Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her housing application. She says the Council has not provided any support, has not provided clear information, and delayed in responding to her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X first applied to join the Council’s housing register in October 2019. She was awarded Band B priority, with three-bedroom eligibility. In 2021, Ms X had a change of circumstances which led to her being awarded Band A priority, with four-bedroom eligibility. This was the highest priority available.
7. I will not consider the Council’s actions between 2019 and 2023 because this was more than 12 months ago, and Miss X has not provided any good reasons for why she could not have complained to us earlier.
8. I have considered the Council’s actions since January 2024. The Council confirmed it had explored the option of private rented accommodation with Ms X. However, it was difficult to secure a property due to Ms X not having a guarantor.
9. Given Ms X’s difficulty in securing a suitable private rented property, the Council also explored the option of sourcing a three-bedroom property with a downstairs toilet as this would resolve the most immediate need. Ms X agreed to this.
10. The Council also confirmed it had explored the option of adapting Ms X’s current property. However, an updated occupational therapist assessment was needed before a disabled facilities grant could be explored.
11. The Council said these two options were not explored further as Ms X was nominated for a four-bedroom house, with a downstairs toilet, in February 2025. The Council confirmed Ms X had been offered the tenancy.
12. An investigation is not justified as we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s handling of Ms X’s housing application. Ms X had the highest priority available on the housing register and the Council confirmed there was a shortage of four-bedroom properties. Further, the Council provided appropriate support to Ms X by exploring other options such as private rented accommodation and adaptations to her current property.
13. An investigation is also not justified as there are no worthwhile outcomes achievable as the Council has now offered Ms X a suitable four-bedroom property. It is understood Ms X has accepted this offer.
14. We do not investigate the Council’s handling of a complaint if we are not investigating the substantive complaint matters.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman