Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Ms X’s application for the housing register. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint by providing a proportionate remedy.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council:

• Wrongly refused her application to join the housing register in 2023.
• Delayed in dealing with her request for a review of its decision.
• Refused her request for band A priority.

2. Ms X considers that as a result she and her family lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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 it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided on behalf of Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In early 2023, Ms X applied for the Council’s housing register as she required a larger property due to her family’s needs. The Council refused Ms X’s application as it considered she and her family were adequately housed. Ms X requested a review of the Council’s decision.
8. We will not investigate the Council’s decision to refuse Ms X’s application for the housing register in early 2023. This is because Ms X had the right to request a review of the Council’s decision, and she requested a review.
9. The Council decided Ms X’s review request sometime between October 2023 and March 2024. It upheld Ms X’s review and placed her on the housing register in priority band B. If we investigated Ms X’s complaint, it is likely we would find the Council to be at fault as it took between seven and 10 months to deal with Ms X’s review request. It is unlikely an investigation would find, on balance, that the time taken to deal with her review caused Ms X to miss an offer of a property. This is because the Council did not make an offer to Ms X for several months following the review decision. But the time taken will have caused distress and uncertainty to Ms X.
10. We invited the Council to remedy the injustice to Ms X by making a symbolic payment of £300 to her to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused. The invited payment is in accordance with our Guidance on Remedies.
11. Ms X requested a review of the Council’s decision to place her in band B as she considered she should be placed in band A. The Council considered Ms X’s request but decided it should not increase Ms X’s priority to band A. We will not investigate how the Council considered Ms X’s request for band A.
12. We are not an appeal body so we do not come to our own view on an applicant’s housing priority. Our role is to consider if the Council has followed the proper processes when making its decision.
13. The Council’s letter notifying Ms X of the decision shows it considered the evidence provided by Ms X and her reasons for wanting increased priority. The letter also provided a reasoned explanation for why the Council did not increase her priority. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation of this aspect of Ms X’s complaint.

Back to top

Agreed Action

14. That the Council will make a symbolic payment of £300 to Ms X to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused to her. The Council should take this action within one month of our final decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman