Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s handling of Mr X’s housing register application in 2017 because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now. There is insufficient evidence of fault to investigate its handling of a fresh application in 2024. Mr X had the right to appeal to the county court in relation to the Council’s homelessness decision in 2025 and it was reasonable for him to exercise that right.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to transfer his housing register over to its new system in 2017 and has failed to explain the reasons for this.
2. Mr X said he made a fresh application in 2024 and was awarded band 3. He asked for a review but did not get a review decision.
3. Mr X also provided decision letters in relation to a homelessness application, which he was unhappy with.
4. Mr X says the Council’s failings had caused him anxiety and stress and had led to a loss of trust in the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. 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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Housing register application prior to 2017

11. Mr X said he applied to the Council’s housing register in 2012, but it failed to move his application to its new system in 2017. The Council told us it had no record that Mr X was on its housing register in 2017 when the changes took place. It also said he had not complained to it about this.
12. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events complained about. Mr X complained to us in August 2025 about events in 2017, which he must have known about by January 2024 when he made a fresh housing register application and likely knew about much earlier than that. There is no evidence Mr X could not have complained to us sooner and no good reasons to decide to investigate now. Given the Council has no record that Mr X had a live application when the changes were made, it is unlikely that we could achieve a worthwhile outcome, even if we decided to investigate.

Housing register application - 2024

13. Mr X made a new housing register application 2024. The Council awarded band 3 with a priority date of January 2024. Mr X sent us an undated letter asking it to review its decision as he considered he should be in band 2. The Council told us it had not received a review request from Mr X, nor any other correspondence from him about a review request.
14. It appears the Council did not receive the review request and Mr X did not follow that up with it. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify further investigation.

Homelessness application

15. In late 2024, Mr X made a homelessness application. In late November 2024, the Council decided Mr X was not in priority need. Mr X asked for a review of that decision. On review, the Council upheld its original decision and explained Mr X could appeal to the county court on a point of law if he disagreed with the decision. It was reasonable for Mr X to use his court appeal rights.
16. Further, unless there was fault in the Council’s decision-making, we cannot comment on the decision reached or ask the Council to reconsider it. The review decision records it had asked Mr X to provide medical reports to support what he said about his health, but he did not provide them. It shows the Council considered relevant factors and explained the reasons for its decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making, based on the records seen, to justify further investigation.
17. For all the above reasons, we will not consider the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about events in 2017 because the complaint is late. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its handling of a 2024 housing register application to justify our involvement. Mr X had the right to appeal to the county court in relation to the homelessness decision and it was reasonable for him to do so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman