Summary: Mr B complained about the Council closing his housing applications. We find that the Council’s communications were unclear and its decision that Mr B had not provided all the required documents with his application was wrong. This caused Mr B avoidable frustration and inconvenience. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr B.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council keeps closing his housing applications as incomplete, despite him providing all the required information. He says the Council’s failings placed him and his newborn baby at risk of homelessness.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr B and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

6. Every local housing authority must publish an allocation 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))
7. Paragraph 2.2.3 of the Council’s housing allocation scheme says:

“In addition to the application, the following documents (where available) must be submitted as evidence, via the Scheme website to verify the information provided by the main applicant, plus any other person who might reside with the applicant who might wish to become a joint tenant:

1. Passport, to help determine eligibility to rent social housing in England.
2. A utility or Council Tax bill from the past three months, to help determine eligibility to rent social housing in England.
3. Birth certificate, to help determine qualification to join the Scheme.
4. Details of any relevant unspent convictions, to help determine qualification to join the Scheme.
5. All financial records from the past three months relating to income and savings, to help determine qualification to join the Scheme.
6. All legal records relating to property ownership to help determine qualification to join the Scheme.
7. Any other information that helps to determine eligibility to rent social housing in England, qualification to join the Scheme or making a community contribution.”

Background and key events

8. Mr B first applied to join the housing register in August 2024. At the time, he was living in a three-bedroom property with his mother and two siblings. Mr B provided the Council with a letter from his mother saying he could not remain living in the house.
9. Later that month, the Council told Mr B that it had closed his application because it was incomplete. The letter stated that he had not included details of his household members or submitted the required supporting documentation. It advised him to provide this information and reapply.
10. Mr B re-applied in October 2024. He submitted several additional documents but did not include members of his household on the application form.
11. Mr B submitted two further applications in November. His baby was born in October, and was living with him, but was not included in his applications.
12. The Council considered Mr B’s applications in January 2025 and again found them to be incomplete. Its letter stated that he had not included members of his household or submitted the required supporting documentation.
13. Since making his complaint to us, Mr B has made another application and has been accepted onto the housing register.

Analysis

14. The application form sets out the required supporting documents, such as proof of identity, address, and financial records. It also asks applicants to list all household members living at the same address, even if they are not moving with the applicant.
15. Mr B did not include several of the required documents with his first application and he did not include members of his household. I have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided that Mr B’s first application was incomplete.
16. However, the Council failed to specify which documents were missing when it closed his application. Instead, it provided a general list of all required documents. This lack of clarity was fault and left Mr B uncertain about what further documentation he needed to provide.
17. When Mr B reapplied in October and November, he submitted all required documents, except for a utility or council tax bill in his name. Mr B has explained that he could not do so because there were none in his name. The Council has previously advised that in such cases, it will accept a bank statement dated within the last three months as suitable proof of address. Mr B had provided a bank statement dated within the last three months and so the Council should not have decided his applications were incomplete due to a lack of documentation. This was fault.
18. However, Mr B’s applications were incomplete because he did not include household members’ details. I therefore consider the outcome would be the same, even if the Council had accepted Mr B’s bank statements as proof of his address.
19. When the Council wrote to Mr B in January 2025, its letter again listed all the required documents. It was a little clearer because “utility or council tax bill” was in bold. However, the need to include all household members was not highlighted. I consider the letter contained unnecessary information and could have been clearer about what was required.
20. The letter also stated that Mr B had no right to request a review of the Council’s decision to close his application and that if he was unhappy with the decision, recourse was by way of judicial review. It said that he could also contact our office. While it is correct that Mr B did not have a right to request a review of the decision, I consider Mr B should have been referred to the Council’s complaints procedure, rather than to our office.
21. The Council has recently changed its procedures and it no longer closes applications immediately when information is missing. Instead, it contacts applicants detailing the information it needs and allowing ten days for it to be provided.
22. I consider the Council’s failings in this case have caused Mr B unnecessary frustration and inconvenience. However, I do not consider Mr B would have successfully bid on housing by now if there had been no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Action

23. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mr B for the failings identified in this case. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance when making the apology.
• Make a payment of £100 to Mr B. This is a symbolic payment to acknowledge the avoidable frustration and inconvenience caused by the Council’s actions.
24. The Council has already made service improvements following our recommendations in similar cases. I have therefore decided it is not necessary to make any further recommendations.
25. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

26. I find fault by the Council which caused injustice. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman