Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council handled her housing application. She said the Council failed to process her application in a timely manner and failed to activate her bidding number. The Council was at fault. It delayed Ms X’s housing application by two years, which meant she missed out on opportunities to bid for social housing sooner. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a payment to acknowledge the distress and frustration this caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about how the Council handled her housing allocation application. She said, in addition to delays, the Council issued a bidding number but failed to activate it and did not assign the correct priority banding to her application.
2. She said the delays caused her avoidable distress and meant she was unable to participate in the Council’s bidding process which prevented her finding suitable accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. 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 s34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

The published scheme

8. 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))
9. The Council aims to process an initial housing applications within 28 working days as a standard timeframe.

Choice based lettings

10. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.

Priority

11. Councils can award priority or points based on their allocations policies. The Council awards priority by a banding system, which places applicants into one of four bands based on their housing needs. Applicants in band one have the most urgent housing need, while those in band four have the lowest. When properties are advertised, bids are ranked and the applicant with the highest band and / or who has been on the housing register the longest receives the offer.
12. In addition, the Council awards priority stars which provide an additional level of prioritisation. Priority stars are awarded for reasons including homelessness, unsatisfactory housing conditions such as overcrowding and severe medical or welfare grounds. Additional stars may be awarded to working households or applicants volunteering in the community for at least 10 hours a month for six continuous months.

Complaint handling

13. The Council operates a two-stage complaints process.
14. Stage 1 complaints are handled by officers, contractors, or the service manager from the relevant service area and are responded to within ten working days. Stage 2 complaints are a review of the initial complaint and are responded to within 20 working days. If the Council requires longer, it aims to inform the complainant when they can expect a response.

What happened

15. Ms X lived and worked in the Council’s borough and applied for social housing in June 2023. Her tenancy at the time had a maximum duration of three years and was due to end the following year.
16. In November 2023 Ms X complained to the Council as she had not received a response from the Council regarding her housing application.
17. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint apologising it had not responded to her sooner. It explained its standard processing time for housing applications is 28 days which it exceeded in Ms X’s case. It marked her application as urgent, and informed her she would receive a response within ten days. The Council further offered Ms X a remedy of £115 to acknowledge the inconvenience caused by the delay.
18. In February 2024 Ms X escalated her complaint to stage two as she still had not received a decision about her housing application.
19. The Council acknowledged Ms X’s escalation request and informed her she would receive a response in March.
20. The Council next contacted Ms X in November 2024 when it requested additional documents to support her housing application.
21. The same month the Council issued its stage two complaint response. The Council acknowledged it had failed to respond to Ms X’s complaint within 20 working days and had not followed up after the stage one outcome. The Council offered Ms X £115 as a remedy for the delay in processing her housing application and an additional £150 for its delays in responding to her complaints.
22. In December 2024, the Council awarded Ms X a priority star for her employment status and provided her with a bidding number to participate in the Council’s choice-based letting scheme.
23. In March 2025 Ms X said the Council still had not fully processed her housing application. Ms X remained unhappy and complained to us.
24. In May 2025, Ms X submitted another complaint to the Council, as it still had not activated her bidding number which it had issued in December.
25. In July 2025, the Council sent its complaint response to Ms X. It confirmed it completed her housing application and she had been awarded priority band three due to overcrowding. The Council also awarded Ms X a second priority star for her volunteering work within the borough, backdated her time on the housing register to June 2023, and activated her bidding number. It offered Ms X a further £170 remedy for the inconvenience of having to repeatedly pursue her complaints.
26. Within one month of being able to participate in the Council’s choice-based lettings scheme, Ms X placed a bid on a property. She was ranked first, and the Council offered her the tenancy. Ms X’s new tenancy began within two weeks.

My findings

Ms X’s housing application

27. When Ms X submitted her housing application in June 2023, the Council’s standard processing time for initial applications was 28 working days. Therefore, it should have processed Ms X’s application by 10 July 2023. Instead, the Council did not finalise her application until July 2025, which is two years late. That is a significant delay and fault.
28. Following our enquiries, the Council accepted that, due to this delay, Ms X likely missed several housing opportunities she could otherwise have bid for. Once the Council processed her application and activated her bidding number, Ms X secured a new tenancy within four weeks. On balance, it is likely that Ms X would have obtained a social housing tenancy much earlier had the Council processed her application within the expected timeframe.
29. We have previously found fault in other investigations in how the Council processed housing applications. The Council have already informed us about the backlog and has put an action plan in place to address it. It provides regular progress updates on how it intends to reduce the backlog. We will continue to monitor progress through our casework, and therefore, further service improvement recommendations are not required at this time.

The Council’s complaint handling

30. In addition, the Council acknowledged it failed to respond to Ms X’s complaints in a timely manner and apologised to her. The stage two response took eight-months. Furthermore, when Ms X submitted a new complaint in May 2025 the Council took two months to respond. These delays were not in line with its complaint handling policy which was fault.
31. We previously found fault in the Council’s complaint handling. Then it agreed to remind relevant officers to ensure complaints are addressed in full and responded to within the timescales set out in the Council’s complaints policy. We will continue to monitor progress of this through our casework and so, further service improvement recommendations are not required at this time.

Back to top

Actions

32. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to take the following action:
1. Apologise to Ms X and pay her £800 to acknowledge the avoidable distress and uncertainty the Council’s delays in processing her housing application and her complaint responses caused her. 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 in making the apology I have recommended.
2. Provide an update on any action the Council has taken during the last 12 months to ensure complaints are responded to within the timescales set out in the Council’s complaints policy, as agreed following previous Ombudsman recommendations.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

34. I have found fault and made recommendations for the Council to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman