Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing register application. We found Miss X missed the opportunity to be rehoused sooner. The Council agreed to make an additional symbolic payment to Miss X and consider our Complaint Handling Code to improve the way it deals with complaints which we consider to be a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her housing register application in 2024.
2. Miss X says because of the Council’s fault she could not bid for properties from July 2024 to March 2025 which meant she missed the opportunity to be rehoused sooner.

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. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
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 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Miss 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

Background and legislation

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))

Reasonable preference

9. 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))

Choice based lettings

10. The Council has adopted a choice-based lettings scheme called Homesearch. Anyone who applies for social housing in Southwark has the opportunity to join a common housing register called the Southwark Housing Register. This is a common register shared by all of the major social housing providers and accredited private sector rented landlords in Southwark. This enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which are advertised.
11. The Council operates a banding scheme with Bands 1 to 4. Applicants who are homeless and for which the Council has a statutory duty to accommodate are placed in Band 3. This Band also includes applications with a moderate medical priority where the housing conditions directly contribute to causing serious ill health. Applicants who are homeless, but the Council does not owe a duty to house under are placed in Band 4and are given priority by being awarded one star (see below).
12. Within each Band above priority is provided by a priority star system and the date of registration. The letting scheme sets out the circumstances in which a priority star will be awarded which includes those applicants owed a statutory homelessness duty under s193(2) or s195(2) Housing Act 1996.

Interim and temporary accommodation

13. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
14. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
15. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
16. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a council provides it. This is important because there is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. This then carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.

What happened

17. The following is a summary of key events. It does not include everything that happened.
18. Miss X was living in interim accommodation provided by the Council from 29 February 2024 to 2 July 2024. This was a studio.
19. The Council accepted the main housing duty to Miss X on 2 July 2024. This decision meant the accommodation she was occupying became temporary accommodation from this date.
20. The Council wrote to Miss X in July 2024 confirming she had been placed on its Choice Based Lettings Scheme and provided her with an application reference number and bidding reference. Miss X remained at this accommodation until 2 July 2025.
21. Miss X contacted the Council in January 2025 about difficulties she was experiencing in bidding for properties.
22. Miss X subsequently made a complaint at the end of January 2025 about being provided with incorrect bidding information which meant she had not been able to bid for properties from July 2024.
23. The Council was in contact with Miss X during February and March 2025 about the issue. This identified two earlier applications that were still showing as open on the system.
24. Miss X’s bidding history shows she was able to regularly bid for properties from March 2025.
25. The Council provided a response at Stage 1 of its complaint procedure to Miss X on 7 April 2025. This acknowledged that although the correct bidding information was sent to Miss X in July 2024 her application had not been processed correctly to show her band 3 priority and application as being active from 2 July 2024. The Council confirmed it would carry out an assessment to establish if there had been any missed opportunity for Miss X to have successfully bid for a property with a Band 3 Priority with a star from July 2024. The Council would provide Miss X with the outcome of this exercise within the next two to three weeks. The Council also confirmed Mis X’s current housing application was now Band 3 with the two earlier applications now closed. The Council offered Miss X £820 for the delay in processing a previous housing application from November 2021 and £50 for the delay in responding to her complaint.
26. The Council provided alternative temporary accommodation to Miss X from 3 July 2025. This is a one bedroom flat.
27. Despite the assurances in its Stage 1 complaint response, the Council did not backdate Miss X’s Band 3 and priority star to 2 July 2024 and did not complete a missed opportunity check. This action was not completed until November 2025 following contact by the Ombudsman.
28. Following our contact, the Council also provided a response at Stage 2 of its complaint procedure to Miss X on 24 December 2025. The Council acknowledged that Miss X’s current application had not been activated from July 2024 which meant she was not able to bid for properties until March 2025 when this was corrected. The Council accepted it had failed to complete a missed opportunity check as it had agreed in its Stage 1 response. The Council had now completed this exercise and identified six one bedroom properties which Miss X may have been successful in bidding for during the period 2 July 2024 to 12 March 2025. Although it was not known if Miss X would have bid for these properties, the Council accepted there was a possibility Miss X could have been rehoused if it had activated her application at the correct time. The Council apologised for this failure and that it had also missed opportunities to put the matter right sooner. The Council said it was unclear why its Stage 1 response included compensation for an earlier application delay and the amount was not proportionate to the failings identified from Miss X’s complaint about the handling of her current application. The Council offered the following:

• £720 for delays calculated at £20 per week (high impact) from 2 July 2024 to 12 March 2025 (36 weeks)
• £50 for the delayed Stage 1 complaint investigation
• £100 for Miss X’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint considering the failure to complete the missed opportunity assessment as promised
• As Miss X had already been awarded £870 the Council considered this was a reasonable amount to remedy the failures identified and no further award was due.

29. The Council confirmed it paid Miss X £870 at the end of August 2025.
30. In responding to our enquiries, the Council accepted the missed opportunities exercise set out in its Stage 1 response was not completed due to a lack of procedure at the time. The Council has confirmed it has now put in place a suitable procedure to ensure this fault does not happen again.

My consideration

31. The Council has accepted that it did not activate Miss X’s housing register application in July 2024 which meant she was not able to bid for properties until March 2025. This is fault.
32. There was also a significant delay in the Council’s Stage 1 complaint response and it failed to complete the agreed actions at the time of a missed opportunities exercise and backdating Miss X’s priority award to 2 July 2024. This is further fault.
33. The Council has confirmed this meant Miss X missed the opportunity to bid on six properties and so may have been rehoused sooner but for its fault.
34. The Council’s Stage 2 response changed the basis for the compensation it had already offered Miss X. This is regrettable. It would be reasonable for a member of the public to rely on the grounds provided for an offer made during the Council’s own complaint process. I would remind the Council of our Principles of Good Administrative Practice which says we expect councils to act fairly and proportionately and to be open and accountable.
35. However, Miss X had a statutory right to review the suitability of her temporary accommodation from 2 July 2024. This then carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. Miss X used this right of appeal to the county court in February 2025 about the Council’s review decision dated 23 January 2025 that this accommodation was suitable. For the reason outlined at paragraph 4 above, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate the suitability of this accommodation and I cannot say it was unsuitable.
36. Instead, my investigation has focussed on the Council’s handling of Miss X’s housing register application in 2024. In the circumstances, Miss X’s injustice is her lost opportunity to improve her housing situation in line with her preferences. The apology and payment already made by the Council to Miss X is in line with our guidance on remedies in relation to this element.
37. However, I am satisfied Miss X has been put to significant and avoidable time and trouble in pursuing her complaint as this matter should have been identified and resolved when she first contacted the Council in January 2025. I have taken into account this took place during an already difficult period for Miss X and I consider this requires an additional remedy to the amount already paid by the Council.

Back to top

Action

38. The Council will make an additional payment to Miss X of £150 to recognise her avoidable time and trouble in pursuing this matter within one month of my final decision.
39. We publish the Complaint Handling Code which sets out best practice in how councils should deal with complaints. In this case, we found the Council at fault because it failed to complete agreed actions from its Stage 1 complaint response. In order to prevent similar faults from happening in future, the Council should consider our guidance and tell us what action(s) it will take to improve the way it deals with complaints. It should do this within one month of my final decision.
40. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

41. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman