Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his housing register application. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment of his priority on its housing register. He also complained about changes to the priority date when his priority band was changed. Mr X says he is street homeless and the Council’s failing has caused significant stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

8. Mr X first approached the Council as homeless in late 2022. The Council accepted a relief duty. It also accepted a housing register application and awarded band 2 priority.
9. In January 2024, the Council decided Mr X was not in priority need. It ended its relief duty in March 2024 and told Mr X to inform the housing register team of this.
10. In November 2024, the Council recorded there had been no delay in Mr X getting its decisions. It changed his priority from band 2 to band 4.
11. Mr X made a second homelessness application. The Council accepted a relief duty in February 2025. It changed his priority on its housing register back to band 2, also effective from February 2025.
12. In May 2025, the Council again decided Mr X was not in priority need. It told him he could ask for a review of that decision within 21 days, which was early June. Mr X asked for a review in early July. The Council did not accept an out-of-time review request because it said there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the delay. The Council changed his priority on its housing register to band 3, effective from May 2025.
13. In March 2026, Mr X made a third homelessness application. The Council accepted a relief duty in May 2026. It changed Mr X’s priority on its housing register to band 2, effective from May 2026, the date it accepted a homelessness duty.
14. In June 2026, in its final response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council explained the reasons for the priority band and priority date changes. It also confirmed he did not meet the threshold for band 2.

My assessment

15. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events complained about. Mr X first contacted us in November 2025. At that stage, the Council had not completed its complaints process. It issued its final response in December 2025.
16. Mr X complained to us again in January 2026. By that stage, he had made a further complaint to the Council, which the Council was still considering. The Council issued its final response for that complaint in June 2026.
17. There is no evidence Mr X could not have complained to us earlier and no good reasons to consider the period prior to November 2024, a year before he first contacted us.
18. In relation to the Council’s homelessness decisions, Mr X had the right to ask the Council for an internal review. He had the right to appeal to the county court if he disagreed with the review decision. It was reasonable for Mr X to have used his rights of review and appeal. Only the courts could determine whether the Council’s decision that he was not in priority need was correct.
19. In relation to the housing register decisions, the Council initially awarded band 2 because it owed Mr X a homelessness duty.
20. When that duty ended, it changed the priority band. There was a delay in doing to because the housing register team were not aware the homelessness duty had ended, but Mr X benefitted from that. Mr X was in band 4 from November 2024 to February 2025. It is unclear if that was correct. Under the current allocations scheme, he would be in band 3. However, the Council confirmed to Mr X that the waiting time in band 3 is several years, so he is unlikely to have missed an offer of rehousing in that period. Mr X has not suffered sufficient injustice to justify investigating this aspect further.
21. The priority band changed again in February 2025, May 2025 and May 2026 to reflect changes in his homelessness. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making at these points to justify investigating further.
22. At each point, the Council changed the priority band, it also changed the priority date, which is the date used when prioritising applicants for rehousing within the same priority band. Its allocation scheme says when a higher band is awarded the priority date should be the date of that award. This means that, on each occasion it awarded band 2 again, the priority date changed to the date of the new award. Although Mr X was concerned that he had “lost waiting time”, the Council has correctly applied its allocations scheme. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating this aspect further.

Back to top

Final decision

23. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman