Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a delay in carrying out the review of a housing register decision. The Council has apologised for the delay and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s delay in carrying out a review of the priority awarded on its housing register. She said this meant the Council had obstructed the rehousing of her disabled child.
2. Ms X also complained about the Council’s complaints handling and about its delay in responding to a subject access request.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, 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

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Delay in carrying out a review

6. On 28 May 2025, Ms X asked for a review of the Council’s housing register decision dated 8 May, which said band C priority was appropriate and that medical priority did not apply. The Council should have carried out the review within 56 days. It did not allocate the case to an officer until 15 December 2025. The officer gave Ms X the chance to send them further evidence to support her request. By this point, Ms X had made a subject access request, and she asked the Council to put the review on hold until that request had been dealt with.
7. In its complaint response, the Council apologised for the delay, but said that, even if a higher band was awarded on review, Ms X would not have been rehoused in the period of the delay. It told us the backlog has since been cleared.
8. I would expect that, if the priority band is changed on review, this will be backdated to the point the evidence to justify the change was provided and that, with the apology, is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused by the delay to December 2025. Further investigation by us would not, therefore, lead to a different outcome.

Subject access request

9. Ms X asked the Council to provide records held by its children’s services and housing. She told us the Council had not provided the housing records. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider whether the Council has met its obligations in relation to data protection rules. Therefore, we will not consider that part of the complaint further.

Complaints handling

10. The Council explained the complaints process could not be used to review the housing register decision. It addressed the delay in carrying out a review, for which it apologised. It also apologised for a delay in responding to the complaint, which was appropriate.
11. We would not usually investigate a Council’s complaints handling if we are not investigating the underlying complaint and there are no good reasons to depart from that approach in this case.
12. For all the above reasons, we will not consider this complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman