Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his housing application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not offered him suitable housing after 15 years on its housing register. He says he lives in overcrowded housing which is affecting his family’s mental health and wellbeing. He says he wants an urgent, independent review of his housing application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I have also reviewed the Council’s social housing allocations policy.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X has been on the Council’s housing register since 2010. He approached us in October 2025.
8. We will not investigate the Council’s handling of Mr X’s housing application before October 2024. This part of his complaint is late. If he was unhappy with the Council’s actions at this time, I can see no good reason why he could not have approached us sooner.
9. More recently, the Council has introduced a new social housing scheme which Mr X applied to join in January 2025. The Council placed him in priority band C.
10. In July 2025, Mr X requested a review of his banding decision. When the Council upheld its band C decision, Mr X raised a complaint. He told the Council his overcrowded housing was affecting a family member’s health and that his landlord had served them notice to leave the property.
11. In its complaint response, the Council said it accepted Mr X was living in overcrowded housing and band C was therefore the correct band according to its policy.
12. The Council acknowledged Mr X had provided information about the impact of his housing conditions on a family member’s health. It invited him to submit medical evidence so it could consider this and review its banding decision.
13. It also signposted Mr X to its homelessness team and asked him to provide a copy of his landlord’s notice seeking possession of the property.
14. The Council said its records showed Mr X had not placed any bids for housing since it changed its system, which was live from May 2025. It said Mr X needed to place bids to be considered for housing.
15. We will not investigate this complaint. It appears the Council appropriately reviewed its banding decision when Mr X requested this. It considered the information he provided and explained why it did not change its decision. Its decision appears consistent with its allocations policy. The Council also explained how Mr X could submit evidence for consideration of his family’s medical need, and access support if he is at risk of homelessness. It told him he needed to place bids so it could consider offering him housing. This is an appropriate response. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making or handling of this matter to justify investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman