Summary: There was fault by the Council because of a delay in processing the complainant’s housing register application, and then enabling him to bid on properties once it had verified the application. However, the Council has already provided a suitable remedy for this. There was no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision on the complainant’s priority and bedroom entitlement. We have therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr L.
2. Mr L complains the Council significantly delayed processing his application to join the housing register, and on several occasions requested information he did not need to provide under its allocation scheme. He also complains that, although the Council has now added him to the housing register, his priority band and bedroom entitlement do not correctly reflect his circumstances. Mr L says this means he has been left without permanent accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 or continue an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr L and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. The law says a person should approach us within 12 months of the date they become aware of the issue they wish to complain about. This is called the ‘permitted period’. Mr L contacted the Ombudsman in March 2025, meaning anything that happened before March 2024 is late.
8. The law gives us the power to disapply this restriction, and investigate late complaints, where we consider it appropriate. But we must first be satisfied there was a good reason for the person’s delay in approaching us. Mr L has provided no evidence to suggest he was unable to make a complaint to us sooner than March 2025, and so I have no grounds to exercise discretion in this case.
9. My decision will refer to events earlier than March 2024 where necessary to provide context, but I will make no findings on anything which happened before that date.

Back to top

What I found

ousHousing allocations

10. 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))
11. 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))

Mr L’s complaint

12. Mr L was serving in the Army, but in 2022 decided to leave and started his notice period, which in the Armed Forces is long. In November 2022 he submitted an application to join the Council’s housing register, with the aim of securing permanent social housing when he finally left the Army. At the time, Mr L was stationed abroad.
13. The Council did not begin to consider Mr L’s application until June 2023, after he enquired why he was unable to access its bidding facility. The Council noted Mr L had returned to Army accommodation in the UK and asked him to update his application with his new address, which he did.
14. In October, November and December, the Council asked Mr L to provide a copy of his current tenancy agreement. Mr L expressed confusion at this, because the Army did not provide tenancy agreements to those in its accommodation.
15. In April 2024 Mr L contacted the Council to express frustration at the delays in dealing with his application. He explained again he could not provide a tenancy agreement, and was becoming anxious about the situation because he was due to leave the Army in August.
16. The Council replied the following day and acknowledged it should not have asked Mr L to provide a tenancy agreement. It asked Mr L to provide some additional verification documents, which he did immediately.
17. The Council finally verified Mr L’s application in June, but for reasons which it has been unable to explain, Mr L was still not made eligible to bid on properties. Mr L contacted the Council repeatedly about this between August and November without success, before submitting a stage 1 complaint.
18. In response to Mr L’s complaint, the Council apologised for the delays he had experienced, and explained this was due to a backlog of work. The Council said Mr L’s application had now been verified and that he could bid on properties, giving him information on how to do so. The Council also explained Mr L had been placed in band 3 of its scheme and that he was entitled to bid on one-bedroom properties.
19. In January 2025 Mr L escalated his complaint to stage 2. He said he was homeless, a veteran and had a child, which meant he should have a higher priority, and that his child should be included as part of his application.
20. In response the Council again acknowledged the delay Mr L had experienced and apologised for this. However, it said, based on the information Mr L had submitted, it had placed him correctly in band 3, and pointed out he had not included his child on his application.
21. The Council explained that a shortage of housing stock and high demand for its services meant many people faced very long waits to be given permanent social housing. It recognised it had also made errors in Mr L’s case though, by repeatedly asking him to submit information which was not required, and because of the delay in enabling him to bid.
22. The Council said its allocation scheme placed homeless applicants without any other priority in band 3. Being former Armed Forces personnel also did not attract higher priority, unless the applicant had serious medical conditions because of their service (band 1), or where the applicant was the bereaved partner of a person who had died in service, and had been forced to leave MOD-provided accommodation as a result (band 2). The Council explained Mr L would need to complete a change of circumstances form for it to consider, if he believed he qualified to be in a higher band.
23. The Council also explained Mr L should completed the change of circumstances form if he wished to include his child on his application, but said he would need to show he was her sole or main caregiver.
24. The Council reiterated its apology for the delay Mr L had experienced. However, as he had not been homeless until August 2024 anyway, the Council said he would have been placed in band 4 if it had been active earlier, with very little chance of successfully bidding on a property. The Council offered Mr L £495 in recognition of its faults, and signposted him to the Ombudsman if he wished to pursue his complaint further.
25. Mr L referred his complaint to the Ombudsman in March.

Back to top

Analysis

26. There are several elements to Mr L’s complaint. For the sake of clarity I will address each element separately.

Delay in processing application

27. As I have noted, I cannot consider any events from before March 2024 due to the time limit on our jurisdiction.
28. From submission in November 2022 to eventual verification in June 2024, Mr L’s application took the Council approximately 20 months to process. Our jurisdiction only allows me to consider the final three months of this, but even so, I am satisfied there was a delay by the Council. This delay, as the Council has recognised, is fault.
29. This said, I accept the Council’s observation, that the delay is unlikely to have affected Mr L’s substantive position. He did not leave the Army until August 2024 and did not need to be housed before that. Even if the Council had processed his application promptly, therefore, his priority on the housing register would have been extremely low at that point.
30. I consider, therefore, the injustice to Mr L of this fault was the frustration he experienced because of the delay. I will consider what the Council should do to address this injustice towards the end of my decision statement.

Delay in activating Mr L’s account

31. Despite his application being verified in June 2024, Mr L says he was still unable to bid on properties through his account, and again had to chase the Council repeatedly about this, eventually submitting his stage 1 complaint in November.
32. Unfortunately, the evidence available to me about this element of Mr L’s complaint is contradictory. Mr L’s complaint to the Council implied he still could not bid in November. Similarly, the wording of the Council’s stage 1 response can be read to mean it had only now activated his account for bidding. However, in response to my enquiries, the Council says its records show Mr L’s account was active from the end of August, some three months earlier.
33. I cannot explain this discrepancy. Even accepting the earlier date though, it is clear there was still an additional delay in the Council activating Mr L’s account, and so I find fault again on this point.
34. It is more difficult to say what injustice this caused Mr L. As I have noted, he did not leave the Army until August anyway, and so if the earlier date is correct, this represents a minimal delay in his ability to bid on properties, which would not have made any significant difference to his circumstances. A delay of three months is, evidently, more significant, although even then it appears unlikely he would have successfully bid for a property in that time.
35. On balance therefore, I consider the injustice to Mr L from this fault was further frustration. Again, I will discuss what the Council should do to address this at the end of my decision statement.

Priority and bedroom entitlement

36. Mr L says the Council should give him increased priority on the housing register, due to his status an Armed Forces veteran. He also says the Council should increase his bedroom entitlement so his child can stay with him.
37. I have reviewed the Council’s allocation scheme. As the Council explained to Mr L, the scheme gives higher priority to former personnel who have serious medical conditions because of their service (band 1), or the bereaved partners of those who have died in service, and are being discharged from MOD accommodation (band 2). There is no suggestion either of these criteria applies to Mr L, and therefore no evidence the Council wrongly placed him in band 3.
38. Similarly, the Council has explained it could not give Mr L entitlement to an additional bedroom for his child, because he did not include them on his application. His application was for a single adult, and therefore it is again correct he should only be entitled to a one-bedroom property. The Council has explained what Mr L must do if he wishes the Council to consider increasing his entitlement.
39. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council has addressed either of these points. I acknowledge Mr L considers he should have an increased priority and bedroom entitlement, but I cannot direct the Council to make a decision which does not comply with its allocation scheme.

Conclusions and remedy

40. The Council was at fault because of the delay in processing Mr L’s application to join the housing register, and then for a further delay in enabling him to bid on properties. I cannot conclude these delays made any difference to Mr L’s substantive circumstances, but I consider they caused him frustration.
41. However, there was no fault in the Council’s decision about Mr L’s priority or bedroom entitlement.
42. The outcome Mr L says he is seeking is for the Council to allocate him a two-bedroom property. As I have explained, there is no fault in the Council’s decision he should only be allowed to bid on one-bedroom properties, and so this is not something I can recommend. If Mr L wishes the Council to reconsider his bedroom entitlement, he will need to complete the relevant paperwork and submit the necessary supporting evidence.
43. In its stage 2 response, the Council offered to pay Mr L £495 as a remedy for the frustration he experienced because of its delays. This is nearly the maximum level of financial remedy we would typically recommend for this type of injustice, as set out in our published guidance on remedies, and I therefore consider this satisfactory.
44. Mr L has confirmed he has accepted this remedy, and for this reason I consider the Council has already taken suitable steps to remedy the injustice he has experienced. Consequently I make no further recommendations.

Back to top

Decision

45. I find fault causing injustice, which the Council has already remedied.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman