Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application and complaint. We find delay in the Council’s handling of her housing application and complaint, causing avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application. Specifically, she complained the Council:
• delayed processing her housing application;
• delayed providing her with login details to bid on properties; and
• delayed responding to her complaint.
2. Miss X says this has affected her physical and mental health.
3. Miss X wants the Council to house her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and legislation

Housing allocations

9. 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))
10. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.
11. The Council awards eligible applicant’s priority from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 4 (lowest priority). The Council can also award priority stars within a band to recognise severe medical or welfare need which will increase priority within each band together with the priority award date.
12. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band 3 to eligible applicants who are overcrowded but not statutory overcrowded as defined by part 10 of the 1985 Housing Act.

What happened

13. In September 2021, Miss X applied to the Council’s housing register, stating that the property she shared with her family was overcrowded and highlighting her health conditions.
14. In March 2023, the Council asked Miss X for additional documents, including medical evidence, which she provided later that month.
15. In December, the Council placed Miss X in priority Band 3 due to overcrowding, backdating her effective date to November 2021. However, it failed to inform her of this decision.
16. In January 2024, Miss X submitted a complaint to the Council about the delay in processing her application. She explained that she had repeatedly followed up on the matter and said that remaining in her current property was affecting her mental health. She requested an update on her application and when she could bid for properties.
17. Later that month, the Council acknowledged her complaint and advised it had forwarded it to the relevant department. Miss X escalated her complaint as it was unresolved and because of the continuing two-year delay. She asked to be placed in the highest priority Band due to her health conditions, along with an account to bid on properties.
18. In August, Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
19. In October, the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint, apologising for the delays in processing her housing application and complaint. It shared her application outcome, bidding login details, and advised it had reviewed one-bedroom properties to confirm she had not missed any housing opportunities during the delay. It explained that medical priority had not been granted based on the documents previously provided and advised her to request a medical assessment if needed. As a remedy, the Council offered her £500 for the housing application delay (£250 per year) and £50 for the complaint handling delay.
20. In January 2025, Miss X was housed by the Council.
21. In response to my enquiries the Council advised it had recruited ten additional officers to help manage complaints, successfully reducing the number of open and overdue cases. It plans to retain these additional staff members for another 18 months to further reduce open complains and handle the increased volume. Additionally, the Council has recruited more officers within its housing service and aims to clear the backlog of 3,000 housing applications by July 2025.

My findings

22. The Council has recognised the delay in processing Miss X’s housing application, taking two years and three months to assess it. This delay is fault and caused Miss X avoidable distress and uncertainty.
23. When the Council assessed Miss X’s application in December 2023, it failed to notify her or provide bidding log in details until October 2024, causing further avoidable distress and uncertainty.
24. In recognition of the faults, the Council offered Miss X £500, backdated her effective date to November 2021, and assured her she has not missed out on any housing opportunities. I find the remedy appropriate and in line with our Guidance on remedies.
25. The Council has recognised the delay in handling Ms X’s complaint. Instead of responding within the 20 working days specified in its complaint’s procedure, it took 8 months to issue a stage two response. This delay is fault and caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty and prevented an earlier resolution.
26. In recognition of the complaint handling delay, the Council offered Miss X £50. Given the length of the delay, I consider an increased remedy to be suitable.

Back to top

Action

27. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Miss X in line with our guidance on making an effective apology;
• pay Miss X its proposed remedy of £500, in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused by the delay handling her housing application; and
• pay Miss X £200, in recognition of the distress, uncertainty, and time and trouble caused by the poor handling of her complaint (this is instead of the Council’s proposed remedy).
28. I have not recommended any action for the Council to take to improve its services. This is because the Council has assured the Ombudsman of the actions it has taken to address delays within its complaint handling and housing service.
29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

30. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman