Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled its main housing duty. Parts of the complaint are late, and we have decided the remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to close her housing application, and suggestion that she would need to restart the process. Miss X says the Council’s actions have caused her and her child prolonged housing instability and distress. Miss X wants the Council to reinstate her points on the housing allocations scheme.
2. Miss X also complains about the Council’s complaint handling.

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. 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)
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
6. We will not normally investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), or section 34B(8)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Miss X.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman in January 2026. Miss X complains the Council failed to properly discharge its housing duty to her in 2023, when she moved into privately rented accommodation. This part of the complaint is late, and there is no good reason to investigate it now.
10. After moving into the privately rented accommodation, Miss X raised concerns about the property to the Council and asked the Council to consider making her a direct offer of social housing. The Council moved Miss X into temporary accommodation and told Miss X an emergency panel would consider her direct request offer in June 2024. The panel refused Miss X’s request, but the Council did not tell her of the panel’s decision until February 2025, despite her having chased the Council for information in the previous two months. While Miss X did not learn of the decision until February 2025, Miss X knew when to expect the decision and could have protected her position by chasing the Council for an update sooner. So, this part of the complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate it now.
11. The law means we can choose only to investigate a complaint where the person has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the body complained about. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
12. In December 2024, Miss X realised that she was unable to bid on properties under the housing allocation scheme and made repeated efforts to find out why. The Council failed to respond to her information requests until February 2025. I recognise the confusion and frustration Miss X suffered whilst she was unable to get clarity from the Council. However, the injustice caused by the delay is not significant enough to warrant us investigating. At the time of her complaint to the Ombudsman, Miss X was still living in temporary accommodation. This suggests that, even if Miss X had been able to bid on properties earlier, it is unlikely her current circumstances would be significantly different.
13. The Council told Miss X she could not bid on properties under the housing allocation scheme because she needed to make a new application. Miss X says this was wrong. The Council never discharged its housing duty, as per paragraph nine and so it never told her she would have to reapply in future. Miss X complains the Council’s actions mean she has lost her previously amassed points and tenure on the Council’s housing allocations scheme.
14. Except in the case of someone who has been homeless for ten years, the Council’s housing allocations scheme does not give additional preference based on how long they have been on the housing register. I, again, recognise the frustration the Council’s decision will have caused Miss X. However, as Miss X had not been homeless for ten years when she complained to us, Miss X’s position would not be significantly different even accounting for her previous time on the housing register. So, the Council’s decision has not caused significant injustice that warrants investigation.
15. The Council’s housing allocations scheme awards applicants’ points totals based on their circumstances. The Council has considered Miss X’s circumstances and awarded her points accordingly. Where a council acts in line with an agreed policy which has been properly determined we have no powers to intervene. That appears to be the case here. So, we will not investigate this complaint.
16. We will not investigate the way the Council handled the complaint and correspondence. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we decide not to investigate the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because parts of the complaint are late and the remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman