Summary: The Council has already accepted fault in its handling of Mr X’s application to the housing register, as a result of which Mr X may have missed an offer of housing. During our investigation, the Council agreed to remedy this injustice by awarding Mr X extra priority. The Council was also at fault for poor communication and delays in complaint handling. To remedy the distress caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his application for social housing. He says the Council:
1. Wrongly recorded his application details in 2014, resulting in the wrong priority band
2. Delayed fixing the issue when he identified the mistake in 2021
3. Passed him back and forth between his landlord and the Council, with no clear ownership or responsibility
4. Refused to consider his request for increased priority or a direct let to address the injustice of being in the wrong priority band for over seven years
5. Delayed dealing with his complaints
2. As a result, Mr X says he experienced avoidable distress and frustration and may have missed an offer of social housing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended).
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 the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
8. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
9. I referred to the Ombudsman's Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
10. Mr X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

11. Mr X is a tenant of a Housing Association (the HA). Since 2014, his property has one less bedroom than he needs. He applied to join the Council’s housing register to move to a larger property.
12. The Council has a partnership agreement with the HA. Under the agreement, the HA manages applications for its own tenants. When processing his application in 2014, the HA put Mr X into the wrong priority band.
13. Mr X found out about the mistake in 2021. He contacted the HA, which told him the Council was responsible for updating the application. Mr X approached the Council, which directed him back to the HA. This confusion continued for several months.
14. The HA corrected Mr X’s priority in 2022. He was now in Band 2A with a priority date in 2014. The HA paid a financial remedy to Mr X. Mr X asked the HA to consider whether being in the wrong band for seven years meant he had missed an offer of housing. The HA told Mr X only the Council could decide this.
15. Mr X then spent several months once again going back and forth between the HA and the Council. The HA said only the Council could award extra priority as a remedy. The Council said the HA was responsible for managing the application.
16. In January 2024, Mr X complained to the Council. The Council responded to the complaint in June. It said:
• It was sorry for the delay responding to his complaint.
• The HA was responsible for managing his application
• If Mr X wanted extra priority, the HA “would need to be in agreement with this and they would take your case to be heard by the Housing Management Panel”
17. Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage two. In response, the Council told Mr X it could not deal with the complaint and provided a link to the HA’s complaints policy.
18. Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint or put its refusal in writing so he could come to us. The Council agreed to consider the complaint at stage two.
19. The Council responded to the complaint in October 2024. It said:
• Although the Council had overall responsibility for the allocations scheme, the HA is responsible for managing Mr X’s application.
• The HA had corrected the mistake and Mr X was now in the correct priority band.

My findings

20. Mr X’s complaint concerns a mistake in 2014 which he became aware of in 2021. He has known about the matter for more than 12 months before complaining to us and the complaint is therefore late. I have exercised discretion to investigate the complaint because Mr X tried to raise the issue with his landlord and the Council repeatedly and consistently since 2021, and each directed him to the other. This significantly delayed Mr X’s ability to complain to us and caused confusion about which Ombudsman he could approach.

Making and fixing the mistake

21. The HA, on behalf of the Council, accepted fault for its mistake on Mr X’s housing application. I agree, the mistake was fault. It corrected the error and paid a financial remedy.

Increased priority

22. The average waiting time for a property of the size Mr X needs in Band 2 is seven years. Mr X’s request that the Council consider whether the mistake meant he missed an offer was therefore justified. Neither the HA nor the Council engaged with this request. This was fault.
23. In response to my enquiries, the Council said that “while it is not possible to determine with certainty whether Mr [X] would have received a housing offer, given that this would have depended on his bidding preferences, it is acknowledged that he may have potentially missed out on an opportunity.”
24. The Council has therefore agreed to grant Mr X additional discretionary priority on his housing application. The Council should backdate this priority to April 2023, when it should have considered it as part of Mr X’s original complaint to the HA.

Communication and complaint handling

25. The records show significant confusion between the HA and the Council about responsibility for fixing the mistake. This was fault. The financial remedy already paid is a suitable remedy for the injustice this caused.
26. The Council’s allocations scheme does not tell applicants about when to contact the partner landlord and when to contact the Council. The Council may wish to provide clearer information to applicants about this.
27. Since 2021, the Council has provided training and guidance to the HA. This is an appropriate means of improving the service.
28. The partnership agreement says the HA deals with complaints at stage one and the Council at stage two. This did not happen in Mr X’s case. Instead, the HA dealt with a complaint through its entire process and then Mr X went through both stages of the Council’s complaints policy. This was fault. It caused Mr X avoidable time and trouble, which is an injustice.
29. In its stage one response, the Council said only the HA could put Mr X forward for additional priority. This is not in line with the allocations scheme, which says the Council can award this “to remedy an injustice”. This was fault. It meant the Council did not properly consider the matter and Mr X had to pursue his complaint.
30. After responding at stage one, the Council then told Mr X to complain to the HA. This was not in line with the partnership agreement or correct in Mr X’s case. This was fault. It caused avoidable further distress and confusion, which is an injustice.
31. The Council’s complaint policy says it will respond to complaints at both stage one and stage two within 20 working days. It took the Council over six months to respond at stage one. This delay was fault. It took the Council three months to respond at stage two. This delay was fault. This caused Mr X avoidable further distress, which is an injustice.

Back to top

Action

32. To remedy the injustice to Mr X from the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
2. backdate Mr X’s discretionary extra priority to April 2023; and
3. pay Mr X £250 in recognition of the distress caused by its poor communication and complaint handling.
33. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within four weeks of my final decision.
34. We have already recommended service improvements to this Council to improve its complaint handling. I have not repeated those here.

Back to top

Decision

35. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman