Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in carrying out a statutory overcrowding assessment of his property. He also complained of poor communication. The Council was at fault for delays in completing a statutory overcrowding assessment of Mr X’s property, for failing to issue a formal outcome of its assessment, and for poor communication. This fault caused Mr X distress and uncertainty. However, the Council has already provided suitable remedies to address this injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in carrying out a statutory overcrowding assessment of his property. He lives in a studio flat with his wife and child and says this is too small and the lack of space exacerbates his medical symptoms. He also complained about the Council’s poor communication with him. He says the Council’s delay and poor communication caused him distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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.
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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

7. 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))

Reasonable preference

8. 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))

Decisions and review rights

9. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

Choice based lettings

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

What happened

11. In 2023, Mr X first applied to be on the housing register as a single occupant. The Council allocated him a studio flat.
12. In May 2025, Mr X submitted a medical priority application as he had received an autism diagnosis. He also submitted a change of circumstances application, as he lived in the studio with his wife and young child. He said the studio accommodation had limited space, and this affected his medical symptoms. Mr X wanted a two-bedroom property and said his studio flat was statutorily overcrowded for his household.
13. The Council acknowledged receipt of Mr X’s application and stated it was working to a 10-working day assessment timeframe to process the change of circumstances form. Once it had processed the form, it would complete a Housing Needs Assessment.
14. In mid-June, Mr X contacted the Council and requested an update on its progress.
15. A few days later, the Council spoke with Mr X on the phone and told him it would issue its decision about his change of circumstances form imminently.
16. Mr X did not receive an outcome so chased the Council the next day.
17. The Council emailed Mr X and requested further documents to support his application, including room measurements. Mr X supplied all requested documents.
18. That same day, Mr X submitted a stage one complaint. He complained about the Council’s delay in processing his change of circumstances application, stating this should have only taken ten days to process. He said the small living space was affecting his mental health and said it was legally too small to accommodate his wife and child. He said he wanted the Council to give him band B priority and a 2-bedroom property.
19. Mr X contacted the Council at the beginning of July and said he had still not received a complaint acknowledgement, and according to the Council’s complaint timescales, it should have now issued a complaint response.
20. The Council emailed Mr X at the beginning of July to advise it would not meet the complaint response timeframe stated in its policy. It also said it could not access his complaint and asked him to resubmit it. It said its delay in dealing with his complaint was due to staff absence, and said it expected to respond to Mr X’s complaint by 9 July.
21. The Council did not issue its complaint response by the above date. Mr X chased the Council again for its response. He explained his living situation was taking a toll on his health.
22. The Council issued its complaint response at the end of July. It upheld his complaint and said there was no justifiable reason for its delay completing a housing needs assessment to determine whether there was statutory overcrowding. The Council apologised and said it would issue a formal decision shortly. It offered Mr X £30 in recognition of the inconvenience and distress caused to him.
23. Mr X requested the Council escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaints process. He said he did not consider £30 sufficiently addressed the frustration and distress the Council’s delay had caused him.
24. In mid-August, an officer visited Mr X’s property to undertake the statutory overcrowding assessment but did not bring any measuring tools. The officer could not therefore complete the assessment.
25. A few days later, the Council emailed Mr X to request his medical reports and asked him to complete a medical form. Mr X provided the information that day.
26. Towards the end of August, the Council issued its stage two complaint response. It acknowledged and apologised for the delays in progressing his application and said it would ensure an officer attended his property to carry out the Housing Needs Assessment and take measurements. It confirmed it had received his medical evidence and said this would now be forwarded to the medical officer for his recommendation. The Council also apologised for the delay in issuing its complaint responses and said this was due to a combination of service pressures and staff leave. It offered Mr X £120 in recognition of the delays.
27. That same week, the Council issued a medical priority decision letter. It awarded Mr X band B priority based on his medical needs, and backdated this to May 2025, when he first applied for medical priority.
28. Mr X approached the Ombudsman at the beginning of September 2025.
29. Around mid-September, an officer visited Mr X’s property and took measurements of his property.
30. Mr X said the Council did not issue any formal outcome regarding the statutory overcrowding assessment of his property. He says the Council told him it had not done so as it had already awarded him band B for medical priority, and a statutory overcrowding finding would not make any material difference to his band or priority date.

Back to top

Analysis

31. The Council received Mr X’s request for a statutory overcrowding assessment at the end of May. It did not complete the assessment until September. There is no statutory timescale for processing housing applications. However, we would ordinarily expect councils to process such applications within eight weeks. Four months is beyond what we would consider reasonable. The Council accepts this fault.
32. The Council arranged a visit to Mr X’s property to carry out its assessment in August, but the attending officer did not bring measuring tools required to carry out the assessment. This caused avoidable delay.
33. The Council’s measurements confirmed Mr X’s property is statutorily overcrowded for his household. As a result of the Council’s delay, Mr X remained in accommodation for longer than necessary without formal recognition of his housing situation.
34. However, Mr X submitted his change of circumstances form at the same time as his medical priority application at the end of May. The Council awarded him band B based on his medical application and backdated his priority date accordingly.
35. Both medical priority and statutory overcrowding independently attract band B under the Council’s allocations policy. The priority date for medical priority runs from the date of application, which was the end of May. The policy states the priority date for overcrowding runs from when the assessment is considered and accepted, which, even with prompt handling by the Council, would have been later than the medical priority award. Mr X’s current position is therefore the same as it would have been had the Council not delayed completing the overcrowding assessment. The Council’s delay, although fault, has not caused any injustice in terms of his position on the allocations list, though this is only because Mr X applied for medical priority at the same time.
36. Mr X said the Council told him it would not issue a formal outcome for the statutory overcrowding assessment, because it had already awarded him band B priority based on his medical need, and the overcrowding assessment would make no material difference to this outcome.
37. The Council should have issued Mr X with a written outcome of the assessment. Its policy states that such decisions will be communicated in writing. Its failure to do so is fault, and in breach of its policy. By not doing so, the Council also denied Mr X his right to seek a review. As set out above, neither the band nor the priority date would have changed, so a review would not have led to a different outcome. The Council’s fault, for reasons explained above, did not cause Mr X a significant injustice.
38. Mr X is now actively bidding on two-bedroom properties. I cannot find, even on the balance of probabilities, that he would have secured accommodation sooner had the Council processed his application earlier. I understand that the demand for social housing in the Council’s area exceeds the supply. The Council’s website states the average waiting time for a property is 14 years. The assessment was made approximately two months later than we would have expected, and it is very unlikely Mr X would have secured accommodation within this time, had it not been for the Council’s delay. As stated above, his priority date has also been backdated. However, the Council’s delay did lead to uncertainty and distress for Mr X. He was left unsure of what action the Council was going to take, and when.
39. In addition to this, the Council’s communication with Mr X throughout was poor. It issued both complaint responses late, and I can see that Mr X chased the Council frequently for updates. He expressed each time that his living situation was affecting his health. The Council’s poor communication further added to Mr X’s uncertainty and distress. The Council explained that its delays were due to unexpected staff absences and service pressures. While I note the Council’s explanation, this does not excuse the delay.
40. The Council paid Mr X £120 in recognition of the distress caused by its delay and issued an apology. I consider these remedies are proportionate to the injustice, so I have not recommended any further remedies.

Back to top

Decision

41. I find fault causing injustice. However, the Council has already provided suitable remedies to address the injustice it caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman