Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed dealing with her housing applications, with one delayed for over two years. She said the Council did not respond to her request for support to leave the area as an alternative solution. We found the Council at fault for the delay and poor communication. The Council has already put appropriate service improvements in place. It has also agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the avoidable frustration and uncertainty.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained that the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (the Council) delayed responding to her housing applications. She said the Council also did not respond to her request for support to leave the area as an alternative solution. She said the delay and lack of communication caused avoidable frustration and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated events from February 2023, when Miss X made a housing application to the Council, until August 2025, when she brought her complaint to us.
6. Although events prior to August 2024 are late, records for this time were still available and the Council had already accepted fault in its complaint response to Miss X. It is therefore appropriate to exercise discretion to investigate past the usual 12-month period in this case.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. 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

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. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
11. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.
12. There is no statutory timescale for processing housing applications. Unless the council’s allocations scheme sets out a specific time frame, we would usually expect a council to process a housing application or change of circumstances update within eight weeks.

What happened

13. Miss X lives in a two-bedroom property with her two children. She says the property is unsuitable for her family’s needs due to overcrowding, and because her son has additional needs due to having autism.
14. Miss X made a housing application to the Council in February 2023 on the basis of overcrowding. Miss X did not receive a response from the Council about this application. The Council said this application was allocated to a member of its housing team in October 2024, but it was not picked up until December 2024.
15. In January 2025 Miss X made another housing application and gave evidence to the Council about her son’s health needs.
16. Miss X made a stage one complaint to the Council in early May 2025 that she had not received a response to her application. The Council responded to her complaint in late May 2025. It apologised for failing to respond to her application of February 2023 and for poor communication by its housing team. It also recognised the delay assessing her application of January 2025 and said it would prioritise the medical assessment.
17. Miss X escalated her complaint to stage two in early June 2025. The Council responded in early July 2025. It apologised again for the delays and poor communication. It also reiterated that it would prioritise the assessment of her application.
18. The Council wrote to Miss X in late July 2025 and advised that it had refused her housing application on medical grounds. Miss X said that she contacted the Council to ask for support to find alternative housing other than through the housing register, such as moving to another area. She said that she received no further response or support from the Council.

Analysis

19. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
20. I have not found fault in how the Council considered Miss X’s circumstances, applied its allocations policy and decided to refuse her housing application, and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
21. But I have found fault in the time the Council took to consider the application and reach a decision. The Council failed to respond at all to Miss X’s housing application of February 2023. This was fault, causing Miss X avoidable uncertainty and frustration.
22. We would expect a council to process most housing applications within eight weeks. When Miss X made a second housing application in January 2025 the Council did not issue its decision until July 2025, around 27 weeks later. This significant delay was fault that caused Miss X further uncertainty.
23. The Council apologised for the faults in its complaint responses, but I do not consider an apology alone is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused. The delay was lengthy and the frustration and uncertainty experienced were significant. I have therefore recommended a symbolic payment to Miss X in recognition of the injustice caused.
24. Evidence provided by the Council during this investigation showed that its housing team was experiencing a backlog and significant delays processing applications. The Council has explained that it has put measures in place, including hiring more staff and a plan to introduce an online applications system. It said it has already reduced the backlog of applications and hopes to further reduce waiting times for applicants. I therefore do not consider it necessary to make further service improvement recommendations.

Back to top

Action

25. In recognition of the injustice caused to Miss X, I recommend, within one month of the final decision, the Council should:
• Apologise to Miss X in accordance with our guidance on making an effective apology.
• Pay £200 to Miss X to recognise the avoidable uncertainty caused by the delay and poor communication.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman