Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s housing application because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing any injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application renewal. She says the Council failed to respond to the required review form she submitted to progress her housing application, resulting in the inactivity of her Home Connections account. Miss X says this caused her significant distress and uncertainty.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
• (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

How I considered this complaint

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

My assessment

5. Miss X joined the housing register in 2020. The Council sent Miss X a review form on 4 June 2025, to be completed by 18 June 2025. The Council noted that the form was not received by the deadline, resulting in cancellation of Miss X’s application.
6. Miss X says she submitted a completed form on 7 June 2025. The evidence suggests that the Council received the form on 13 July 2025, after the deadline had passed, despite the form being signed and dated on 7 June 2025.
7. There is no record of any follow-up contact from Miss X to the Council between 4 June to 13 July 2025, or record of her asking for confirmation of receipt or updates on her application. The Council explained that the absence of further contact contributed to Miss X’s application being cancelled in line its Housing Allocation Scheme.
8. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision was correct. Unless there was fault in the Council’s decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The law says councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
9. The evidence also suggests that the Council reinstated Miss X’s application and issued a revised points letter following its Stage 1 investigation.
10. Miss X says her complaint is not about whether her account is open now, it is about the Council’s failure to follow procedures, communicate properly and handle applications fairly.
11. The evidence shows that Miss X refused to resend all the required forms and supporting documents with her complaint. We have also not received this evidence to demonstrate maladministration and to warrant an investigation of the Council’s alleged failure to follow procedures, communicate properly and handle applications fairly.
12. The evidence submitted, shows the Council's procedure was consistent with its policy and there was no undue delay in the Council’s communication. There is no evidence of fault or any significant injustice to warrant further consideration.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault or injustice to warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman