further investigation.
The Council considered the medical evidence provided and its allocation scheme at each stage of the process. At each decision point, it explained the reasons for its decision. I note the Council’s published scheme, at paragraph 2.7.3, states that if an applicant is allocated an extra bedroom for their medical needs where they would otherwise be expected to share, this will not mean the application attracts extra priority, but the applicant will be able to bid for properties that would otherwise be considered too large for the household’s needs. Apart from delay, there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify further investigation. I appreciate the delays in making decisions, will have caused Ms X some frustration but her effective date has remained June 2022 throughout, which means any change is backdated to the date of the original application. There is, therefore, insufficient injustice to justify further investigation.
In response to my enquiries, the Council explained the reasons for the delays, particularly in dealing with medical appeals, and the steps it is taking to address this. Based on this, I am satisfied service improvement recommendations are not needed.
Ms X’s latest appeal request was acknowledged on 6 January 2025 and I understand the appeal decision was issued in September 2025, although I have not seen it. If Ms X is unhappy with the appeal outcome she can make a fresh complaint to us, and we can consider the Council’s appeal decision-making.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman