Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in carrying out a review of its housing register decision. The Council has already apologised, which is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused. On review, the Council upheld its original decision and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way it made that decision to justify further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to carry out a review of its housing register decision when he requested this and failed to give him a satisfactory explanation for this when he complained. He said that, because of Council failings, he remains in severely overcrowded housing.

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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register in May 2025 and provided medical evidence to support this in June 2025. In July 2025 the Council accepted his application to the housing register. It said he needed three bedrooms and placed him in band 2 because he was short of two bedrooms in his current home. In a further decision in July 2025 it considered the medical evidence and decided he had not met the criteria for medical priority.
6. On 14 August 2024 the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) assisted Mr X to request a review of the decision. He explained how his current housing was affected his health and the health of household members. The Council acknowledged the request in September and said it would issue a decision by 9 October.
7. In late October Mr X made a formal complaint. The Council did not respond. In November he asked the Council to consider the complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process. Again, it did not respond. In December he sent additional medical evidence, and the CAB contacted the Council for an update on the review. The Council told the CAB a review decision should be issued by 9 January 2025. On 16 January 2025, Mr X made another complaint about the delay in carrying out a review. The Council replied in February 2025. It apologised for the delay and sent a review decision would be made by 21 February 2025.
8. The Council issued its review decision on 20 February 2025. Its letter set out the evidence and the relevant parts of the allocation scheme that it had considered. It said the award of band 2 was appropriate and explained why Mr X did not meet the criteria for band 1.

My assessment

9. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decisions are correct. Unless we find fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The law says all councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocation scheme.
10. The Council’s review decision letter shows it has considered relevant parts of its allocation scheme and the evidence Mr X provided. It explained the reasons for deciding band 2 was appropriate and why the application did not meet the criteria for band 1. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify further investigation.
11. The Council should have made its review decision within eight weeks of the request. It did not do so. It has acknowledged its delay and has apologised. Given the review decision did not change Mr X’s priority on the housing register, which means he remained in the correct band throughout and was able to bid for housing. Therefore, the injustice caused by the long delay is limited to his avoidable time and trouble pursuing the Council for an outcome. On that basis, I am satisfied that an apology is sufficient and that there is insufficient injustice to justify further investigation.
12. The Council has already submitted an acceptable action plan to address systemic delays in carry out reviews in relation to another complaint, which means there is no need for further action by us at this stage to address this issue.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has already apologised, which has remedied the injustice caused by its delay in carrying out a review. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making process to justify investigating any concerns about the outcome of the review.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman