Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his housing register application because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. We will not investigate a complaint about the suitability of a property offered because Mr X has review and appeal rights and it is reasonable for him to exercise these.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his housing register application. In particular that the Council:
1. is using an auto-bidding system, which removes his freedom of choice;
2. has sent poor and inconsistent communications and that its communications are not accessible to Mr X due to his medical conditions; and
3. has offered Mr X a property that is unsuitable.
2. Mr X says the Council failings have caused significant distress and confusion.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(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 Ms Y, who is Mr X’s representative, and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

8. In December 2024, the Council accepted Mr X’s housing register application. It awarded band D priority, effective from March 2024, which was the date of his housing register application. The Council assessed Mr X as needing a studio or one bedroom flat. Its decision letter provided a link to its published allocation scheme and explained he could ask for a review within 21 days if he disagreed with its decision.
9. In January 2025, the Council accepted a main homelessness duty. It reviewed his housing register application and awarded band C because he had been homeless for 6 months or more but did not meet its residency criteria. The new band was effective from June 2024, which was the date he made a homelessness application. The decision letter gave information about how to bid and about auto bidding. It also provided a link to the Council’s published allocations scheme.
10. Ms Y raised a number of concerns on behalf of Mr X. She said the Council’s system was not accessible for applicants with additional needs and that the use of auto bidding inappropriately removed Mr X’s choice. The Council explained that auto-bidding was used for those who were homeless, in line with its published scheme, and that Mr X could ask for the review of the suitability of any property offered if he considered it was not suitable for his needs.
11. Ms Y also said a bedsit or studio would not be suitable for Mr X and requested a review of the Council’s decision. The Council considered the medical information it had and asked for advice from independent medical advisers in relation to Mr X’s physical and psychological health. The original decision about priority and housing needs was confirmed on review.
12. Ms Y made a formal complaint. She said auto-bidding unreasonably restricted Mr X’s choice of property, which was particularly important to him due to his medical needs. She said it was not sufficient to send Mr X links in documents and that the process had not been explained in a way he could understand. She said a bedsit or studio was not suitable for Mr X.
13. In response, the Council explained Mr X could bid for properties of his choice and an auto-bidding system was also used in line with its published scheme. It said it was legally required to allocate properties in line with its published scheme, which set out when auto-bidding should be in place. It said it was sorry to hear form of the telephone communications were confusing or inconsistent and acknowledged that, on occasion, clarification was needed. It said it would assign a named officer to support Mr X going forward.
14. In July 2025, the Council offered Mr X a studio flat. Ms Y said this did not meet Mr X’s needs and asked the Council to carry out a review of its suitability. The Council has 56 days to carry out that review.

My assessment

15. The law says councils must allocate social housing in line with their published scheme. The Council’s use of auto-bidding in this case is in line with its published scheme. It has explained this in various letters, both to Mr X and to Ms Y, who has been supporting Ms X since at least January 2025. In addition, the Council offered Mr X the support of a named officer in June 2025. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify further investigation.
16. There appears to have been some confusion between the homelessness and housing register applications, which is understandable, because although they are separate processes, they do use similar terminology (but in different ways) and there are overlaps between them. However, the written communications I have seen are clear and there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
17. The Council explained throughout that, if Mr X did not agree a property offered was suitable, he could ask for a suitability review. If review outcome is that the property offered is suitable, Mr X will have the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. It is reasonable for Mr X to exercise his rights of review and appeal, despite his difficulties, because only the court can determine if the property offered is suitable – that is not a decision we could make.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s about the Council’s handling of his housing register application because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify this. We will not investigate a complaint about the property offered because Mr X has rights of review and appeal and it is reasonable for him to exercise them.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman