Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his housing application. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision on his housing application and its delay in reviewing that decision. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaints.
2. Mr X says his current accommodation is unsuitable, and he wants to move into appropriate social housing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X.
5. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council assessed Mr X’s housing application in 2023 and placed him in Band C. Mr X asked for a review of this decision, which the Council did not complete until 2026. The Council upheld the original decision on review. It apologised for the delay and advised that it had brought in new staff to its reviews team to prevent this from happening again.
7. I acknowledge there was a delay in the Council completing its review. However, the Council has taken responsibility for this by apologising and taking action to improve its service. As the review did not result in a different banding decision, the delay has not significantly disadvantaged Mr X’s application or caused him a significant injustice. There is therefore no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Review decision

8. Councils are responsible for assessing housing applications in accordance with their published allocation scheme. Our role is not to decide which housing band an applicant should receive, but to consider whether the Council followed the correct process, considered the relevant information and reached a decision it was entitled to make.
9. The evidence shows the Council considered the information and evidence Mr X provided, applied its allocation policy and explained why it decided he should remain in Band C. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment to justify us investigating.
10. I recognise Mr X wants to move into social housing sooner. However, demand for social housing often exceeds the number of properties available. As there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's assessment of Mr X's housing application, we cannot require the Council to give him greater priority over other applicants or provide him with housing sooner. We therefore cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.

Complaint handling

11. As a public funded body we must be careful with how we use our resources. As we are not investigating the substantive parts of Mr X’s complaint, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate the complaint handling in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome by us investigating the review delay. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment of his housing application and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate the complaint handling in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman