Summary: The Council was at fault because it delayed processing a review of its decision to refuse the complainant a place on the housing register. This did not make a difference to the outcome of its eventual decision, but the Council has agreed to formally apologise and offer the complainant a financial remedy to reflect her distress. There was no fault in the way the Council subsequently decided to refuse the review.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mrs P.
2. Mrs P complains the Council:

• significantly delayed making a decision on her request to review its refusal of her application to join the housing register; and
• incorrectly advised her about what supporting evidence she needed to submit, leading it to then refuse her appeal.

3. Mrs P says, as a result of this, she has had to remain in an unaffordable private rented property. She asks to be given a place on the housing register as a resolution to her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs P 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 found

Legislative background

7. 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))
8. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:

• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.

9. Councils must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
10. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:

• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

Mrs P’s complaint

11. The following is intended to provide a summary of the key events relevant to this complaint. It is not meant to be a detailed description of everything that happened.
12. In January 2024 Mrs P applied to join the Council’s housing register. Shortly after this the Council refused Mrs P’s application on the basis she was already adequately housed. Mrs P disputed this and asked the Council to review its decision on the same day.
13. More than a year later, in February 2025, Mrs P contacted the Council again to enquire about the status of her application. The Council replied to explain her application was currently suspended, pending the outcome of her review (‘appeal’); which, due to an administrative error, it had not yet processed.
14. On 28 February the Council informed Mrs P it needed her to submit a range of supporting evidence for it to consider her review. This included “all bank, building society, savings & any ISA/investment accounts” she and/or her partner held.
15. Mrs P submitted a range of supporting documents. However, in April the Council refused her appeal. This was because it had carried out its own checks and discovered she and her partner both held several other bank accounts she had provided no evidence of.
16. Mrs P then approached the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

17. I will address each point of Mrs P’s complaint in turn.

Delay in deciding review

18. As noted, the statutory guidance on allocations says councils should aim to complete a review of its decision, when sought, within eight weeks. This includes a decision to refuse an application to join the housing register.
19. In this case, the Council took approximately 15 months to complete its review. This, clearly, is a significant delay, which the Council has explained arose because of an administrative error, which meant the review was not allocated to an officer to consider. This is fault.
20. In considering the injustice this caused Mrs P, I note it also does not appear Mrs P contacted the Council at all during that period; had she done so, the Council would presumably have discovered its error sooner. This does not change the fact the Council was at fault for the delay. However, I cannot overlook the implication Mrs P was not strongly motivated to pursue the matter with the Council.
21. I also cannot say the delay made any difference to the outcome of the review. I will consider this in more detail in the next section, but there is no reason to believe the subsequent events – Mrs P’s submission of evidence and the Council’s decision about it – would have been different, had they happened a year earlier. This being so, I cannot recommend Mrs P being given a place on the housing register, as she has requested, because the fact she does not have a place on the register yet is not due to fault by the Council.
22. On balance, therefore, I consider the injustice to Mrs P is that she suffered an element of distress, in discovering the fact the Council had failed to process her review promptly. I am conscious the Council has already apologised to Mrs P, in the course of its correspondence, but I consider it should write a proper, formal letter of apology to acknowledge its fault and the impact on her.
23. I also consider the Council should offer Mrs P £150 as a remedy to reflect her distress.
24. I find causing injustice in this element of Mrs P’s complaint.

The refusal of the review

25. The Council refused Mrs P’s review because it discovered she had not submitted evidence of all the bank accounts she and her partner held, which is a requirement of the scheme.
26. Mrs P has explained the other accounts are ‘dormant’, having not been used for a long time, in some cases more than a decade; and that a council officer told her during a phone call that she only needed to submit evidence of “current” accounts. Mrs P also said she did not have immediate access to the dormant accounts and it would take some time to obtain statements.
27. I have seen no record of the call Mrs P says she had with the council officer, and so I cannot comment on what the officer may have told her. Either way, the Council’s email to Mrs P of 28 February sets out clearly what she needed to submit, which included “all” accounts she and her partner held. The Council’s website gives the same advice. There is no evidence to show the Council misled Mrs P, as she says.
28. I acknowledge Mrs P’s point about the difficulty of obtaining statements. However, she did not mention this to the Council until after it had refused the review. At the point it made its decision, the Council knew only that Mrs P had not submitted all the evidence it required of her. It was, therefore, entitled to refuse the review. This is not fault.
29. And I will add that, even if she had mentioned this in advance, the Council would still have been entitled to refuse the review if it considered it appropriate.
30. I find no fault in this element of Mrs P’s complaint.

Back to top

Action

31. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• write a formal letter of apology to Mrs P, to acknowledge its delay in processing her review and the impact this had on 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 in my findings; and
• offer to pay Mrs P £150 for the same reason.

32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

33. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman