Summary: The Council missed an opportunity to direct Mr X’s correspondence to the correct statutory review process, failed to issue a meaningful complaint response, and provided inaccurate signposting to the Housing Ombudsman. These faults caused avoidable confusion and denied Mr X a fair opportunity to have the decision reviewed. The Council has accepted our recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed in issuing a decision on his housing register application and then refused the application without properly considering his medical needs. He says his condition prevents him from using stairs or bathing facilities in his home, but the Council failed to take this into account. Mr X also complains the Council mishandled his attempt to challenge the decision by treating it as a complaint rather than a formal review request. He says this left him without access to the housing register and caused distress and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’.
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I spoke with Mr X and considered the evidence he and the Council provided as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council were offered an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments submitted before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Allocations

7. 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))
8. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

Review procedures

9. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
10. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:
• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process.
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable.
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker.
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

Good administrative practice

11. Councils should ensure their processes are clear and transparent, and that service users are not disadvantaged by misunderstanding procedures. Where a person communicates in a way that indicates they are disputing a decision, councils should act reasonably to identify and route that communication to the correct process. It is not good administrative practice to reject or mishandle a request because the person used the wrong terminology or contact route.

Back to top

What happened

12. I have included a summary of some of the key events in this complaint. This is not intended to be a comprehensive account of everything that took place.
13. Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register in April 2024. He submitted medical evidence explaining that he could not use stairs or access the shower in his private rented accommodation due to a knee condition. He said this meant he had to walk a mile each way to a local charity in order to shower.
14. In August 2024, Mr X complained to the Council that he had not received a decision on his application. Mr X expressed that he required this letter so he could appeal the decision. The Council issued its decision letter dated mid-August 2024, which said Mr X did not qualify to join the housing register. The Council said his accommodation was suitable for a single person and that, following advice from its Clinical Medical Adviser (CMA), it did not consider his current housing situation had a severe impact on his health. The letter included a right to request a statutory review within 21 days.
15. Later in August 2024, Mr X wrote to the Council disputing its decision and expressing concern that his medical needs had not been properly considered. The Council treated this as a Stage 2 complaint rather than a request for statutory review.
16. The Council drafted a Stage 2 response on early September 2024. The draft confirmed the correct route was for Mr X to request a review, not pursue a complaint. However, this response was not sent. Instead, the Council issued a blank template letter which provided no substantive content and wrongly signposted Mr X to the Housing Ombudsman.
17. Mr X wrote to the Council again toward late-September 2024, request a review. The Council responded to Mr X some days later advising that he was out of time to request a review.

Analysis

Delay in issuing housing register decision

18. Mr X applied to join the housing register in April 2024. By early August, he had still not received a decision and contacted the Council to complain. The Council did not issue its decision until mid-August, more than four months after the application. This was a significant delay, particularly given that housing register applications often relate to pressing personal needs.
19. The Council acknowledged the delay in its Stage 1 complaint response and apologised. However, it has not provided any explanation for why the delay occurred or what steps it took to prevent it. The absence of timely decision-making in cases involving potential housing need is not in line with good administrative practice, which expects councils to act promptly, keep applicants informed, and avoid avoidable delays.
20. The delay meant Mr X was left in uncertainty for several months about whether he qualified for the housing register. This was distressing for him, particularly given his health condition and the inaccessibility of his current accommodation. The delay was fault and caused injustice.

Failure to process or redirect statutory review request

21. Mr X’s communication at the beginning of August 2024 clearly indicated that he wanted a decision letter issued by the Council so he would submit a request for a review. Following the Council’s decision in mid-August 2024, Mr X’s letter sent some days later in August 2024 clearly indicated that he again disagreed with the Council’s decision and wished to challenge it. Although he did not send his correspondence to the designated review email address, the Council should have recognised his intention and taken appropriate steps to route the communication to the correct team.
22. Good administrative practice requires Councils to act helpfully and not disadvantage service users who may not be familiar with internal processes. The Council was responsible for identifying that Mr X’s contact was, in substance, a request for a statutory review and for ensuring it was directed accordingly. It did not do so.
23. Instead, the Council treated the communication as a Stage 2 complaint, which delayed and confused the process. It missed a clear opportunity to assist Mr X in accessing the correct resolution. This was fault.
24. The Council accepted Mr X’s August correspondence as a Stage 2 complaint but failed to process it correctly. Although it drafted a substantive response in early September 2024 that explained the correct review procedure, it did not send that response. Instead, it issued a blank template letter with no meaningful content and incorrect signposting.
25. This administrative error meant Mr X did not receive the guidance he needed to request a statutory review. He remained unaware that the Council considered he was responsible for directing the request to the reviews team. This failure likely hindered Mr X from taking timely action.
26. Mr X did later contact the Council in late September 2024 to request a review. By that point, the 21-day period had passed, and the Council told him he was out of time. This situation was avoidable. Had the Council processed the Stage 2 complaint properly and issued the correct letter, Mr X may have been able to request a review in time.
27. The failure to issue a substantive Stage 2 response, coupled with the earlier misdirection of Mr X’s correspondence, caused avoidable confusion and undermined his ability to access the statutory review process. This compounded the earlier fault and directly contributed to the injustice he experienced.
28. As a result, Mr X lost the opportunity to have the decision reviewed within the statutory timeframe. This caused injustice, including uncertainty about whether the decision might have changed on review and a delay in any possible progression of his housing application.
29. These events also raise concern about whether similar correspondence from other applicants has been processed in the same way. We will therefore recommended the Council review recent cases to ensure other applicants have not been disadvantaged.

