Summary: Miss D says the Council incorrectly failed to nominate her for properties she bid on in 2024. I have found fault by the Council. The Council accepts that it should have contacted a housing association to check if Miss D was eligible to be nominated for some properties and, as a result, she was delayed receiving a tenancy offer by over four months. I have asked the Council to consider paying redress.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) says the Council overlooked her for social housing properties in 2024. She also says the Council failed to advise her that she was not eligible to bid for some properties and that it incorrectly failed to offer some accommodation because she had received an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) over 16 years ago.
2. Miss D also refers to issues at temporary accommodation in 2022, repairs at a social housing property and delays moving into her new home in 2025.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
6. 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

What I have and have not investigated

7. My investigation covers the 12 month period prior to Miss D formally complaining to the Council in March 2025, that means I am looking at events from March 2024 through to 25 September 2025 when the final stage complaint response was issued. I am considering how the Council dealt with Miss D’s bids for advertised properties and whether she was wrongly prevented from bidding for some homes.
8. Miss D refers to issues occurring in 2022, we expect a complaint to be made within 12 months of the problems occurring. In this case I consider that part of the complaint is out of time and see no reason to exercise discretion to investigate it. In respect of Miss D’s complaints about the delays and updates on her social housing home and subsequent repair issues, those are matters she can pursue with the Housing Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Miss D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background

11. Miss D was assessed as requiring a one bedroom property by the Council in 2022 for her housing register application.

Events I have investigated

12. On 16 May 2024 the Council requested information from “supporting agencies”, which appears to have included the Police, in relation to Miss D and her housing. I have not seen details of that request. On 26 June Miss D bid on a property that had been adapted. It appears Miss D was the highest placed applicant. The Council awarded priority to another applicant who required an adapted property because of assessed medical need.
13. At the start of July Miss D was placed first for a property, the Council says she was skipped being offered the property because of “ASB”. On 3 July the Council says it needed information from a “supporting agency”. I have not seen the response from the supporting agencies. In September Miss D bid for properties and was not the highest placed applicant. On 27 October she placed a bid for a property that had adaptations, this was awarded to an applicant who needed an adapted home.
14. On 14 November Miss D was placed as the highest bidder for a property. The Council says the bid was skipped “due to a history of ASB”. Also in November Miss D bid for two housing association properties in the same area. She was placed first for one property (property A). The Council says Miss D was skipped for the second (property B) because she had already been successful bidding for property A.
15. On 3 March 2025 Miss D complained to the Council. She had bid for property B in November 2024 and understood she was successful. The Council subsequently told her the property had been allocated to another applicant, and she was offered property A on the same estate. Miss D said she could not bid for properties owned by a housing association because she had received an ASBO over 16 years ago and she had not been made aware of this for over a year, as a result she had wasted time bidding for properties owned by the housing association. She had also not received a move-in date for her new home.
16. On 26 March the Council emailed Miss D, it would investigate her complaint that she had been overlooked for properties where she had been ranked first. By the end of March Miss D moved into her new home. On 8 April the Council emailed Miss D, it had upheld her complaint about being overlooked for properties. She had been the highest bidder on three separate homes but had not been nominated for the tenancies. The Council said it could “see no reason” for the fault and apologised.
17. On 18 April Miss D’s Representative emailed the Council. It had not explained why Miss D was not offered property B in November 2024. She had received no updates about her new home for months after November. They reiterated that Miss D’s former ASBO was being used against her. They requested the Council escalate the complaint. On 25 September the Council issued its final stage complaint response. It said that matters raised by Miss D relating to events in 2022 were out of time. It stated it was not feasible to notify applicants when they were skipped for a property offer. Applicants could monitor on their housing register account the progress of any bids. The Council also said the housing association had its own allocations policy which it had the right to apply to applications. Any delays with the move into the new home was a matter Miss D should complain about to her new social housing landlord. Once the Council passed a nomination for a property to the landlord the matter was out of its control.

Events outside my investigation

18. In February 2026 the Council told the Ombudsman it had overlooked Miss D for three properties in 2024. It stated the 27 June 2024 bid was “incorrectly overlooked” and “should have been offered” to Miss D.

What should have happened

19. Housing register applicants can bid for advertised social housing using the Council’s Choice Based Lettings system. In general the Council will shortlist the applicants bidding for a property who have the highest assessed level of housing priority. The Council will state in the property advertisement if it is restricted to a particular group of applicants (for example housing for older people and bungalows are restricted to people aged 55 plus). Each advert also states whether the housing provider will accept an applicant ‘with ASB’. An applicant can only bid for the size of property the Council has assessed they require. If an applicant bids for a property they are not eligible for, their bid will not be considered suitable and will show on their account as ‘skipped’.
20. The bidding cycle ends on a Tuesday at midnight, that week a shortlist of the top three applicants is produced by the Council and it contacts those people. It also sends their details to the housing provider who will make an offer to the highest placed applicant first. An applicant can also view their bidding account which will show if their bid was ‘unsuccessful’, ‘skipped’ or ‘offered’.
21. The Council will not send notifications to applicants who are not offered a property. At the point of shortlisting the Council will verify the top three applicants are eligible to receive an offer of housing for that property. The Allocations Scheme states that if the Council finds an applicant’s circumstances have changed that would alter their eligibility, they may be bypassed for an offer of the property. The Council can restrict offering a property to a shortlisted applicant in a range of circumstances including where an allocation would put neighbouring households/ wider community at risk.
22. A formal offer of a property will only be made once the eligibility checks are complete. Where an applicant bids for two properties and is the highest bidder for both, and is eligible, they will be offered the property they bid for first. When a property is offered to an applicant their bidding account is suspended until a decision is made about acceptance of the offer by the applicant.

Was there fault by the Council

23. Miss D believes she has been unfairly skipped for property offers by the Council due to an ASBO from 16 years ago. I have asked the Council about this and considered the evidence provided by both parties. I have seen a summary of the information the Council received from the Police about Miss D. None of that related to the ASBO and instead was about events occurring in the last eight years. I am satisfied the Council was not looking at the ASBO in its handling of this case and instead was taking account of more recent incidents. The Council has told me that it should have discussed with the housing association whether it would accept a nomination for Miss D and that applied to three properties (27 June 2024, 1 July and 14 November). Because that discussion did not take place the Council accepted Miss D had been unfairly disadvantaged given she was subsequently successful in bidding for a housing association home (property A) and offered the tenancy. I agree with this view by the Council. It should have checked whether Miss D could be nominated for the three homes in question, had it done so it is likely Miss D would have been successful and awarded a tenancy over four months earlier.
24. Miss D says she bid for two homes in the same area in November, properties A and B. I have not seen evidence of fault in this matter. She was the top bidder for property A. The Council says Miss D bid for property A first and so she was awarded that tenancy rather than property B. That is in line with the Council’s procedures. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong. In this instance I am satisfied the Council followed the correct process. I appreciate Miss D feels the Council should have notified her about why she was not offered property B but as the Council has advised her it does not notify applicants when they are not offered a property, and an applicant is expected to monitor their housing register account. However, I do consider the Council’s complaint response to Miss D could have been clearer on why she was not offered property B. It failed to clarify that Miss D had been successful bidding for property A and that was why she was not offered the tenancy for property B.

Did the fault cause an injustice

25. The Council should have made checks with the housing association about the three properties Miss D bid for. The failure to do so meant Miss D lost an opportunity to receive a tenancy offer by over four months.

Back to top

Action

26. To remedy the injustice caused to Miss D the Council has agreed to pay her £250 for distress caused by the handling of her case.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Decision

28. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman