Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to process her housing application and there was delay in responding to her complaint. We found there was a failure to promptly deal with a housing application when submitted in March 2023 and there was significant delay responding to the complaint. We recommended an apology, backdating the priority date of her housing application, and a payment to recognise the distress and frustration caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X says that she first applied to join the Council’s housing register in October 2021. She complains there were delays in processing her application and delays in responding to her complaint about the matter.
2. Miss X is overcrowded at her current property and she is concerned that the delays have disadvantaged her and delayed her being rehoused. She also complains the process was difficult and stressful because of the delays and because English is not her first language.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, 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 the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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 34H(i), as amended)
5. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. Miss X complained to the Council in August 2022. Her complaint included events from 2021. She complained to us in December 2023. We generally expect complaints to be brought to us within 12 months of someone being aware of the issues they raise in their complaint. Although the issues before December 2022 are ‘late’, there was significant delay in the Council’s response to Miss X’s complaint. As a result, we have exercised discretion to consider the events of the complaint back to October 2021. We are considering the complaint up to December 2023 when the complaint was raised with us.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I spoke to Miss X and considered her complaint. I asked the Council for information and considered its response to the complaint.
8. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

9. Miss X complained that the Council failed to process a housing application she completed in October 2021. She stated she completed a form online and was allocated a reference number. However, by August 2022, no-one had contacted her, she had not been added to the housing register and she could not bid for properties.
10. The Council’s initial response to Miss X acknowledged that she had submitted an application. However, contradicting this statement it then stated an application had been saved but not submitted and there was missing information. The Council’s response was poorly written and unclear. On 1 September 2022 Miss X asked the Council to escalate the complaint. She disputed that there was any outstanding information. She doubted that a reference number would be allocated to her if the form was incomplete.
11. In March 2023 Miss X received help to submit a new housing application. Miss X asked for it to be fast-tracked. There is evidence on the Council’s case notes to confirm the application had been submitted/received this time.
12. In April 2023 Miss X chased for a response to her complaint escalation and complained there had been no response to her housing application submission in March 2023.
13. In July 2023 the Council asked Miss X for further information to support her application. Miss X provided this in August 2023.
14. There was significant delay in the Council responding to the housing application and Miss X’s request to escalate her complaint. It responded to both in February 2024.
15. The Council confirmed that on 19 February 2024 Miss X was placed in housing priority band three. It stated it had backdated her priority date to 23 August 2023, this was when it received additional documents, making the application complete.
16. The Council told us that housing applications could be saved, and not submitted. When an application is saved, it is allocated a reference number. Based on the information available, it appears that the original application Miss X completed in 2021 was saved, rather than submitted. It was only submitted in March 2023 when Miss X received some further assistance.
17. The Council’s response to Miss X’s complaint acknowledged there had been significant delays in acting on her complaint. It offered her £270 to recognise the delay in acting on the housing application and the significant delay responding to her complaint.

What should have happened

18. 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.
19. Based on the evidence available, it seems more likely than not, that Miss X saved, but did not submit a housing application in 2021. So, I do not find there was a failure to process the application between 2021 and March 2023 when she received help and an application was submitted.
20. However, there was delay in acting on the application between March and July 2023 and again between August 2023 and February 2024. This is around 8 months of avoidable delay (allowing appropriate time to act on the documents received). I note the Council has backdated Miss X’s priority date to August 2023 to reflect the delay after that point. However, Miss X responded promptly when the Council sought further documents from her. So, if the Council acted promptly when it received the application in March 2023, it seems likely that the application should have been completed by May 2023. Therefore, I have recommended the Council amends her priority date to 1 May 2023. The Council will also check that Miss X has not missed out on properties between 1 May 2023 to date, had she been afforded the ability to bid from properties during this time. If it finds that she has missed out, it will place her on the direct offer list to ensure she is found a property as quickly as possible.
21. There was also significant delay in responding to Miss X’s complaint. It took the Council around 17 months to respond to her complaint at stage two of the complaints process. This is significant and avoidable delay which was frustrating and stressful for Miss X. This too was fault and warrants a remedy payment to acknowledge the impact.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. Within four weeks of my final decision:
23. The Council should apologise in writing to Miss X for the fault we have identified. The apology should adhere to our guidance on making effective apologies. This can be found on our website, within our Guidance on Remedy here.
24. The Council should change Miss X’s Priority banding Date to 1 May 2023 and it should carry out a check of whether Miss X missed out on a property between May 2023 and the date she was able to start bidding for properties. If it finds she missed out on a suitable property, it should place her on the Direct Offer List to ensure a property is provided as quickly as possible. It should write and confirm the outcome of the check to Miss X.
25. The Council should make a payment of £300 to Miss X to recognise the distress and frustration that the delays in responding to her complaint have caused.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

27. There was fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman