Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his housing applications because this would not lead to a different or worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council delayed in assessing his housing register application and discriminated against him in its handling of the application. Mr X says Council failings mean the family remain in unsuitable accommodation longer than they should have done.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register in April 2025. Organisation A, acting on behalf of the Council, accepts a delay in assessing the application and discussing with Mr X whether he needed any reasonable adjustments, such as a translation service. It also accepted it could have done a home visit earlier. It apologised and offered to pay Mr X £175 to remedy the distress caused.
6. Organisation A did carry out a home visit in August 2026, following which it awarded band 2, backdated to the date of the original application. It confirmed that Mr X had not missed out on an offer of housing in the period April 2025 to August 2026.
7. Mr X also complained to the Council. He said he was unhappy with the attitude and approach of officers, which he said was discriminatory. The Council spoke to him about his complaint and responded in writing. It explained officers did need to ask questions about whether he was eligible for housing assistance and seek evidence of his immigration status. It also explained that officers do need to give advice about what property type may be secured and how long applicants may wait for an offer. Mr X asked for a stage 2 because he said he did not trust Council officers. The Council refused as it said there were no clear issues that had not already been addressed.

My assessment

8. Organisation A, on behalf of the Council, took appropriate steps to remedy the injustice caused by its initial delays by an apology, the backdating of the band 2 priority and by checking Mr X had not missed an offer in the interim. We will not investigate further because this would not lead to a different outcome.
9. If Mr X disagreed with the priority band awarded, he had the right to ask for a review of that decision, and it was reasonable for him to use that right. The Council’s complaint response confirmed a review was underway.
10. The Council has responded to Mr X’s concerns about discrimination. There may be a conflict between the Council and Mr X’s version of events in terms of the content of conversations, but it is unlikely we can resolve this by further investigation since Council officers only write down a summary of the advice given. Further, we would not be able to say whether there was discrimination because only the courts could determine that. We will not investigate further because it is unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome by doing so.
11. We do not usually investigate a Council’s complaints handling unless we are also investigating the underlying complaint and there is no reason to depart from this approach in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because this would not lead to a different or worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman