Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s rejection of a request for a review of a housing application assessment. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s refusal to allow them to have a review of their housing application assessment because it says they applied outside the timescale. Mr X argued that the Council applied the 21- day period for applying as 21 consecutive days and included weekends even though the Council does not work on weekends. They want the Council to allow a review of its decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr and Mrs X applied for housing on the Council’s housing register. They provided medical evidence for their application for a higher banding priority but this was not accepted as sufficient to change their current banding. The Council issued its decision on 8 April 2024. The decision referred them to the right to request a review of the decision under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996 within 21 days.
6. Mr and Mrs X requested a review on 5 May. The Council rejected the request because this was outside the 21- day period. Mr X complained to the Council and to us because her believes he applied with 21 days if the weekends which the Council included were left out. He says the Council does not work on weekends so this should not have been included.
7. The government guidance published on review for housing applications is the ‘Allocation of accommodation: guidance for local authorities’. This guidance specifies that 21 days from the date the applicant is notified of the decision is a well established and reasonable timescale. This is the same timescale as s.202 homelessness reviews under same 1996 Housing Act. The courts have accepted that the 21 days is calendar days elapsed since the original decision.
8. Councils have discretion to extend the period by written agreement but there is no duty to do this. In this case the Council says the decision was based on its allocations policy and although Mr X disagrees with the interpretation it is likely it would have not changed its view. The Council told Mr X that although his medical evidence prior to the April decision has been considered, he may submit a new assessment review if he has new information which was not previously considered.
9. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
10. In this case the Council applied the 21 days restriction according to the published government guidance.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s rejection of a request for a review of a housing application assessment. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman