Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his housing register application. The Council backdated its decision to the date of the application, which has remedied the injustice caused by its delay. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in dealing with his housing register application. He also said it asked him for some evidence more than once. He said the Council failed to consider that his mother, who he lives with, is elderly and housebound and urgently needs rehousing.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 lives with his mother, Mrs Y, in a first floor flat and is her full-time carer. Mrs Y’s mobility had deteriorated to the point she was finding it difficult to mobilise in their flat and could not longer use the stairs to the first floor, which meant she was housebound.
6. Mr X applied for rehousing. Initially, the Council said there was insufficient evidence to show Mrs Y needed 24-hour care from Mr X, so it did not agree to add her to Mr X’s application.
7. Mr X provided the information requested and an assessment by an occupational therapist (OT). The OT recorded Mrs Y was struggling to mobilise in the flat and said it was not advisable for her to attempt the stairs to the first floor. Mr X told the OT he and his brother would carry her downstairs if she needed to attend an appointment. The OT recommended rehousing. She said Mrs Y needed a property with level access and a level access shower.
8. The Council added Mrs Y to the application in late May 2025 but did not issue a banding decision until October. It awarded band 2 (urgent) and said the family needed a ground floor property with some adaptations. The Council backdated the effective date to January 2025, the date Mr X had made the application.
9. The Council apologised for the delays in assessing the application and handling Mr X’s complaint. It said steps were being taken to improve its processes.

My assessment

10. We usually expect councils to assess housing register applications within eight weeks of receiving all the information needed. The records show Mr X sent evidence between February and May 2025, so I would have expected the Council to complete its assessment by late July 2025. It did not do so until October 2025. The Council apologised and remedied the delay by backdating the effective date for band 2 to the date of the original application (rather than the date the OT report was received), which benefitted Mr X and Mrs Y. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
11. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decisions were correct. We can consider the decision-making process but, unless there was fault in that process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
12. The records show the Council considered the information Mr X provided and its published allocations scheme at the key decision points in May and October 2025. It considered the comments the OT made about the impact of the current housing on Mrs Y and their recommendations in relation to her housing needs. Apart from its delay in making the final decision (addressed above), there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman