Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient injustice caused by the slight delay in the Council assessing her housing register application and insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s delay in assessing her housing register application, about inconsistencies in its communications and about its decision to award band C priority. Ms X said the decision had not been properly reviewed. Ms X said that, due to Council failings, she is living in overcrowded accommodation with her children.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. In November 2024, Ms X contacted the Council for advice about her housing situation after a relationship breakdown. The Council confirmed its advice in writing. It recommended she did not remove her name from the joint tenancy with her former partner until she had found permanent and suitable alternative accommodation as this could result in an intentionally homeless decision if she asked for housing assistance in future. It also confirmed it did not have reason to believe she was homeless or at risk of homelessness because she could return to the private rented sector accommodation she had shared with her former partner and she had confirmed she would not be at risk there, although it would be uncomfortable.
6. Also in November 2024, Ms X made a housing register application. The Council said she did not provide the verification documents it asked for so the application was not progressed.
7. Ms X made a further housing register application in March 2025 and provided verification documents later that month. The Council told her it would assess her application within 28 days, but it actually took a further 6 days before a decision was made. The Council told us it now tells applicants it will take up to six weeks to better manage their expectations.
8. The Council accepted the application and awarded band C priority. Ms X asked for a review of that decision. She said she was living with a relative and sharing a small bedroom with her children, so she should be in a higher priority band.
9. The Council carried out a review and issued a review decision in June 2025. It explained it had previously advised Ms X not to remove her name from the joint tenancy due to the implications this might have if she asked for housing support in future, but she had continued to do so, worsening her housing circumstances. It referred to its allocations scheme, which says where an applicant has intentionally worsened their circumstances, their application will be assessed on the basis of their previous accommodation. Therefore, the application had been assessed as though Ms X was still living at the previous address with her former partner and, on that basis, band C priority was correct.

My assessment

10. The Council took five weeks to assess Ms X’s housing register application after she provided the relevant documents. There is no legal timeframe for doing this, but we usually expect councils to assess applications within eight weeks. There is therefore no evidence of undue delay in assessing the application. Although the Council did not assess the application within the timescale it told Ms X it would, the effective date for the application was the date the application was made so Ms X did not suffer a significant injustice as a result of the delay. The Council has taken steps to manage customer expectations more effectively in future.
11. We will not investigate this complaint further because there is insufficient injustice to justify doing so and no worthwhile outcome we could achieve if we did.
12. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decisions were correct. We can consider the Council’s decision-making process. Unless there is evidence of fault in that process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The law says all councils must allocate social housing in line with their published scheme.
13. The Council considered the circumstances, including the previous advice it had given Ms X, and its allocations scheme. It explained the reasons for its decision, which was in line with its published allocations scheme. There was no undue delay in making its review decision. There is therefore insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient injustice caused by the Council’s delay in assessing the housing register application and insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman