Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not properly assess and review her housing application and did not respond to her complaint. She says this delayed her rehousing and distressed her. The Council was at fault. It delayed Miss X’s housing application reviews, did not properly conduct one review, delayed telling Miss X the outcome of another and its complaint handling was poor. This distressed Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council did not properly assess and review her housing register application, failed to issue her priority banding letter and did not properly respond to her complaint. She says this delayed her rehousing and distressed her.

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. 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)
4. 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have not investigated matters prior to July 2024 as Miss X could have complained about them earlier. I reference events prior to this for context in this matter. This is a late complaint and there is not enough reason to accept those parts of it for investigation now.
6. I have not investigated any matters relating to Miss X’s homelessness applications in this case. I reference these applications for context in this matter.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I read Miss X’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the phone.
8. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Miss X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background Information

10. 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))
11. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:

• the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.

12. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
13. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
14. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:

• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

15. The Council’s current housing allocation scheme was adopted in October 2025. The previous scheme had four priority bandings:

• band one (emergency);
• band two (urgent);
• band three (priority); and
• band four (reduced priority).

16. Homeless households with no accepted housing duty were band four. Households owed a homeless duty by the Council were band three.
17. The Council’s housing allocation scheme said the Council should review decisions within 56 days or notify the applicant if it will take longer.
18. The Council’s complaints procedure says it should respond to a stage one complaint within 10 working days.

What happened

19. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
20. Miss X was a care leaver housed in the Council’s area by another authority, Council B. She first applied to the Council’s housing register in March 2021. The Council decided she did not qualify because she had no housing need.
21. In July 2024 Miss X made both a housing register application and a homelessness application to the Council. The Council refused the housing register application because it was incomplete. The Council assessed Miss X’s homelessness application and accepted a homelessness relief duty. The Council did not provide temporary accommodation because it said Council B had a duty to provide accommodation for Miss X.
22. At the end of July 2024, Miss X asked the Council to review its decision to refuse her housing register application.
23. In September 2024, Miss X contacted the Council to check the progress of her housing register application review.
24. In October 2024, the Council ended its homelessness relief duty when Miss X asked to withdraw her homelessness application because she wanted to approach another council. Council B provided accommodation for Miss X until December 2024 when she moved to refuge accommodation.
25. In February 2025 Miss X made another housing register application to the Council. Miss X said she was living in refuge accommodation. The accommodation provider said this was short term temporary accommodation.
26. In March 2025 the Council issued its review decision on Miss X’s July 2024 housing register application. The Council’s review said Miss X’s July 2024 application had been withdrawn. It noted Miss X had made a new housing register application.
27. Later in March 2025 Miss X complained to the Council about ongoing failures in handling her housing applications and appeals.
28. In April 2025 the Council accepted Miss X’s February 2025 housing register application and placed her in priority band four because she was homeless, but the Council had not accepted a homeless duty. Miss X asked the Council to review this decision.
29. Miss X continued to chase the Council for a response to her complaint. At the end of April 2025, the Council accepted a homelessness prevention duty to Miss X after she was given notice to leave her refuge accommodation.
30. In June 2025 the Council reviewed Miss X’s housing register application and moved her up to priority band three because the Council now owed Miss X a homelessness duty. Miss X asked the Council for written confirmation of the review decision.
31. Miss X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Miss X wanted the Council to confirm her correct priority banding as band three or higher and to provide a social housing tenancy.
32. The Council offered Miss X a one-bedroom flat in line with its allocations policy in July 2025.
33. In September 2025 the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint. It upheld part of the complaint about the delayed review of Miss X’s housing register application. It did not uphold any other parts of Miss X's complaint.
34. In December 2025 Miss X moved into the property offered by the Council.
35. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had withdrawn Miss X’s earlier housing register application, staff shortages delayed the review and it had missed Miss X’s complaint. The Council said it had introduced monitoring to avoid missing complaints in the future.

My findings

Housing register application made by Miss X in July 2024

36. Paragraph 17 says the Council should complete a housing register application review within 56 days. Miss X asked for a review in July 2024. The Council should have completed its review by September 2024. The Council did not complete it until March 2025. The completed review was 169 days late. This is fault that caused uncertainty for Miss X about the status of her application.
37. The Council’s review decision in March 2025 said Miss X’s July 2024 application had been withdrawn and noted she had made a new application. I have seen no evidence that Miss X withdrew her application. The Council should have reviewed its original decision on Miss X’s July 2024 application and decided whether Its decision was correct or should be changed. It did not do so. This is fault. This caused uncertainty for Miss X.
38. I cannot say the Council would have overturned its original decision and rehoused Miss X sooner if it completed the review earlier. I recognise in July 2024 the Council accepted a homelessness relief duty to Miss X. Paragraph 16 says households subject to homelessness duty qualified for priority band three under the Council’s Allocations Policy. Therefore, Miss X may have qualified for priority band three when she asked for the review. However, this priority would have ended only three weeks after the review deadline when the Council’s homelessness duty ended in October 2024. This will have limited the chances of the Council offering Miss X a tenancy if it had placed her in band three after review.

Housing register application made by Miss X in February 2025

39. Paragraphs 28 and 30 show the Council placed Miss X in priority band four in April 2025 and then increased this to band three on review. These decisions were in line with the Council’s allocations policy detailed in paragraphs 15 and 16. The Council was not at fault.
40. Miss X asked the Council to review her housing register application in April 2025. The Council should have completed its review by early June 2025. The Council did not complete it until mid-June 2025. The completed review was 10 days late. The Council did not give written confirmation to Miss X until 92 days later. This delay is fault. This caused uncertainty for Miss X. The Council offered Miss X a tenancy five weeks after its review decision. The late review and decision notification did not unduly delay Miss X’s rehousing.

Complaint handling

41. Paragraph 18 says the Council should respond to a stage one complaint within 10 working days. Miss X complained to the Council in March 2025. The Council should have responded by April 2025. It issued its response in September 2025, a five-month delay. This is fault, frustrating Miss X.

Back to top

Action

42. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Miss X by the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Miss X for the uncertainty caused by not properly reviewing her housing register application, the delay in completing reviews and providing a written review decision and the frustration caused by the delay in its complaint response. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
43. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

44. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault by the Council which caused injustice to Miss X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman