Summary: We found fault with the Council in how it handled Mr X’s homelessness and housing applications. This caused him uncertainty and hardship. The Council agreed to apologise and review his housing application to remedy the distress it caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council delayed assessing his homelessness and housing register applications and said its communication with him about these matters was poor. He said the Council’s actions left him with uncertainty, stress and hardship, because he did not know if he could bid on houses.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and s34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

8. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
9. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A)

Housing allocations

10. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published housing allocations scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

11. When Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register, the Council’s housing allocations scheme said: “We will not give reasonable preference to applicants that are overcrowded by one room according to the bedroom standard (with the exception of households that are currently occupying studio/bedsit accommodation or where the households are statutorily overcrowded). We will not place an application assessed as one bedroom overcrowded (subject to the exceptions above), and that has no other housing need, on the housing register.”
12. The Council has since introduced a new housing allocations scheme which does not have an exception to the rule for households in studio/bedsit accommodation. Therefore, this exception no longer applies to the Council’s housing allocation scheme.

The Council’s complaints handling policy

13. The Council’s complaints handling policy says it will respond to housing complaints:

• within 10 working days from the receipt of a stage one complaint (and if it cannot meet this deadline, it will agree an extension with the complainant); and
• within 20 working days from the receipt of a stage two complaint.

What happened

14. In March 2024 Mr X made a homelessness application to the Council.
15. In June 2024 Mr X complained to the Council about its decision on his housing application. He also complained he had a housing bidding number but could not bid on any properties.
16. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and apologised for delays in assessing his homeless application, which it said was because of high demands on the service. It said it would carry out a full homelessness assessment soon. The Council told him he did not however have an active housing register application or case on his file, but he was free to make an application if he wanted.
17. Mr X then made a housing register application in September 2024.
18. Mr X later complained again about how the Council handled his housing application. He said he still could not bid on properties.
19. In January 2025 Mr X told the Council he was no longer at risk of homelessness so it could close his homelessness case, but he still wanted to join its housing register. The Council then closed his homelessness case.
20. In February 2025 the Council finished its investigation into Mr X’s complaint. It said it accepted it had delayed assessing his homelessness application and delayed responding to his complaint about this. It offered him £300; this was £250 for the delays in assessing his homelessness application and £50 for the delays in responding to his complaint. It said it was still reviewing his housing register application.
21. Mr X then complained to us about how the Council handled his housing application. He said it hadn’t taken his family’s needs into consideration. He said his family were living in a studio property and this was not suitable for them.
22. After Mr X complained to us, the Council told him that his housing register application was not successful. It said this was because he was only overcrowded by one bedroom, not two.

Analysis

Homelessness application

23. The Council accepted it delayed assessing Mr X’s homelessness application. It took 10 months to make a decision on his application, and this was only after Mr X told it he was no longer at risk of homelessness. This delay was fault.
24. This fault caused injustice to Mr X. It caused him uncertainty, because he did not know if the Council was going to help him avoid becoming homeless.
25. However, the injustice to Mr X and his family caused by this fault was limited because they could remain living in their property. This means they continued to have accommodation while waiting for the Council to assess them.
26. The Council offered £250 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty caused by its failure to complete Mr X’s homelessness assessment. This remedy is in-line with our guidance on remedies and is therefore sufficient to remedy any injustice caused to Mr X and his family by these delays.

Housing register application

27. The Council’s housing allocations scheme when Mr X applied said that an applicant would not be added to the housing register if they were overcrowded by only one bedroom. The exception to this rule was if they lived in a studio or bedsit property.
28. When Mr X applied for the housing register, he selected that he had one bedroom in his property. Therefore, the Council treated him as having a one-bedroom property and not a studio property. This meant the Council decided he did not qualify to join its register.
29. Based on the information the Council had, it correctly applied its policy to Mr X’s application and so there was no fault in its decision.
30. However, the form asked how many bedrooms an applicant had, and not what type of property an applicant lived in. This could have been confusing to applicants living in studio properties as they may have though it was correct to tick one bedroom, instead of zero bedrooms. Therefore, the application form wording was likely to cause confusion for applicants. This was fault because whether an applicant lives in a studio or bedsit property was relevant to the Council’s housing allocations scheme and so needed to be clear to applicants.
31. This fault caused Mr X injustice because it meant he incorrectly completed the application form, resulting in him wrongly being denied the opportunity to join the Council’s housing register if he lives in a studio property. If Mr X does live in a studio property, then he should have met the criteria to join the Council’s housing register.
32. However, this injustice was limited because the Council has confirmed the average waiting time for a two-bed property in its area is eight years. Therefore, while Mr X was waiting for his complaint to be resolved, he likely did not miss out on an offer of a property, because it is unlikely he would have been offered a property in less than eight years of joining the Council’s housing register.
33. The Council has now changed its housing allocations scheme and so Mr X would no longer meet the criteria to join its housing register if he applied now. However, the Council confirmed to us that if it had accepted Mr X’s original application when he made it, he would still be on its housing register now and could bid on properties.
34. The Council told us if Mr X could confirm to it that he lives in a studio property, it will review if that means he meets the criteria to join its housing register and if he does, it will allow him to join it.

Complaint handling

35. The Council accepted it delayed its response to Mr X’s complaint. It apologised and offered him £50 to acknowledge the frustration caused to Mr X by the delays.
36. The Council’s apology and offer of a financial symbolic remedy is in-line with our guidance on remedies and therefore there is no further remedy needed on this point.

Communication

37. Mr X complained about poor communication by the Council. He said he often did not receive responses to his messages.
38. I have not seen all the Council’s communication with Mr X, but the Council accepted there was a delay assigning a caseworker to his case due to high demand. Therefore, on balance, it is likely Mr X experienced poor communication because he did not have an assigned caseworker to respond to his messages until after he made his second complaint to the Council.
39. Mr X said he did not understand the housing process, and no one explained it to him. This poor communication caused uncertainty and frustration for Mr X because he did not know if he had an active housing application or if he could bid on properties.

Service Improvements

40. Where we find fault by an organisation, we can recommend changes to improve how the organisation delivers its services to prevent the same issue happening to others.
41. In response to previous decisions, the Council has sent us evidence it has taken action to reduce delays in assessing homelessness cases and improve its complaints handling and communication. Therefore, we are already aware of the steps the Council is taking to address those faults identified in this decision, so we will not make any further service improvement recommendations on this point. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the Council’s actions through our casework.
42. The Council has now changed its housing allocation scheme. Therefore, we will not recommend the Council change the wording on its housing register application form, because the faults identified in this complaint would not be relevant to any future housing register applications.

Back to top

Action

43. Within one month of our final decision, the Council will:
1. apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused to him by the Council’s poor communication and misleading housing application form. This apology should be in accordance with our guidance for making an effective apology.
2. contact Mr X and ask him to confirm if he lives in a studio or bedsit property and then review his housing register application. The Council should:

• review Mr X’s application against the policy which was in force at the time of his original application;
• decide whether he meets the criteria to join its housing register and send this decision to Mr X within four weeks of him confirming what type of property he lives in;
• send the decision with a fresh right of review, which Mr X is free to use if he disagrees with the Council’s decision; and,
• backdate his priority date to the date of his original application, if it decides Mr X qualifies to join its housing register.

44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

45. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman