Summary: Ms B complained about the way the Council dealt with her homelessness application. She complained the Council were wrong not to give her a priority banding for allocations. We found the Council was not at fault for how it made its decisions.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains about the way the Council has dealt with her homelessness application. She says the Council wrongly gave her a no priority banding for allocation, without considering her medical and support needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered information provided by the Council and Ms B, alongside the relevant law and guidance.
5. Ms B and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision before this final decision was made.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. Ms B made a homelessness application to the Council, which the Council accepted. In May 2024, the Council wrote to Ms B to confirm she could bid on properties suitable for her family, but the Council would not prioritise her bids above others on the housing register. She had been placed in a ‘no priority’ band.
7. Ms B appealed the banding decision and said she should be placed in band A or B under the Council’s allocations policy.
8. She said the Council had not considered her medical needs, as she had mental health issues which were worsened because there had been many attempted burglaries at the property. Ms B said the Council had also failed to consider her need to move closer to family members for support.
9. The Council rejected the appeal and explained its reasons in June 2024.
10. In Autumn 2024, Ms B told the Council that her partner was no longer living with her. The Council confirmed she is now in banding B.

Analysis and Findings

11. Ms B said she met the Council’s allocation policy for banding A or B based on her mental health. The policy says this banding is suitable for those with a serious medical condition which is made worse by the style or functionality of their home.
12. The Council said it had considered the medical evidence provided by Ms B but did not agree she met the criteria on this basis.
13. Ms B also explained her need to move closer to family members. The policy says that priority would be given to those who need to move closer to family to receive emotional support or care because of a medical condition. There must be evidence the support cannot be provided in the current location.
14. The Council said it had considered this aspect, however, as Ms B lived with her partner in a family unit, and because she was within 10 miles of her family members, it did not consider she met the criteria to be prioritised on this basis.
15. Ms B confirmed that when her circumstances changed, the Council changed its decision and has awarded her priority as a result.
16. The evidence shows the Council referenced Ms B’s circumstances and confirmed that having considered what she had said, made a decision on allocation banding. At this stage, I consider the Council has made a decision it is entitled to make and is not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

17. Following our investigation, we found the Council is not at fault for how it made its decisions in this matter.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman