Ombudsman Reports - Housing complaint

This is an extract of complaints resolved by the Ombudsman Office in 2025. The Chronicle will publish a report fortnightly.

REPORT ON CASE NO. 1289 

Complaint 

The complaint concerned the Housing Authority’s handling of the Complainant’s application for Government housing. The main issues were his categorisation on the Housing Waiting List, the delay in obtaining a social inquiry report, the failure to provide clear reasons for decisions made by the Housing Allocation Committee (“HAC”), and the failure to provide a substantive written response to representations made on his behalf. 

The Complainant was a divorced father of three children. When he applied for Government accommodation in April 2020, he stated that he had no fixed address and included his three children on his application. Despite this, he was placed on the standard 1RKB waiting list rather than being considered for a larger property or for Social A categorisation, which applies to applicants considered to be homeless. 

The Complainant was concerned that his circumstances had not been properly assessed and that he had not been given an adequate explanation for the decision not to treat him as homeless. 

Background 

Following the breakdown of his marriage, the Complainant experienced housing difficulties and lived in temporary accommodation. He explained that he could not afford suitable private accommodation because of his financial circumstances, including maintenance payments to his former wife. 

In April 2020, he submitted an application for Government housing. Although he stated that he had no fixed address and included his children on the application, he was placed on the 1RKB waiting list. 

In February 2023, the Complainant sought assistance from Action for Housing. The organisation raised concerns with Housing about the handling of his application, particularly the absence of a social inquiry report and the failure to explain why he had not been categorised as homeless. 

Following this intervention, Housing agreed to commission a social inquiry report. The report was eventually considered by HAC, but no social recommendation was made. The Complainant was advised that his application should continue through the standard 1RKB process. 

Action for Housing wrote to Housing again in March 2024 requesting an explanation for the decision. Although the correspondence was acknowledged, no substantive written response was provided. A formal complaint was therefore made to the Ombudsman on the Complainant’s behalf. 

Investigation 

The Ombudsman sought information from Housing concerning the history of the application and the decisions taken by HAC. 

Housing explained that a social inquiry report had been prepared in December 2023 and presented to HAC. It stated that cases could not normally be reconsidered until six months had elapsed and that, when the case was revisited, an updated report was requested. 

Housing also maintained that HAC was not required to provide reasons for its decisions. It explained that the Complainant had not produced sufficient legal documentation to establish shared care of his children and that, without this evidence, he had been placed on the 1RKB list. 

The Ombudsman was concerned that HAC had considered the Complainant’s circumstances without first having the benefit of a social inquiry report. She also questioned why he had not been given a clear written explanation of the decision affecting his housing categorisation. 

In January 2025, Housing provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the relevant social report and confirmed that HAC had again made no social recommendation. However, the Complainant had been awarded 1,000 discretionary points, moving him significantly higher on the 1RKB waiting list. 

Housing explained that HAC did not normally disclose the reasons for social-list decisions because doing so could potentially encourage applicants to manipulate their circumstances in order to qualify for housing. 

Conclusions 

The Ombudsman found shortcomings in the way the Complainant’s application had been handled. 

She was particularly concerned that HAC had considered the case in April 2023 without first having a social inquiry report. The report was only commissioned after Action for Housing intervened. This raised concerns about whether the Complainant’s circumstances had been adequately assessed from the outset. 

The Ombudsman accepted that HAC was not subject to an absolute legal requirement to provide reasons for every decision. Nevertheless, she considered that good administrative practice required a public authority to provide an explanation, particularly where a decision had a significant effect on an individual seeking public housing. 

The absence of reasons meant that the Complainant could not properly understand why he had not been socially categorised. It also made it more difficult for him to challenge the decision, provide additional evidence or determine what steps he might take to improve his position. The Ombudsman considered this inconsistent with the principles of fairness, transparency and accountability expected of a public authority. 

The Ombudsman was also critical of Housing’s failure to provide a formal written response to Action for Housing’s letter of 4 March 2024. Given the seriousness of the concerns raised, an acknowledgement or informal discussion was not considered an adequate substitute for a clear written response. 

Regarding the Complainant’s children, the Ombudsman accepted that Housing was entitled to require appropriate legal documentation to establish shared care. However, she considered that the reason why the evidence was regarded as insufficient should have been clearly communicated to the Complainant. 

The Ombudsman also considered the award of 1,000 discretionary points. She noted that these points had not been awarded by HAC as part of the established social categorisation process, but through a separate administrative mechanism. At the time of the investigation, she was concerned that the existing Housing Allocation Scheme did not clearly provide for such an award. 

Classification 

Sustained 

The complaint was upheld. The Ombudsman concluded that Housing’s handling of the application did not meet the standards of good administrative practice expected of a public authority. 

Recommendation 

The Ombudsman recommended that Housing consider adopting a practice of providing brief, non-prejudicial explanations for HAC decisions where appropriate. 

The recommendation did not mean that Housing should disclose confidential information or details that could undermine the integrity of the housing allocation system. Rather, applicants should receive sufficient information to understand the basis of an important decision affecting their housing application. 

Ombudsman Note 

The Ombudsman highlighted that Case 1289 illustrated a wider concern about transparency in public-service decision-making. 

In April 2025, Action for Housing brought another complaint concerning an elderly woman who had been seeking assistance with her housing situation since November 2023. Despite not having her own home, she had not been categorised as homeless, and HAC had again failed to provide reasons for its decision despite repeated requests. 

The Ombudsman therefore reiterated her view that a refusal to provide any meaningful explanation could be unfair and inconsistent with good administrative practice. 

Since completion of the report, the Housing Allocation Rules 2026 have been published, replacing the former Housing Allocation Scheme 1994. The new rules now contain a formal mechanism allowing HAC to award 1,000 discretionary points. 

Overall, Case 1289 demonstrates that the Ombudsman’s concern was not simply whether Housing reached the correct substantive decision, but whether the process used to reach and communicate that decision was fair, transparent and accountable. The case emphasises that individuals affected by decisions of public bodies should receive meaningful information about those decisions, enabling them to understand their position and, where appropriate, challenge or clarify the outcome.