Poor complaint handling

30. As described above, the Council treated Mr X’s August 2024 communication as a Stage 2 complaint but failed to process it properly. Although it drafted a suitable response that explained the appropriate next steps, it did not send this. Instead, it issued a blank template letter with no substantive content and incorrect signposting.
31. This was not in line with the standards of good complaint handling. The Council had a duty to provide Mr X with a clear and timely response to his complaint, particularly where it had already contributed to confusion about the proper process. The failure to issue a meaningful Stage 2 response, or to provide any explanation or direction, was fault.
32. This failure compounded earlier errors and meant Mr X was left without a clear understanding of how to progress his concerns. It caused avoidable frustration, delay, and uncertainty.

Incorrect signposting

33. The letter Mr X received incorrectly directed him to the Housing Ombudsman Service. However, complaints about housing allocations and decisions involving reasonable preference fall within the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, not the Housing Ombudsman’s. This was fault.
34. The cover email accompanying the complaint response also wrongly directed Mr X to the Housing Ombudsman. This compounded the error and reinforced misleading advice about his rights.
35. Councils have a duty to ensure service users are correctly informed about how to escalate complaints. Accurate signposting is especially important where jurisdiction depends on the type of housing issue. In this case, both the letter and the covering email wrongly directed Mr X to the Housing Ombudsman, which may have contributed to confusion and delay before he approached the correct Ombudsman. This was fault and caused injustice.

Failure to properly consider medical evidence

36. The Council’s decision letter referred to Mr X’s difficulty with stairs but he says it did not address his stated inability to access bathing facilities, which he says was part of the medical evidence he provided. It is not clear whether the Council considered this aspect of his circumstances in reaching its decision.
37. However, decisions about housing register eligibility and medical priority can be challenged through the statutory review process under section 166A(9) of the Housing Act 1996. This provides a formal route to challenge the merits of such decisions. As Mr X had the right to request a statutory review, the Ombudsman cannot consider whether the Council reached the right decision on the evidence. That is a matter for the review process.
38. Given the Council’s earlier failure to process or respond to Mr X’s request for review, the appropriate remedy is for the Council to now offer him a fresh opportunity to access the statutory review procedure.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. To remedy injustice in this complaint, and prevent similar occurrences, the Council has agreed to:
1. Offer Mr X a fresh opportunity to request a statutory review of its decision not to accept him onto the housing register. If the review results in a revised decision, the Council should backdate any priority awarded and consider whether Mr X may have missed any offers.
2. Apologise in writing to Mr X for the delay, complaint handling failures, and incorrect signposting.
3. Pay Mr X £200 to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused by its handling of his application and complaint.
4. Remind relevant staff of the importance of identifying and correctly routing statutory review requests, and of the need for accurate signposting to the correct Ombudsman service.
5. Review whether any other recent correspondence challenging housing allocation decisions has been processed through the complaint procedure rather than the statutory review process, and take appropriate action to ensure any affected applicants are offered the correct route of redress. The Council should report its findings to the Ombudsman.
40. The Council will complete action points a-d within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision, and action point e within three months of the Ombudsman’s final decision. The Council will provide evidence to the Ombudsman to show it has complied with the above recommendations.

Back to top

Decision

41. The Council missed an opportunity to direct Mr X’s correspondence to the correct statutory review process, failed to issue a meaningful complaint response, and provided inaccurate signposting to the Housing Ombudsman. These faults caused avoidable confusion and denied Mr X a fair opportunity to have the decision reviewed. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman