Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed completing her housing review. We find the Council at fault for delay in completing its review and for poor complaint handling. This caused Miss X avoidable distress and uncertainty and a loss of opportunity to bid for housing. The Council will apologise to Miss X and make a payment to recognise the impact of the faults. It will also improve oversight of housing reviews and ensure review decisions are issued in writing and properly recorded.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about ongoing delay by the Council to complete her housing register review.
2. She says this has had a negative impact on her and her family’s wellbeing and caused her stress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. 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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

The published scheme

8. 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))

Decisions and review rights

9. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:

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

10. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
11. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

The Council’s housing allocation policy

12. Section 8.0 of the housing allocation policy sets out prioritisation of applications. It says within section 8.1.1 that “Once a housing application has been assessed it will be categorised in one of the four Bands according to the relevant housing needs that exist” and in section 8.1.2 that “Applicants will be prioritised for an allocation according to the following criteria:
• Bands, in the order of A to D. Band A has the highest priority and Band D the lowest.
• Where two or more applicants might have the same priority in the same Band, then the effective date will be used to prioritise between applicants”. And under section 7.16 it defines the effective date as “The effective date is used to prioritise between applicants within the same Band. The effective date of an application will be the date that the Local Authority receives the last piece of supporting information to enable to completion of the housing assessment and accepted onto the housing register.”

The Councils housing allocation policy on the right to review

13. Under section 10.1.3 of the policy it says: The review will be a re-consideration of all the relevant facts and the legal requirements at the date the review is caried out. Upon receipt of a review request from an applicant, the Local Authority will complete the review within eight weeks (56 days).

What happened

14. Miss X says her current property is unsuitable because the area is not safe for her family. She also says the property does not meet her son’s disability needs. She therefore made a housing application.
15. The Council offered Miss X a property in February 2025, which she declined. She said she had attempted to remove her bid after realising the property did not have a parking space. She also said the property had mould so was unsuitable.
16. In late February, the Council wrote to Miss X. It said that, as she had refused suitable accommodation, she no longer qualified for housing allocation for 12 months from refusal and her application had been closed. The Council noted Miss X had already requested a review and said it would respond within 56-days.
17. At the end of April, after the expected decision date had passed, Miss X contacted the Council to request an update.
18. The Council responded and said there were delays due to outstanding information from the housing service. It advised Miss X to use the complaints process if she was unhappy.
19. Miss X complained to the Council in April. She said she had not received a decision on her review, and that the decision timeframe had passed.
20. The Council responded under its complaint’s procedure. It said the reviewing officer had requested information from the housing provider and was awaiting a response. It said it would issue a decision once that information was received. It apologised for the lack of communication and said there was increased demand on the service.
21. In July, Miss X contacted the Council again for an update and asked to escalate her complaint. She said she had been told a decision was imminent and awaiting managerial sign-off but had still not received it.
22. Later in July, Miss X contacted the Council again as she had not received a response. The Council said it had referred her enquiry to the housing team.
23. The Council then issued its complaint response. It accepted it should have communicated better and said an officer would contact Miss X directly and review the information provided in her appeal.
24. Miss X then brought her complaint to us.
25. In August, Miss X contacted the Council again as she was still awaiting the outcome of her review. The Council told her to contact the housing general email address.
26. In September, Miss X contacted the Council again. The Council referred her to a manager as the officer dealing with her review was currently on annual leave.
27. The Council later told Miss X it had confused her application with another applicant. It apologised and said it would consider her review that day.
28. In mid-September, the Council apologised again and said it would escalate the matter to senior management and be dealt with as a priority.
29. Following this escalation, the Council contacted Miss X and told her review had been successful. It reinstated her to Band B and confirmed she could bid on properties.

Council response to enquiries

30. The Council said the delay in responding to Miss X’s review was due to a high number of reviews following introducing its housing allocation scheme in June 2024. It said, Miss X’s request remained in the queue. The Council dealt with requests in date order.
31. The Council could not provide documentary evidence of the review decision and said it had communicated this to Miss X by telephone.
32. The Council told us it made no further progress after Miss X complained due to staff capacity issues. It said it has since recruited a dedicated review officer to improve its response times.
33. The Council identified 72 properties that became available during the delay period. It identified three areas as unsuitable for Miss X, leaving 55 properties that would have been suitable based on location.
34. Of those 55 properties, five were allocated to applicants in Band C and 13 to applicants in Band B with a later effective date than Miss X. The Council confirmed that, had Miss X been able to bid, her application would have been considered before those applicants.
35. The Councils housing allocation policy states that applicants will be prioritised for allocations based on band, and where two applicants have the same band, the effective date will be used to prioritise between them.
36. Since Miss X complained to us, the Council has offered her a suitable property, which she has accepted.

My findings

Delay in review decision

37. The Council’s policy for reviews states it will issue a decision within 56 days. Miss X submitted her review in February 2025. The Council issued an outcome in September 2025. This is a five-month delay. This is fault.
38. The Council told us its reason for delay was due to increased demand and limited staff capacity. While this explains the delay, it does not excuse the Council’s failure to meet its published timescale.
39. During the delay, there were 55 properties that would have been suitable for Miss X. Of these, 18 were allocated to applicants who were either in a lower band or had a later effective date. The Council confirmed Miss X would have been considered ahead of those applicants had she been able to bid.
40. While this does not guarantee that Miss X would have been offered the property, she lost a realistic opportunity to secure housing during this period. This is a significant injustice from the delay.
41. As Miss X has now accepted a suitable property, I have therefore not recommended a remedy relating to rehousing.

Complaint handling

42. Miss X had to contact the Council repeatedly for updates. The Council assured her, in its complaint response, and each time she contacted them for updates, that it would act and progress her review. However, it did not do so.
43. The Council told us it did not progress the review after issuing its complaint response due to staff capacity. This is fault. The Council should not have given assurances it could not fulfil. As a result, Miss X experienced avoidable frustration and uncertainty

Back to top

Action

44. To remedy the injustice by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Miss X, in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology.
• Pay Miss X £350 to recognise the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused by the delay in determining her housing review, the resulting loss of opportunity to bid for suitable properties, and poor complaint handling.
45. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council will:
• Remind relevant staff of the importance of completing housing review decisions within its published 56-day timescale and ensure there is appropriate oversight of outstanding reviews; and
• Ensure that all review decisions are confirmed to applicants in writing, with a clear record retained.
46. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

47. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman