Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of long-standing anti-social behaviour concerns and about the Council’s handling of her housing application. Ms X also complained the Council did not have regard for her vulnerabilities. We have found the Council at fault for failing to consider acting earlier than it did at key points, and for some delays in completing reviews. We have also found the Council at fault for some of its communication. These faults caused avoidable uncertainty and distress for Ms X. We have not found fault with the conduct of the ASB case review in 2025. We cannot therefore question the outcome. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, correct inaccurate information provided to other agencies, and pay Ms X a financial remedy to recognise the uncertainty caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained:
1. The Council failed to properly investigate or respond to reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) over a prolonged period.
2. The Council failed to properly administer her housing application.
3. The Council failed to account for her vulnerability and personal circumstances in its actions.
2. Ms X said the Council’s faults delayed her joining its housing register and delayed her obtaining the correct priority. She said she missed housing opportunities, meaning she has been affected by antisocial behaviour in her current home longer than she otherwise would. This caused avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
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)
6. 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.
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
8. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. Part of Ms X’s complaint to the Council concerned a decision not to proceed with works proposed under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). This concerned events that happened more than 12 months before Ms X’s approach to the Ombudsman. I have not identified a good reason a complaint about these matters could not have been brought sooner. The restriction in paragraph 5 therefore applies and I have not investigated this matter.
10. Ms X approached the Ombudsman in June 2025. The 12-month time bar therefore applies from June 2024. However, I have exercised discretion to consider some matters that occurred from September 2023 onwards. This is because these events are directly relevant to the injustice Ms X claims as part of her complaint.
11. Part of Ms X’s complaint to the Ombudsman concerned the Council’s communications with other local authorities about her housing application. Some of these communications occurred after Ms X’s approach to the Ombudsman, but before the Ombudsman made enquiries to the Council. I consider it would not be reasonable for Ms X to make a separate complaint to the Council about these matters. I have considered Ms X’s vulnerability, the fact these communications relate directly to the subject of Ms X’s complaint, and the fact the Council was able to comment on this as part of the Ombudsman’s enquiries.
12. This decision statement sets out the Ombudsman’s findings on two separate investigations, relating to the Council’s handling of Ms X’s reports of ASB and Ms X’s housing application.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
14. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Homelessness

15. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
16. Section 175(3) says someone should not be treated as having accommodation unless it is reasonable for them to continue to live there. There are several provisions relating to whether or not it is reasonable for someone to continue to occupy accommodation. These include, but are not limited to:
• The risk of domestic abuse or other violence.
• Affordability.
• General housing conditions in the area.
• Factors such as property characteristics, the type of accommodation, or whether someone is fleeing harassment.
17. There is no simple test of reasonableness. It is for the housing authority to make a judgement on the facts of each case, taking into account the circumstances of the applicant.

Housing allocations

18. The Council publishes its allocations scheme on its website. The scheme confirms the Council transferred its housing stock to Provider B in the past. However, the Council maintains a housing register and retains nomination rights to properties managed by registered providers in its district. The Council’s allocations scheme has five priority bands, Bands A to E, with Band A being the highest. The scheme confirms the Council has discretion to consider awarding higher priority in cases where individual circumstances support it.
19. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority. Statutory guidance says review procedures should be clear and fair, and should normally be completed within a set deadline. Eight weeks is suggested as reasonable.

ASB case review

20. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a way to review the handling of complaints of anti-social behaviour (ASB). This is the anti-social behaviour case review, which was previously known as the ‘Community Trigger’.
21. When a person asks for a review, relevant bodies (which may include the council, police and others) should decide whether it meets the local threshold. Relevant local bodies should agree their review threshold, but the ASB statutory guidance says this should be, at a maximum, that a complainant has made three reports of ASB within six months.
22. If the threshold is met, the relevant bodies should carry out the review. They should share information, consider what action has already been taken, decide whether more should be done, and then tell the complainant the outcome. If they decide to take more action, they should create an action plan.
23. We can only consider councils’ actions in an ASB case review. We cannot investigate or make findings about any contribution made by other relevant bodies, such as the police.

ASB statutory guidance for professionals

24. The Government has published statutory guidance for frontline professionals, setting out how professionals, including councils, should apply their anti-social behaviour powers. This guidance:
• Recommends relevant bodies consider completing a case review when the threshold has been met, even if the victim has not requested one.
• Says relevant bodies should consider vulnerability when assessing potential harm. The guidance says alleged behaviour that falls below the level of harassment, alarm or distress may not meet the designated threshold for consideration; however, when assessed on the grounds of potential harm to the victim, it may be considered the threshold for consideration has been met.
• Says agencies must try to clearly explain the ASB case review process to all victims that make a second report of ASB in a six-month period, whether or not they meet the threshold criteria.
25. The Council publishes both its anti-social behaviour policy and its ASB case review procedure on its website. The Council’s ASB case review procedure says:
1. The Council will be responsible for coordinating and administering the case review meeting.
2. The local threshold for a case review is three separate qualifying complaints in a six-month period.
1. The Council’s ASB case review process also sets out the timescales associated with the procedure:
1. Within five working days of considering the application, the Council will confirm whether the threshold for a case review has been met. If so, the Council will invite the applicant to the meeting, along with partner agencies and victim support services.
2. Within five working days of the ASB case review meeting, the Council will send the applicant a written summary of the actions agreed. The Council will then conduct regular reviews with partner agencies.
3. The Council will close the case if it is satisfied the actions have been completed and the applicant is no longer reporting ASB.
4. An applicant can appeal the outcome of a case review meeting within 10 days of receiving an action plan. The process states an applicant cannot appeal solely on the grounds they are unhappy with the outcome.

Ombudsman’s role

26. The Ombudsman’s role is to review how councils have made decisions, in the course of performing their duties. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant evidence, or not properly explained the reason it has made a decision. We call this ‘fault’, and, where we find it, we can consider the consequence of the fault and ask the council to address this.
27. But we do not provide a right of appeal against a council’s decisions, and we cannot make operational or policy decisions on a council’s behalf. If a council has acted without fault, then we cannot criticise it, even if a complainant feels strongly that its decision is wrong. We cannot uphold a complaint simply because someone disagrees with what a council has done.

Back to top

What I found

Key events

28. Below is a summary of the relevant key events. It does not detail every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.

2023

29. In September 2023, the Council decided Ms X did not have a housing need and did not qualify to join its housing register. Ms X sought a review of that decision, citing her medical conditions and alleged ASB perpetrated by her neighbours, including threats and intimidating behaviour. The Council confirmed it would review its decision. In November 2023, the Council extended the deadline for Ms X to provide evidence in support of her review. In December 2023, the Council admitted Ms X onto its housing register, under priority Band D, pending further evidence from Ms X.
30. The Council’s ASB team visited Ms X. It said it had not found any evidence of ASB during the visit, while noting Ms X’s assertion that ASB was more prevalent during the summer. Ms X told the Council she could not spend time in the summer avoiding being at home for fear of ASB. She said she found herself in dangerous situations trying to avoid being at home. She highlighted her autism and said the Council had not accounted for the specific impact this had on her. Ms X wanted to move.

2024

31. In January 2024, an advocacy organisation sent medical information supporting Ms X’s case to the Council to consider.
32. In February 2024, the advocacy organisation wrote to the Council again. It reported Ms X’s attempts to arrange a mutual exchange had been unsuccessful, as prospective applicants were deterred by Ms X’s neighbours’ conduct. The advocacy organisation said it had seen evidence of these messages. It also stated Ms X had been sleeping in her car and placing herself in unsafe situations to avoid returning home. The organisation asked what action the Council was taking to support Ms X and what housing priority it had given her.
33. In March 2024, the Council asked its independent medical advisor to assess Ms X’s evidence and make recommendations about Ms X’s health priority. The advisor recommended priority Band C, noting Ms X’s current home made her health conditions worse. The Council agreed to this recommendation and told Ms X this. Ms X asked the Council to review this decision. She believed she should be given higher priority.
34. In April 2024, Ms X reported noise issues with her neighbour. The Council said Ms X asked the Council to remove her from assisted bidding, as she did not like the properties the Council was bidding on. She also asked to be considered for sheltered accommodation normally reserved for over 55’s. Provider B agreed the Council could nominate Ms X to these properties.
35. In May 2024, Ms X’s Member of Parliament (MP) wrote to the Council, setting out the impact on Ms X. They asked whether the Council could do anything to support Ms X to move. The Council responded, setting out Ms X’s current priority and bidding options, as well as options such as mutual exchange. It also said Ms X’s landlord, a housing association, was considering a managed move for Ms X.
36. In May and June 2024, the Council attended safeguarding meetings chaired by professionals in the NHS. Ms X, her landlord and others also attended these meetings. The impact on Ms X was discussed. The Council’s housing services raised concerns to its ASB service, stating Ms X had reported alleged drug use and noise from her neighbours, and said she was occasionally sleeping in her car.
37. In July 2024, a support organisation emailed the Council, setting out their concerns for Ms X’s welfare. The Council asked if a safeguarding concern had been raised. It said it had asked Ms X’s landlord to consider a managed move for Ms X, given the complex situation. The organisation responded, explaining Ms X’s landlord had referred them to the Council for help with Ms X’s rehousing and support.
38. In August 2024, the Council sent its independent medical advisor supporting information for Ms X, asking them to review Ms X’s medical need. The Council set out details of the recent meetings and reports it had received. Many of the submissions from professionals advocated for Ms X to be rehoused. The Council also nominated Ms X to Provider B for a property. Later in August, the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) completed an investigation against Ms X’s landlord. In its determination, the HOS criticised elements of the landlord’s response to Ms X’s reports of ASB. It ordered Ms X’s landlord to contact Ms X and follow up on reports of noise and alleged drug use by neighbours. Ms X sent a copy of the HOS’s findings to the Council.
39. In September 2024, the Council asked Provider B to consider Ms X for Property J. The Council also provided other nominees, but reiterated it was nominating Ms X for Provider B to consider. The Council’s independent medical advisor recommended Ms X remain Band C, though stated Ms X needed a move to a new property. The Council wrote to Ms X to confirm its review had resulted in no additional medical priority. Ms X asked the Council to review this decision again.
40. Ms X was not successful for Property J. Ms X told the Council she had contacted Provider B and they seemed unaware she should be considered. The Council contacted Provider B, who said they had considered Ms X and the other nominations for Property J, but the other nominees had had higher priority than Ms X. The Council asked Provider B to contact Ms X to explain this. In an update to the Council, Provider B said it told Ms X it had not overlooked her nomination and had considered her, but she had not been shortlisted for Property J. The Council said it spoke with Ms X and explained she would be considered along with other eligible applicants, but this did not mean she would be offered every property she was nominated for.
41. In October 2024, local social services contacted the Council, raising concerns about Ms X’s wellbeing and seeking updates on her housing situation. The Council said it had updated Ms X on her housing options. It said any ASB concerns should be reported to the Police and it would need Ms X’s consent to discuss the matter any further.
42. Ms X’s landlord asked if the Council could reassess Ms X’s housing needs. The Council said it had assessed Ms X as being Band C. Ms X and the Council discussed whether she should apply as homeless, with Ms X believing this would increase her priority. The Council said applying as homeless would limit the number of offers of accommodation Ms X would receive and there was no guarantee Ms X would be able to secure certain types of accommodation. The Council also confirmed to Ms X it received her review request.
43. In November 2024, Ms X’s landlord wrote to the Council and partner agencies. The landlord detailed three alleged incidents of ASB, included abuse directed towards Ms X. The landlord said Ms X would share footage of the incident and report the matter to the Police.
44. In December 2024, the Council wrote to Ms X to highlight a potentially suitable property and asked if Ms X wanted to be nominated for it. Ms X declined, as she said it would be too small for her and her dogs. The Council completed its review of Ms X’s medical priority and upheld its previous decision of Band C.
45. Having gained Ms X’s consent, local social services contacted the Council to follow up on their previous concerns.

2025

46. In January 2025, social services contacted the Council again, seeking a response. The Council said social services were offering support and Ms X should follow up with her landlord. It said Ms X could bid for +55 properties and had declined assisted bidding. Later that month, a Victim Support organisation told the Council it was supporting Ms X.
47. In February 2025, Ms X provided further supporting evidence from her doctor, advocating for Ms X to be rehoused. The NHS contacted the Council to follow up on the previous safeguarding meetings, asking for an update on housing actions. The Council said it spoke almost daily with Ms X. It said its ASB team, along with Ms X’s landlord and the Police, were investigating Ms X’s concerns about her neighbours’ actions. It set out Ms X’s current housing options. Around this time, Ms X applied for an ASB case review, setting out the history of ASB perpetrated by her neighbours.
48. In March 2025, local social services completed a housing needs assessment for Ms X and sent it to the Council. It highlighted the seriousness of Ms X’s situation and recommended Ms X be moved as a priority. The Council said social services should send the report to Ms X’s landlord. It said Ms X’s ASB concerns would be discussed at the upcoming ASB case review.
49. In correspondence with Ms X’s landlord, which the Council was copied into, social services said there had been an escalation in the ASB Ms X experienced and Ms X needed to be moved. Social services said they had seen recordings of abusive behaviour from Ms X’s neighbours. They said Ms X was vulnerable and she could not stay at home to report ASB.
50. In April 2025, the ASB case review meeting took place. Ms X attended the review meeting, along with the Council, Ms X’s landlord, the Police, and Victim Support. The day after the meeting, the Council wrote to Ms X detailing the outcome of the review and setting out an action plan. This said:
• There would be a designated point of contact for Ms X.
• Ms X should use the ASB app to record noise nuisance, and complete and return ASB diary sheets.
• Ms X should engage with mental health support services while exploring alternative accommodation options.
• Ms X’s landlord would take further actions and the Police would conduct regular patrols.
• The Council, Ms X’s landlord, the Police and Victim Support would meet regularly to review any new concerns.
51. Ms X wrote to the Council to appeal the outcome of the ASB case review. She said she had reported concerns multiple times and the agencies involved had taken no action. She sought higher housing priority and firmer action against her neighbours.
52. The Council received written concerns from another local authority, following Ms X’s visit to their offices. The authority said services had been long aware of her vulnerability and ongoing alleged ASB by neighbours, which had significantly affected her mental health. It said Ms X was unable to safely use her home or garden due to threats, intimidation and abuse. It said Ms X could not stay with family or afford to rent privately, and a social services assessment recommending a move had not been acted upon. The authority said the recent case review would not address Ms X’s needs. It queried an apparent lack of action and asked the Council to provide practical support.
53. In response, the Council referred to the considerations at the recent ASB case review and the regular reviews that would follow. It said it would pass the authority’s concerns to its housing services. It said Ms X’s landlord handled managed moves.
54. Ms X complained to the Council. She said it had failed to act on her housing situation, ignoring evidence that harassment and threats from her neighbours related to her disability were harming her health.
55. The Council wrote to Ms X advising it had not upheld her appeal against the outcome of the ASB case review. The Council said appeals could not be upheld solely because the applicant disagreed with the outcome. Ms X said this decision was discriminatory, as the Council was asking her to take actions that disproportionately affected her wellbeing due to her disability.
56. In May 2025, the Council held a further ASB case review meeting. Notes of the meeting show a needs assessment was pending and that Ms X had declined referrals and safeguarding concerns. The notes stated Ms X had declined support with property searches and supported bidding, and declined offers. It said there had been no further ASB reports since April 2025 and the case review would be closed if this remained the case.
57. In mid-May 2025, the Council’s housing panel considered Ms X’s circumstances and increased her priority to Band B.
58. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint:
• It said Ms X had turned down nominations to two properties the previous year. It said it had nominated Ms X to Property J. It said Provider B had shortlisted a nominee with higher priority than Ms X, but not all staff were aware Ms X had been considered for the shortlist. The Council said Provider B gave Ms X the wrong information.
• The Council said it had completed an ASB case review and issued an action plan.
• The Council accepted Ms X had experienced significant stress and felt at threat of harm. It said it had agreed to increase Ms X’s priority to Band B, which would increase the likelihood of a successful move. It apologised if it had made Ms X feel ignored, saying this was not its intention.
59. Later in May 2025, the Council wrote to Ms X, confirming it had closed the ASB case review, as there had been no further reports of ASB.
60. Ms X escalated her complaint, citing disagreement with the content, which she said was inaccurate. She told the Council she was staying outside in her car until late in the evening to avoid being in the house. She asked if she could be temporarily rehoused until more suitable permanent housing became available.
61. In June 2025, the Council and Ms X discussed housing priority, with the Council advising Band A priority was for exceptional circumstances. The Council’s notes show Ms X did not want to submit a homelessness application to the Council or want temporary accommodation at the time. The Council agreed to ask other nearby local authorities if they would consider adding Ms X to their housing registers.
62. The Council wrote to multiple other local authorities to enquire about Ms X joining their housing registers. The Council did not have a nominations agreement with the other authorities and understood Ms X should apply. Each of the other authorities confirmed Ms X would need to apply directly.
63. The Council responded to Ms X’s stage two complaint:
• Ms X had complained an officer had threatened to have Ms X sectioned on mental health grounds. The Council said the officer had contacted emergency services due to a genuinely held view that Ms X was at risk. The Council said it was satisfied these actions were appropriate.
• The Council said there had been insufficient evidence to determine ASB from Ms X’s neighbours. It did not agree it had been dismissive of Ms X’s concerns, citing the volume of correspondence exchanged and meetings held with partner organisations. It said it had followed its case review procedure and closed Ms X’s case when there were no further reports of ASB. It said Ms X should report further concerns to the Council or Police.
• The Council said it would not comment further on Property J. It recognised Ms X had not actually received an offer of accommodation, but it had contacted Ms X to ask if she would be happy to be nominated to certain properties. Ms X had not considered these properties suitable and so had declined.
64. Between July and October 2025:
• The Council’s records show Ms X did not want to make a homelessness application with the Council, instead advising the Council she would apply directly to other authorities.
• The Council reiterated it could not nominate Ms X to other authorities directly without a homelessness application being registered with the Council.
• The Council asked Ms X whether she wanted the Council to look at temporary accommodation for her and assist her with completing an application. The Council said Ms X declined, as she did not want to leave her dogs.
• Authority Z told Ms X it understood she had been allocated multiple housing offers and was not homeless. It said it would be closing Ms X’s application and Ms X should liaise with the Council.

Analysis

Did the Council act with fault?

Anti-social behaviour

65. The evidence shows the Council and its partner agencies were aware of Ms X’s concerns over a prolonged period. As per paragraph 23, the Ombudsman can only consider the Council’s actions. I cannot consider the actions of the Police, or Ms X’s landlord. Within the scope of this investigation, the Council was aware of Ms X’s concerns from September 2023.
66. Between late 2023 and mid-2024, Ms X’s landlord appears to have taken the lead in responding to Ms X’s concerns about ASB. However, I would note that during this period, the Council received detailed reports from Ms X and others acting on her behalf. These reports, summarised above, came from advocacy and advice organisations, Ms X’s MP, and Ms X herself. The Council also attended safeguarding meetings led by NHS partners. The Council therefore had clear sight of the impact of events on Ms X’s wellbeing.
67. It is also of note the HOS issued a determination against Ms X’s landlord in August 2024, finding evidence of maladministration in respect of its handling of Ms X’s reports of ASB. The HOS ordered Ms X’s landlord to contact Ms X and follow up on her reports of noise and alleged drug use. The Council had sight of this determination, as Ms X shared it with the Council.
68. I consider the multiple reports received from different agencies and Ms X, the clear and sustained record of concern for Ms X’s wellbeing and potential harms, and the HOS determination against a relevant body in the case review procedure, provided the Council with sufficient cause to highlight the case review mechanism to Ms X, as per paragraph 24. Further, given the emphasis on Ms X’s risk of harm and vulnerability, the Council should also proactively have considered conducting a case review, in accordance with the statutory guidance. I have found it at fault for not doing so.
69. The Council conducted an ASB case review in April 2025, following Ms X’s application. The evidence seen demonstrates the Council followed the timescales and procedure set out in its ASB case review process from that point. I have not found the Council at fault for this. I recognise Ms X strongly disagreed with the outcomes of the review and the action plan issued. As I have not found fault with the conduct of the procedure, I cannot question the outcome.
70. The Council considered Ms X’s appeal and rejected it on the grounds appeals cannot be made solely on the applicant being unhappy with the outcome. This decision was in accordance with the Council’s policy. I have not found the Council at fault for the conduct of the appeal and cannot therefore question this decision.
71. The evidence shows the Council conducted follow-up reviews with its partner agencies after it issued the action plan. The Council decided to close the review because it had received no further reports. This decision was in accordance with the Council’s policy. I have not found the Council at fault for the conduct of its follow up reviews and I cannot therefore question the decision itself.

Housing application

72. Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing application falls into three main areas: the timeliness and conduct of reviews; her nomination to properties and the Council’s information sharing with other authorities; and the Council’s consideration of Ms X’s circumstances.

Reviews

73. In September 2023, the Council decided Ms X did not have a housing need and did not admit her to its housing register. Ms X used her review rights and the Council changed its decision after considering Ms X’s evidence submissions. The Ombudsman would expect someone to use their review right, as this is the correct way to challenge an adverse housing decision. There was some delay in the time taken to complete the review, but I note the Council extended the deadline for Ms X to provide supporting evidence, which added to this delay. Overall, I have not found the Council at fault for its initial decision or the conduct of this review.
74. An advocacy organisation sought clarity around Ms X’s priority in January 2024. This led the Council to seek advice from its independent medical advisor in March 2024, in turn leading to the Council awarding Ms X Band C priority. There was some delay in the Council acting on the organisation’s request, though I note this delay allowed the Council to receive more supporting evidence, such as a letter from Ms X’s doctor and updated comments from the advocacy organisation. This evidence was then considered by the medical advisor, when it may not have been if the Council had sought an assessment earlier. Even with the slight delay, the review itself was completed in just over eight weeks. On balance, I have not found this delay amounted to fault.
75. Ms X sought a review of her priority on 26 March 2024. Eight weeks from this date would have been on or around 21 May 2024. The Council did not complete a review and update Ms X until 25 September 2024, a delay of around 18 weeks, confirming Ms X remained at Band C priority. Ms X sought a further review on the same day. The Council completed this subsequent review by 19 December 2024, a delay of around four weeks, again confirming Ms X remained Band C.
76. I have found the Council at fault for these delays.

Nominations and information sharing with other authorities

77. A significant part of Ms X’s complaint concerns the opportunity for her to have successfully been offered Property J. Ms X said this did not happen, because of communication issues between the Council and Provider B.
78. The evidence shows the Council and Provider B agreed Ms X, on account of her vulnerability, could be nominated to properties usually only offered to people over 55. This arrangement was discretionary, with the evidence suggesting the procedure was for the Council to nominate Ms X to potentially suitable properties, in addition to – but not instead of – other applicants it would normally nominate. This means Provider B would consider whether to shortlist Ms X for properties the Council had nominated her for. Provider B would consider Ms X alongside the other nominations or bidders, and shortlist based on factors such as priority or registration date.
79. I have seen evidence the Council nominated Ms X for Property J, along with other applicants. Provider B appears then to have shortlisted other suitable applicants, after consideration. However, the fact Ms X had been considered, but not shortlisted, was not clearly communicated between staff at Provider B. I understand the staff member Ms X initially spoke with at Provider B dealt only with the shortlisted applicants and so was unaware of other staff members’ consideration before this. This led Ms X to understand she had been overlooked for Property J.
80. I recognise Ms X’s significant disappointment in not being successful for Property J. The evidence seen does not suggest fault in how the property was allocated. However, there was fault in how the process was explained and communicated to Ms X at the time. As Provider B was acting on the Council’s behalf in managing its allocations, the Ombudsman would consider the Council remains ultimately responsible for this communication and for ensuring Ms X was properly informed. I have found the Council at fault for the poor communication to Ms X.
81. Ms X told the Ombudsman the Council gave incorrect information to other local authorities, suggesting Ms X had rejected offers of accommodation when she had not. Ms X said other local authorities decided not to proceed with her homelessness applications, as they understood she had rejected properties and was adequately housed. Ms X said she had never been offered a property.
82. The Council had been assisting Ms X with bidding, contacting her to ask whether she wanted the Council to nominate her to certain properties. Ms X declined to be nominated to some properties, as she did not think they were in suitable locations, or suitable for her dogs. The distinction between declining nominations and declining offers is important. In some allocations schemes, an authority will nominate an applicant to a property and if an applicant then declines this, this can be considered a refusal, depending on the details of the scheme. However, the Council’s allocations scheme does not make clear whether an applicant declining a nomination constitutes a refusal. Further, refusing a nomination would require the nomination to have been formally made, before being refused. This is not what happened in Ms X’s case: the Council did not actually nominate Ms X to these properties, as she declined to be nominated at all.
83. The issue in this case seems to have arisen due to conflating Ms X declining to be nominated with Ms X declining accommodation. The Council confirmed to me that in July 2025, it told Authority Z Ms X had refused offers of accommodation. It accepted Ms X had not actually been formally nominated to these properties. I welcome the Council accepting this point and have found the Council at fault for its miscommunication with Authority Z.

Consideration of circumstances and priority over time

84. I have not found the Council at fault for the way it considered and awarded medical priority following each review. While I recognise Ms X strongly disagreed with the outcomes, I have not identified any flaws in the procedure followed, other than the delays set out above. Ms X was able to exercise her review rights each time. As I have not identified fault with the procedure, I cannot question the outcome.
85. However, medical priority is only one factor that determines overall priority banding. I have not seen evidence that, at an earlier stage, the Council considered whether it was reasonable for Ms X to continue to remain in her home, or whether the impact of her circumstances and her vulnerability meant she was effectively homeless. As paragraph 17 sets out, there is no simple test of reasonableness and it is a nuanced question for authorities to consider, accounting for multiple factors.
86. I believe it is of note the Council increased Ms X’s priority to Band B in May 2025. This shows the Council considered Ms X’s circumstances holistically, which is positive. The Council utilised the discretion afforded to it in its allocations scheme and awarded Ms X the same priority she would have, were she be considered homeless. However, given concerns about Ms X’s situation were significant, longstanding and consistently raised by multiple professionals, advocacy services and Ms X herself, I believe there was cause for the Council to consider Ms X’s circumstances in a more holistic manner much sooner. I have found the Council at fault for not turning its mind to this question earlier.

Regard for vulnerabilities

87. In many respects, the Council showed a demonstrable regard for Ms X’s vulnerabilities. For example:
• It accounted for evidence it received when deciding medical priority.
• Ms X’s vulnerabilities were a factor in discussions at the ASB case review and safeguarding meetings.
• It liaised with other agencies, such as health professionals, advocacy services and emergency services where it felt necessary.
• It arranged with Provider B to nominate Ms X for properties she would not ordinarily qualify for.
• It considered Ms X’s circumstances holistically in May 2025, increasing her housing priority as a result.
• There is evidence of consistent communication, including efforts to support Ms X with bidding and to discuss different potential housing options, such as referrals to other authorities.
88. However, there were faults of omission at different points. As set out above, the Council did not consider Ms X’s circumstances holistically earlier. It also did not consider whether it should proactively hold an ASB case review sooner, given Ms X’s vulnerabilities.
89. This consideration is inextricably linked with the faults identified in other parts of the analysis. I have not therefore made separate findings of fault on these points; however, given this was a specific concern raised by Ms X, I believe this merits highlighting for the Council’s consideration.

Did the Council’s faults cause an injustice?

90. Broadly, the Council’s faults can be characterised as delay and faults of omission. There was some avoidable delay in completing housing reviews in 2024, causing avoidable uncertainty for Ms X. The Council also did not consider certain actions at an earlier stage, which it later went on to take. When the Council did act, it generally did so without procedural fault. However, in key respects, it did not act as promptly as it could have.
91. For example, had the Council proactively carried out an ASB case review in 2024, the outcome may have been different, depending on the circumstances at the time. Similarly, had the Council taken a more holistic view of Ms X’s circumstances at an earlier stage, as it later did in May 2025, it may have concluded she was entitled to Band B priority sooner.
92. However, even on the balance of probabilities, we cannot say the Council would have made different decisions, when exactly those decisions would have been taken, or that Ms X’s circumstances would be significantly different as a result. There are too many variables, causing significant uncertainty. This uncertainty is an injustice to Ms X in itself.
93. There were also faults in communication. Internal communications at Provider B caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty, giving the impression she had not been considered for Property J, when she had been. The Council also conflated Ms X declining nominations for properties with Ms X rejecting offers of accommodation in correspondence with Authority Z. I have seen conflicting accounts of how much weight Authority Z placed on this information in its communications with Ms X. Authority Z is ultimately responsible for making decisions about admissions onto its housing register, and it would be open to Ms X to seek a review or complain to Authority Z about these matters, if she remains dissatisfied with its decisions. However, this miscommunication caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

Action

94. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Ms X for the faults and injustice identified in this statement. The Council should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on “Making an effective apology", set out in our published Guidance on Remedies.
2. Write to Authority Z to correct and clarify the information it has previously provided, if it has not already done so, making clear Ms X has not rejected offers of accommodation from the Council.
3. Pay Ms X £375 to recognise the avoidable uncertainty and distress arising from the Council’s faults. In making this recommendation, I have had regard for the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, which defines uncertainty as a form of distress. I consider Ms X’s vulnerability is an exacerbating factor.
95. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

96. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused,

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman