Summary: Based on current evidence we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council handled his housing application. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Also, that Mr X had the right of an alternative remedy at the time, and it was reasonable for him to use this.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council handled his housing application. He says the Council treated his family as having low housing need when his property is overcrowded. He says the Council also incorrectly questioned his continuous residency status within the borough, despite evidence provided.
2. Mr X also says the review process was unreasonably delayed, and the Council did not follow its policy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. 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)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
7. 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

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

10. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision in respect of his housing application in July 2025 and requested a review into this decision.
11. The Council completed its review response in September 2025. It apologised for the delay in completing this and confirmed that it had considered Mr X’s concerns. It referenced Mr X’s concerns into the overcrowding at his property and his continuous residency status within the borough.
12. While I recognise Mr X remains unhappy with the way the Council considered his review, we cannot question the outcome of this. The Council considered Mr X’s concerns and there is no fault in the way the Council made its decision.
13. The review offered Mr X a right to challenge the decision through a judicial review which the Ombudsman considers that it was reasonable for Mr X to use at the time.
14. The Council’s allocation policy states that it will try to complete reviews within 28 days. There is no statutory timescale for processing housing applications. We would usually expect a council to process a housing application within eight weeks, unless the Council’s policy suggests otherwise.
15. The Council has accepted that due to implementing a new system and a high number of applications, there was a delay in responding to Mr X’s review. It has apologised for this. It is unlikely therefore that an investigation by the Ombudsman would be able to add to this.
16. On another recent case against the Council, we have made service improvements about the way that it handles housing applications. The Council must be allowed an opportunity to improve its service following this. I have therefore decided not to recommend any further service improvements from it.

Back to top

Decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman