Summary: Mr D complains the Council delayed progressing his housing register application and formal complaints. We have found evidence of fault by the Council and have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because the Council agrees to pay Mr D redress.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council delayed processing his housing register application in 2023 and delayed responding to his formal complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have considered how the Council processed Mr D’s housing register application up to it being made “live” on 3 April 2024. I am not considering any subsequent issues Mr D may have had about banding decisions or access to his account. Those would need to be complained about to the Council before he progresses to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the information provided by Mr D. I asked the Council questions and carefully examined its response.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. On 6 December 2022 Mr D submitted a housing register application to the Council. In January 2023 the Council asked Mr D to send in documents to support his application, he provided them on 12 January.
8. On 1 June Mr D sent the Council a formal complaint because he had not heard anything about the progress of his application. On 20 June the Council said its response would be late and gave a deadline of 7 July. The complaint response was sent to Mr D on 6 July. The Council apologised for the lack of communications and failure to progress the application. It said it would “thoroughly investigate” why Mr D had not been updated about the case and would start an “immediate review” of his application. The Council said there would be a “prompt resolution”. The Council says it updated an internal spreadsheet which was monitored by the Housing Register Applications Team (Applications Team). The spreadsheet entry stated Officers should “look into customers query regarding his housing application”. There is no evidence of any action then being taken by the Applications Team.
9. On 8 July Mr D’s Councillor contacted the Council about the case. The Council subsequently tod the Councillor Mr D should be able to bid for properties from 20 July. On 1 August Mr D lodged a further complaint with the council because his case was not being progressed. The Council acknowledged receipt that day and gave him a complaint reference. On 19 September the Council asked Mr D for some outstanding documents to verify his application. Mr D sent them the next day to an address provided by the Council. Mr D says he was told on 22 September by an Officer the email address he had used was not valid. Mr D provided the documents to the Council again a few days later.
10. In November the Ombudsman asked the Council to progress Mr D’s complaint. The Council say this was the first time it had been notified about the complaint being escalated and it referred the complaint to the relevant Officers on 9 November. A response was issued to Mr D by the council on 19 December. The Council said that it had needed documents from Mr D to verify his application and it had now received them. The complaint did not acknowledge any fault or delay in the process.
11. At the end of March 2024 Mr D chased up the Council again about his application. On 3 April the Council verified the application and awarded Band 4 banding to Mr D. In mid-April the Council had received additional information from Mr D and awarded him a work star in addition to the Band 4 status.

What should have happened

Housing register

12. In order to be on the Council’s housing register, and able to bid for advertised social housing, a person has to apply to join the housing register. In 2022/ 2023 the process was for an applicant to submit a housing register application to the Council. Within 28 days the Council would assess the application and write to the applicant for verification documents. Once it received the documents the Application Team verified the information and, if eligible, the applicant was placed on the housing register and given a housing band to reflect their housing need. Bands run from highest priority (Band 1) to the lowest (Band 4).
13. The Council has revised the process for applying to the housing register. Now an applicant can submit the supporting documents at the same time as sending the application. Within 28 days an Application Team Officer should have assessed the case and reached a decision. If additional documents are needed the Council allows an applicant 28 days to submit them.

Complaints

14. The Council has a two stage complaints process. In 2022 and 2023 an initial complaint should have been replied to within 15 working days. If the complainant escalated the case the second response should be issued within 25 working days.
15. The Council says that where it found an issue with an Applications Team case, when considering an initial complaint, it would log the details on an internal spreadsheet that was monitored by the Applications Team. This would include an action for the Team to carry out which should be dealt with within 48 hours.
16. The Council says it has updated its procedures and timeframes with an initial complaint now being responded to within ten working days and an escalated complaint replied to within 20 working days.

Was there fault by the Council

17. The Council significantly delayed processing Mr D’s housing register application. Given Mr D needed to submit additional documentation, a reasonable timeframe for the Council to process and decide the application would have been four months at the most. Instead, it took the Council 16 months to reach a decision and place Mr D on the housing register. That is a period of at least 12 months delay. I see from the evidence there were large periods where no action at all was taken on the case by the Council despite Mr D complaining, chasing up the Council and seeking help from a Councillor. The Council says the delay was due to backlogs, however there were clearly failings all along the process as set out below.
18. The Council failed to monitor and progress the application even after it accepted fault in the initial complaint response in July 2023. In that reply the Council made a number of promises to Mr D including that it would “thoroughly investigate” the delay and start an “immediate review” of his application: neither of those actions happened from the evidence I have seen. Instead, all that was done was an entry on a spreadsheet asking the Applications Team to look into Mr D’s query. No-one checked to see if the application was being progressed and it again went dormant. This did not change even after the Council told Mr D’s Councillor that his application would be live by 20 July. It took until mid-September for the Council to look at the application and request documents. Mr D supplied those promptly and then, yet again, the Council failed to progress the application. No action at all was taken until Mr D chased up the Council at the end of March 2024. This absence of monitoring by the Council is unacceptable and the main reason for the delays Mr D has experienced.
19. The Council’s complaint handling was also poor. As set out above the initial response gave assurances to Mr D that action would be taken, instead nothing useful was done to progress and monitor the case. The Council says it did not receive an escalated complaint request from Mr D until it heard from the Ombudsman in November 2023. I have seen an acknowledgement from the Council to Mr D for the escalated complaint he submitted at the start of August and I am satisfied this was done. The response to the complaint was delayed by three months and only happened because Mr D came to the Ombudsman for assistance. In addition, the response was extremely weak. It failed to address Mr D’s concerns at all and did not investigate the points he had flagged up. The Council has accepted with me that the reply was unacceptable, it says it “falls below a reasonable standard”.
20. I also note that Mr D was given an incorrect email address by an Officer in September 2023. This meant he had to resubmit the documents a few days later. The Council has told me the email address given to Mr D was still active but only used as a “back office inbox”. I am satisfied there was fault by the Council.

Did the fault cause an injustice

21. The faults I have identified resulted in Mr D having to wait at least 12 months longer than necessary for a decision on his application. Mr D also had to chase-up the Council and seek assistance from his Councillor and the Ombudsman to progress the case.
22. I have considered whether Mr D lost an opportunity to successfully bid for a property during that 12 month period of delay. I am satisfied Mr D did not miss out on securing a property, during the 12 month of delay the Council only allocated one property to an applicant in the same band as Mr D and that person had additional priority.

Back to top

Agreed action

23. The Council says that all complaints staff have undertaken training to avoid a repeat of the poor December 2023 response issued to Mr D.
24. In order to redress the injustice caused to Mr D the Council has agreed to:
• Pay Mr D £200 for time and trouble
• Pay Mr D £300 for the delays caused by the Council.
25. The Council should issue the redress payments within four weeks of the investigation ending and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman