Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in issuing a review decision because the Council has already apologised and offered a payment. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We will not investigate his complaint about conflicting information about his position on its housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in issuing a review decision and about inconsistent information about his position on the Council’s housing register. He also complained about complaints handling delays. Mr X said the Council’s failings caused significant stress.

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

Back to top

My assessment

Review decision

5. In March 2025, the Council made a decision about Mr X’s priority on its housing register and his bedroom need. Mr X disagreed with the decision. He asked for a review in April 2025 and providing additional evidence. The Council acknowledge the request and told him it would issue a review decision by 6 June 2025, which was the 56 day statutory period for carrying out a review. The Council issued the review decision on 9 June 2025.
6. Mr X complained and the Council responded at stage 1 of its complaints handling process in June 2025. Mr X remained unhappy and asked it to consider his complaint at stage 2, but the Council refused as it said we were making enquiries. After we contacted the Council, it agreed to consider the complaint at stage 2 and issued a full response in October. The Council acknowledged the review decision was late and accepted it should have agreed an extension. It also accepted it should have investigated at stage 2 when Mr X first asked it to. It has apologised and offered to pay him £50 to remedy the injustice caused.
7. The Council accepted fault and has taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Bidding information

8. The Council awarded band B on its housing register in March 2025. At various points the Council told Mr X his position on its housing register (his ranking number). In one email it said that due to his ranking, he would not be shortlisted to view a property he had bid for. A few days later, it invited him to view the property.
9. In its stage 1 complaint response, the Council explained that the ranking number can change as applicants are added to and removed from the housing register. It also suggested there may have been some confusion between the ranking number and Mr X’s position in relation to any specific property he had bid on.
10. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the review decision because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We will not investigate the complaint about inconsistent information because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman