Summary: We found fault on Miss Y’s complaint about the way the Council considered her request to review its decision that she could not join the housing register because of no local connection. The Council agreed to send her a written apology and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice this caused. There was no fault on her complaint about it failing to provide her with support. The fault found on her remaining complaints was already remedied by the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains that after rejecting her application to join its housing register, the Council failed to:
1. process her request for a review within its own timescales;
2. respond to her complaints promptly; and
3. provide her with support.
2. As a result, her health and safety are affected, and she may have lost the chance to successfully bid for a property had it been decided sooner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss Y, including the Council’s response to my enquiries, as well as relevant law, policy, and guidance. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Miss Y and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

6. On 5 March 2025, Miss Y applied to the Council for housing as she wished to move closer to where her child lives. Her child lives in the area with relatives. She also said she needed to move because she was the victim of fraud carried out by a family member. Miss Y has various health problems.
7. The Council considered her reasons but on 24 March, refused her application because she had no local connection with it. This meant she did not qualify to join its housing register.
8. The following are key dates:

• 4 April: Miss Y asked the Council to review its decision, explaining her daughter lived within its area under a court order.
• 30 May: This was the 56-day limit within which the review should have been decided.
• 10 July: The law changed which meant the Council could not exclude victims of domestic abuse from the housing register on the grounds of no local connection.
• 11 July: The Council changed its allocation policy to reflect the change in law.
• 25 July: The review panel rejected Miss Y’s review request but failed to upload the decision letter.
• 13 August: The Council told her of the panel decision in its stage 1 response. This explained she had no local connection so was not eligible to join the housing register.
• 25 September: The Council looked at the panel’s decision when considering her formal complaint. During this further review, the Council found the review panel failed to take account of the 11 July change in its allocation policy. It accepted she now had a local connection, and she should be awarded Band 1 priority because she was a victim of domestic abuse. She would remain in Band 1 for 52 weeks and would be considered for one-bedroom properties. While it would consider her for 2-bedroom properties, it would give preference to those with dependent children who permanently live with them before considering those with access to children.
• 26 September: Under stage 2 of the complaints process, the Council accepted its housing allocation policy said all reviews will be carried out within 56 days. Instead, it took 131 days. The Council apologised for the delay, which was because of resource issues within the Housing Needs team. It has since acted to ensure the team has capacity to deal with reviews within timescales. From 21 November, all reviews were completed within 56 days. She would be able to start bidding from 1 October.
• 2 October: The Council backdated her Band 1 priority to 11 July, when it changed its housing allocation policy.
• November: Miss Y received accommodation through the choice-based lettings scheme.

9. When the Council sent her its response under its complaints procedure, it also found:

• fault in the way it dealt with her stage 1 complaint. Although the review was clearly outside its timescales, stage 1 did not uphold her complaint about it. This was because the review was not successful. It accepted this was the wrong approach as by doing this, it failed to address all the points she raised and give clear reasons for its decision about whether processes and policies were followed. The outcome of the review should have been dealt with separately to the complaint.
• delay dealing with her stage 2 request. She asked to go to this stage on 19 August, but the complaints team did not receive notification of it until 1 September. It was acknowledged outside of its standard timescales set out in its corporate policy. In future, complaint responses will be sent from the administrative team to ensure they are not missed.

10. The Council apologised for these failures and listed the lessons learned and action taken to ensure they are not repeated. This included: allocating more resources to the Housing Needs service to deal with reviews; providing officers with updated information about the local connection exemption concerning domestic abuse victims; the management team were reminded to consider all updates and changes to the allocation policy when carrying out reviews; complaint responses will be sent from the administrative team to ensure complaint enquiries are not missed by individual officers; officers reminded to refer to the complaints handling code and corporate complaints policy when dealing with complaints.

My findings

Complaint a): review

11. I found fault on this complaint because of the following:
1. The Council accepted failing to decide her review within 56 days of her request. Instead, it took 131 days to do it, which is 75 days longer than it should have taken. This is fault.
2. It then took two weeks to tell her of the decision. This is fault.
3. I considered the possible injustice the fault found caused Miss Y. Had the Council done the review within 56 days, the decision would have been issued around 30 May. At this point, the change in law had not been brought in so the original decision would have been upheld. This means had the review been done within 56 days, it was likely to have confirmed she was not eligible to join the housing register. I am not satisfied, therefore, that the fault found caused avoidable injustice.
4. Her only option, had this review taken place within 56 days and rejected her request, would be to make a formal complaint about the process followed or to submit a fresh application to join the housing register.
5. The review panel, when it finally decided her review request, did so after the law had changed and the allocation policy updated. When it reached its decision, the panel failed to properly consider the request. This was because it failed to consider these changes. The changes now meant she had a local connection because of the domestic abuse she experienced. She would have been eligible to join the housing register. This failure was fault.
6. The Council backdated her Band 1 priority on 2 October to 11 July, which was the date it changed its allocation policy.
7. I considered the injustice caused by the fault found. The Council provided details of accommodation she could have successfully bid for had she been able to bid from 11 July to 2 October. Having done so, I am satisfied the fault caused her injustice.
8. Th records provided by the Council show out of 35 properties she might have bid on between 11 July to 2 October, she could have been successful on at least 32 of them. I am unable to say whether, for each property listed, Miss Y would have made a bid but, on balance, I can safely say it was likely she would have made one bid that would have succeeded. This means not only did she lose the opportunity to bid for properties sooner, but she also lost the opportunity to be offered one following a successful bid.

Complaint b): complaint process

12. I found the following on this complaint:

• There was a failure at stage 1 to properly consider and address her complaint. This was due to the fact the reason it did not uphold the complaint was because her review request had not succeeded. What the stage 1 response failed to do was address the points she made about delays with the review process itself. This was fault.
• There was a delay sending her the stage 2 response. This was fault as it failed to acknowledge receipt and log the complaint within five days as required by its complaints procedure.

13. I am satisfied the fault found with the stage 1 complaint process was remedied by the Council’s stage 2 investigation and apology.
14. I am satisfied the fault found with the stage 2 complaint process was remedied by this investigation and the apology the Council gave Miss Y.

Complaint c): lack of support

15. I found no fault on this complaint as I saw no evidence of Miss Y asking the Council for support.

Back to top

Action

16. I considered our guidance on remedies and the actions the Council said it has already taken before Miss Y complained to us. I also considered Miss Y’s health and vulnerabilities.
17. The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Miss Y a written apology for failing to consider her review request properly and take account of recent changes to the allocation policy and law.
2. Pay £250 to Miss Y for the distress caused by the fault found (lost opportunity/frustration)
18. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

19. I found the following on Miss Y’s complaint:

• Complaint a): fault causing injustice;
• Complaint b): fault causing injustice; and
• Complaint c): no fault.

20. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman