Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in making decisions on his housing register application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s significant delay in considering his requests for a working star and higher priority band on his housing register application. He says he is living in overcrowded accommodation and his ability to bid for rehousing has been affected by the delay.

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.

(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 Mr X’s representative and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Mr X requested a working star to be added to his housing register application and for his priority band to be increased to band 3 as he had lived in the Borough for five years. He complained the Council failed to issue a decision. In its complaint response, in July 2025, the Council said he had been asked to provide specific documents, but it had not received them.
6. Mr X’s representative, Mr Y, says he provided the evidence in August 2024. A further complaint was made in October 2024. The Council responded in February 2025. It apologised for its delay in responding but said Mr X had not provided all the documents it had asked for. It listed the documents it had received and those that were still needed.
7. Mr Y sent a formal letter to the Council in July 2025. He said Mr X had sent all the documents requested but still not had a decision. The Council asked Mr Y to resend some documents, which it could not trace, and Mr Y did so on 19 July. The Council considered the application and wrote to Mr X on 13 August 2025 with its decision. It applied the working star. However, it explained Mr X was not eligible for band 3 because there was one room available for Mr and Mrs X, and another room available for another adult living with them. Its allocation scheme says couples are only entitled to one room (per couple), so it said Mr X was not overcrowded and band 4 was correct.

My assessment

8. Mr Y says all the documents were provided in August 2024, but it appears the Council did not receive them. It clarified what further documents were needed in February 2025 but says these were still not received. After it received the documents in July 2025, there was no undue delay in making its decision. I cannot say, even on balance, it should have made that decision earlier.
9. Even if I could establish the decision should have been made in 2024, any delay in doing so will not have caused a sufficient injustice to Mr X to justify us considering the complaint further. This is because, when it made its decision, it said band 4 was correct and because Mr X is not likely to have missed out on an offer due to the delay in awarding the employment star.
10. The Council’s decision shows it considered the information it had and its published allocations scheme. It explained the reasons for its decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify investigating further.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman