Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with her sister’s housing situation and how it dealt with her own complaint about the matter. We have found fault but consider the action the Council has taken of completing a further investigation and providing an apology and symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council gave inaccurate and misleading information about matters affecting her sister’s priority for housing and failed to provide a housing officer for several months during her homelessness application. Ms X also complains the Council failed to progress her own stage 2 complaint. Ms X says she has suffered avoidable frustration and upset.

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. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who has died or who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by:

• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2) and 34C(2), as amended)

4. 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

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

7. The following is a summary of key events. It does not include everything that happened.
8. Ms X’s sister was living in supported accommodation and had been issued a notice to leave the property by her landlord. Ms X attended a meeting with the Council in July 2024 to discuss her sister’s housing situation. Ms X’s sister was provided with an increase to her housing register priority band following this meeting. However, Ms X says she was provided with inaccurate and misleading information about matters affecting her sister’s priority for housing at this meeting and in a subsequent conversation.
9. A bid was placed on a property (preferred bungalow) in early October. Ms X’s sister was not initially successful for this property. The successful bidder had a priority card and registration date of June 2024. Ms X’s sister finished in position two on the shortlist for the bungalow. However, the successful bidder did not proceed and so the property was subsequently offered to Ms X’s sister in December 2024 (please see below).
10. The Council considered the case at its HomeChoice Panel in mid-October and awarded Ms X’s sister a Priority Card from that date. These are awarded to applicants that the Council’s HomeChoice Panel have assessed as having an emergency need to move and provide holders with priority over all banded applicants.
11. Ms X complained to the Council in October about the housing support it was providing. In particular, Ms X complained about her sister’s housing register priority, the information provided about this at the above July meeting and delays in allocating a housing support officer.
12. The Council provided a response to Ms X in November at Stage 1 of its complaint procedure. This included the outcome that the Council had backdated the effective date for the award of the Priority Card from mid-October to 9 August. This was the date of the next HomeChoice Panel meeting following Ms X’s meeting with the Council in July (as there was no evidence an emergency referral would have been warranted at that time).
13. Ms X disagreed with some of the information contained in the Council’s response and sought to escalate her complaint to Stage 2 of the Council’s complaint procedure in November.
14. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman in May 2025 as she had not received a response from the Council. We sent a holding response to Ms X towards the end of May and sought some information from her in July to establish her suitability to make the complaint on her sister’s behalf. Following receipt of this information we contacted the Council in early September 2025 to confirm the matter had completed its own complaint procedure following Ms X’s November 2024 escalation request. The Council confirmed the matter was still being investigated at Stage 2 of its complaint procedure. We noted Ms X’s request had been made in November 2024 and so sought a firm deadline from the Council for the outcome of the Stage 2 investigation. The Council provided the Ombudsman with a deadline for the outcome of the Stage 2 investigation of 1 December 2025.
15. We advised both the Council and Ms X that the matter had been passed to our Investigation Team for further consideration in mid-September. The matter was allocated to me in mid-October.
16. The Council provided some preliminary information to the Ombudsman in October including an update that Ms X’s sister had since been offered her preferred bungalow.
17. I contacted the Council on 5 November to check it was still working towards the 1 December deadline for its Stage 2 response. This was because Ms X had told me she had previously been given a different date by the Council and more recently that the Council had paused its Stage 2 investigation. The Council confirmed that its Stage 2 investigation was ongoing and a response would be provided to Ms X by 1 December.
18. On seeking a copy of the Stage 2 response, the Council advised the Ombudsman on 9 December that it had in fact paused the Stage 2 investigation in error following the Ombudsman’s contact in September 2025. This was done on the assumption we would investigate the matter but the Council did not check this action with the Ombudsman or advise Ms X at the time. The Council has provided details of the action it has taken to avoid a reoccurrence of this issue which is welcomed. However, this misunderstanding does not explain the delay from November 2024 when Ms X originally sought to escalate her complaint to Stage 2 directly with the Council.
19. As set out above, it had been established by this point that the Council had offered Ms X’s sister her preferred choice of bungalow in December 2024 and she moved into the property in January 2025. Ms X had also confirmed her sister had not been evicted and had remained at her previous property during the interim period. In these circumstances, we could not say there was a significant personal injustice caused to Ms X’s sister that would warrant the further involvement of the Ombudsman. It is not normally a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are applying our discretion not to investigate the substantive issue as here.
20. However, there had been a clear failure by the Council to deal with Ms X’s November 2024 Stage 2 escalation request and it had repeatedly provided incorrect information to the Ombudsman. In these particular circumstances, I took the unusual step of continuing my involvement in discussion with Ms X to ensure she received an outcome at Stage 2 of the Council’s complaint procedure. The Council agreed to re-start its Stage 2 investigation and provide an outcome to Ms X by 5 January 2026.
21. The Council provided the outcome of its stage 2 investigation to Ms X on 31 December 2025. The Council has accepted that there were no detailed contemporaneous notes of the July 2024 meeting or the subsequent advice about backdating the effective date of the Priority Card. This poor record keeping when taken together is likely to constitute fault. The Council has also accepted there was a delay in allocating a new housing options officer to Ms X’s sister between mid-August and 10 October. This is also likely to be considered fault.
22. However, I see no benefit to Ms X or her sister in further investigation about what was said at the meeting in July 2024 or subsequent verbal advice about backdating the Priority Card. I have taken into account that the Council subsequently backdated the Priority Card effective date to 8 August as a result of Ms X’s Stage 1 complaint and has highlighted the importance of maintaining detailed and accurate case file notes with relevant staff. The Council also provided an apology to Ms X for the delay in allocating a new case officer in its Stage 2 complaint response. As we know, in the event Ms X’s sister received her preferred choice of property. In the circumstances, I do not consider it to be proportionate or a good use of the Ombudsman’s limited resources to further investigate the underlying issues here.
23. The Council’s Stage 2 outcome included a separate apology letter to Ms X dated 24 December 2025 for its failure to progress her November 2024 escalation request. The Council confirmed the service Ms X had received had fallen below the expected standard and was not in line with its complaints policy. The Council offered Ms X a symbolic payment of £600 to acknowledge her frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
24. We normally consider an apology is enough to remedy injustice from flawed complaint handling unless the fault in the handling has led to injustice from time and trouble above what is considered usual. I am satisfied that is the case here. In the circumstances, I consider the Council’s proposed symbolic payment of £600 to Ms X is both proportionate and in line with our Guidance on Remedies and we would not seek more.
25. I am satisfied the action the Council has now taken together with the proposed symbolic payment of £600 to Ms X provides a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Decision

26. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has already taken action to provide a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman