Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed her housing application and failed to communicate, leaving her and her child, Y, in unsuitable accommodation. There was fault in the Council’s actions which caused Miss X distress, uncertainty, inconvenience, and time and trouble. The Council agreed recommended actions to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council delayed progressing her housing application and medical assessment and failed to communicate with her and manage her case properly.
2. Miss X said these failings meant she and her son remained in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary. She said this caused distress, affected her son’s wellbeing, led to isolation, and resulted in time, trouble and financial impact.

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. 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)
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.
8. The complaint looks at events dating back to June 2023. I exercised discretion to investigate from that period because the alleged faults formed part of a continuing course of events which remained ongoing until the Council issued its final complaint response in 2025. I also considered it appropriate to investigate the earlier events because the Council accepted there had been prolonged delay during that period.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant guidance and legislation

Housing Allocations

9. 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))
10. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

11. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.

What happened

12. Miss X contacted the Council’s Housing Solutions service in late June 2023 and requested a health and disability assessment.
13. She provided the requested information shortly afterwards, and the Council created a housing enquiry and allocated it to a case officer in early July 2023.
14. The Council’s records showed no further recorded case activity for over a year. Miss X said she repeatedly contacted the Council during this period but received inconsistent information about her case.
15. Miss X contacted the Council again in March 2025 to follow up on her application.
16. Miss X made a formal complaint in March 2025.
17. The Council issued its stage 1 response in early April 2025. It accepted Miss X had made persistent efforts to progress her case and apologised for delay and poor communication. It said the delay was partly due to the case officer being on extended leave.
18. Around the same time, the Council contacted Miss X and sent her a new health and disability form.
19. The Council arranged an appointment in May 2025, which it later rearranged.
20. The case officer was unwell when the rearranged appointment was due to take place later in May 2025.The Council did not inform Miss X. She attended the appointment but no officer met her.
21. Miss X escalated her complaint in early June 2025. The Council issued its final response in late June 2025. It upheld the complaint in full. It accepted there had been little case activity and said a delay of around two years was unacceptable. It also accepted it failed to follow its procedures when the appointment did not go ahead.
22. The Council referred the case to its Housing Health and Mobility team and said it would assess Miss X’s circumstances as a matter of urgency.
23. The Council completed a health and disability assessment in early July 2025. It awarded Miss X significant priority and assessed her housing need as a two-bedroom, step-free property with specific requirements. The assessment recognised the current accommodation was unsuitable for Y’s assessed needs.
24. The Council later confirmed after our involvement that Miss X was placed in a higher priority band and applied a priority date linked to her original approach in July 2023, with additional waiting points to reflect the time that had passed.

Analysis and findings

25. The Council had a duty to administer Miss X’s housing application properly and within a reasonable timeframe.
26. The evidence shows the Council created Miss X’s housing enquiry in July 2023 but took no recorded action for over a year. The Council accepted in its complaint response that there was little activity during this period and that the overall delay of around two years was unacceptable.
27. The Council said the delay was partly due to the case officer being on extended leave. However, this does not justify the length of delay. The Council should have had systems in place to monitor cases and ensure continuity when staff were absent. This was fault.
28. Miss X said the Council ignored her emails and telephone calls, provided inconsistent information, and failed to properly record or progress her contacts. The Council accepted there was a breakdown in communication and acknowledged Miss X made repeated attempts to progress her case. The prolonged lack of recorded activity and the need for Miss X to repeatedly chase updates shows poor case management and oversight. This was fault.
29. The Council arranged an appointment which it later rearranged. It accepted that when the rearranged appointment could not go ahead due to staff illness, it did not inform Miss X. Miss X attended unnecessarily. The Council accepted it did not follow its procedures. This was fault.
30. The Council completed the health and disability assessment in July 2025 and awarded Miss X significant priority. Miss X said the delay meant she missed opportunities to be rehoused sooner.
31. The Council backdated Miss X’s priority date to reflect her original approach in July 2023. It also confirmed she had not bid on any properties. The Council said it could not determine whether Miss X would have been rehoused earlier if the assessment had been completed sooner. It said the later assessment was supported by additional medical and professional evidence available by 2025, including evidence about the impact of the accommodation on Y’s needs and safety as he grew older.
32. It is not possible to conclude with the available evidence that Miss X would have been rehoused earlier if the Council had acted without delay. But the Council’s delay created uncertainty about Miss X’s housing position and whether earlier action may have improved her prospects. This uncertainty amounts to injustice.

Injustice

33. Miss X experienced avoidable distress and frustration over an extended period because of the delay, poor communication and poor case management. She was left uncertain about her housing situation and whether earlier action may have improved her prospects. She also experienced inconvenience in attending a cancelled appointment and spent time and trouble pursuing the matter.
34. There is not enough evidence to conclude Miss X would have been rehoused earlier, but the Council’s actions caused the missed opportunity to have her case properly considered sooner.
35. The Council has already acknowledged the failings in this case and confirmed it has reminded staff about appointment management and communication.
36. The Ombudsman does not make further service improvement recommendations. However, the Council should ensure the learning from this case is embedded in its processes for managing housing applications and monitoring cases during staff absence.

Back to top

Action

37. To remedy the injustice caused, within one month of our final decision, the Council agreed to:
• Apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused by the faults identified. 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.
• Pay £500 to Miss X for the distress, uncertainty, time and trouble caused by the prolonged delay.
38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman