Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council delaying in completing a review of its decision to accept Mr X onto its housing register. This is because further investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to follow its own procedures and statutory duties during its handling of his housing application and subsequent review request.
2. Mr X says he has faced housing insecurity since January 2025, negatively affecting his health and wellbeing.
3. He seeks an urgent review, a prompt decision, an explanation for the delays, proper reassessment of his needs, and improved support and communication going forward.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register in January 2025.
9. Under the Council’s Housing Allocations Policy, applicants without an assessed housing need do not qualify for the housing register. An applicant has no assessed housing need if their circumstances do not fall within any of the Council’s priority bands.
10. In September 2025, the Council assessed Mr X’s application and decided he did not qualify for the housing register because he did not have an assessed housing need. Mr X asked the Council to review this decision on the basis he had been homeless since January 2025 and had two dependent children.
11. In October 2025 Mr X complained that he was still awaiting the review decision. The Council upheld his complaint apologising for the delay in completing the review within the 56-day timeframe.
12. Also, In October 2025, Mr X made a homelessness application, but the Council said they closed this application later that month because he did not engage with the process or provide the requested information.
13. The Council completed the housing application review in April 2026, 7 months after its original decision. The review upheld the original decision that Mr X did not qualify to join the housing register as he did not have an assessed housing need. So, although the delay was significant, it did not affect the outcome. The Council’s decision remained the same, so the delay did not cause Mr X any injustice.
14. Based on the evidence I have seen the Council assessed Mr X’s application in line with its allocations policy. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
15. The Council accepts that it was at fault for the delay in completing the review and has acknowledged this through its complaints process. Its apology provides a suitable remedy.
16. We will not investigate the Council’s decision to close Mr X’s homelessness application. The Council closed the application because Mr X did not engage and failed to provide the required documentation. While we recognise that this situation may have caused frustration, it has not resulted in a significant injustice that justifies our involvement. The Council has advised Mr X that he may submit a new application.
17. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council applied its policy correctly and although there was a delay in the Council completing its review further investigation would not achieve a different outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman