Summary: Mr B complained that the Council wrongly removed him from the housing register and failed to backdate his registration date when he rejoined. We find that the Council should not have removed Mr B from the housing register, delayed reviewing its decision and failed to properly consider information he provided about his homelessness. The Council’s actions caused Mr B significant distress and inconvenience and have left him with uncertainty about whether he would have successfully bid on housing if there had been no fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr B and backdate his registration date. It has also agreed to make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council wrongly removed him from the housing register, and when he rejoined, the Council failed to backdate his application to the date he originally joined.
2. Mr B says the Council’s failings have caused him significant distress and inconvenience and he has had to remain living in accommodation where he is not safe and is at risk of becoming street homeless. He says this has affected his physical and mental health.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way a council made its decision. If there was no fault in how the council made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s actions between November 2023, when we closed his previous complaint, and October 2024, when the Council completed the review of its decision to remove Mr B from the housing register. This was shortly after he complained to us. I have not investigated any complaints Mr B may have about the Council’s actions since October 2024.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr B and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing Allocations

9. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. Once an applicant is accepted onto the housing register, they can bid on properties advertised by the Council.
10. The Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme sets out the rules for qualifying to join the housing register, how applicants are prioritised and how the Council manages the allocation of available properties.
11. Under the Council’s previous scheme, applicants who qualified to join the register were placed in a priority band from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 4 (lowest priority). Applicants who were homeless but had no priority need were placed in Band 3.
12. The current scheme, introduced in January 2023, places applicants in a priority band from Band A (highest priority) to Band D (lowest priority). Applicants who are homeless but do not have a priority need are placed in Band C. Applicants who are owed the relief duty are placed in Band B and applicants who are owed both the relief duty and the duty to accommodate, or the main housing duty, are placed in Band A
13. Under the scheme, anyone who might usually reside with an applicant or be reasonably expected to do so can be included in the application.
14. Applicants whose circumstances do not warrant inclusion in any of the bands are considered to have no housing need and do not qualify to join the housing register.

Homelessness

15. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
16. A person is homeless if they have no accommodation in the UK or elsewhere which is available for their occupation and which that person has a legal right to occupy. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 6.4)
17. Housing authorities should not consider it reasonable for an applicant to remain in occupation until eviction by a bailiff. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 6.19)
18. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make enquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make enquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
19. The prevention duty applies when the council is satisfied that an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance. The council has a duty to help prevent them from becoming homeless. (Housing Act 1996, section 195 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 12.1 and 12.3)
20. The relief duty applies when the council is satisfied that an applicant is homeless (rather than just threatened with homelessness) and eligible for assistance. The council has a duty to take reasonable steps to help the applicant secure accommodation that will be available for at least six months. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 13.2)
21. Under the main housing duty, housing authorities must ensure that suitable accommodation is available for the applicant and their household until the duty is brought to an end, usually through the offer of a settled home. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17)
22. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 8.3)

Background

23. Mr B approached the Council for housing assistance in 2021. In August 2021, the Council decided he was homeless but had no priority need.
24. Mr B applied to join the Council’s housing register in December 2021, and in March 2022, he asked that his friend, Mr C, be added to his application.
25. The Council assessed the application in April 2022 and decided that Mr B qualified for a Band 3 homeless award. It accepted Mr C as part of Mr B’s household and decided they needed a two-bedroom property.
26. Mr B then went to stay with his uncle, Mr X, who has health and mobility needs. In November 2022, Mr B asked to add Mr X to his housing application.
27. When the Council introduced a new housing allocation scheme in January 2023, Mr B’s housing priority changed from Band 3 to Band C.
28. In April 2023, the Council added Mr X to Mr B’s application. It decided that Mr X needed to move due to his mobility needs and it increased Mr B’s housing priority from Band C to Band B, with a need for a three-bedroom property.
29. In November 2023, we upheld a complaint from Mr B about the Council’s handling of his housing application. One of the actions the Council agreed to take to settle his complaint was to carry out a review of his housing priority.

Relevant events

30. The Council did not immediately carry out the review because it had concerns about discrepancies in Mr B’s application. It referred the case to its audit team for investigation, who carried out an unannounced home visit in January 2024. Officers spoke to Mr B, who said that Mr X was in hospital, and Mr C worked away but stayed at the property for up to three nights a week.
31. Following the audit team’s investigation, the Council reassessed Mr B’s application in February 2024. It removed Mr C and Mr X from the application, stating that Mr C did not live permanently with Mr B and that Mr X would not be returning to live with Mr B after his hospital stay.
32. As Mr B had been awarded Band B due to Mr X’s mobility needs, and Mr X had been removed from the application, Mr B no longer qualified for a mobility award. The Council decided that Mr B no longer had any housing needs and therefore did not qualify to be on the housing register.
33. Mr B requested a review of this decision in March 2024, arguing that Mr X would be returning home and that both he and Mr C were essentially homeless. Then in May he wrote to the Council again, explaining that even without Mr X on the application, he should still qualify to be on the register because he and Mr C had been homeless since 2021. The next month, Mr B sent the Council a copy of a letter he had received from the landlord’s solicitor. It said that a notice to quit served on Mr X had expired, Mr B had no right to occupy the property, and they were applying to evict him on the grounds of trespass.
34. The Council completed the review in October 2024, upholding the decision to remove Mr B from the register due to having no housing need. It explained why it agreed with the decision to remove Mr C and Mr X from his application. It also explained that Mr B had not been given a homelessness award because its homelessness team considered there was no reason to believe he was homeless or threatened with homelessness within the next 56 days.
35. In December 2024, Mr B’s solicitors submitted a homelessness application on his behalf. They explained that Mr X’s landlord had ended Mr X’s tenancy and was seeking a possession order to remove Mr B from the property. The Council accepted the relief duty to Mr B.
36. Mr B also submitted a new housing application. In February 2025, the Council decided that Mr B qualified to join the housing register. It placed him in Band B because the Council had accepted the relief duty to him, and it backdated the award to 18 December 2024. Later that month, the Council increased Mr B’s priority to Band A because it had accepted the main housing duty to him. When Mr B had to leave the property, the Council placed him in interim accommodation.

Analysis

37. The letter the Council sent to Mr B in February 2024 explained why it did not consider he met the criteria for any of the housing needs he had selected. I have considered the supporting documents Mr B provided, alongside the Council’s allocation scheme and have found no evidence of fault in the way it decided he did not meet the criteria for an award on the grounds of medical, mobility, hardship, move on from supported accommodation or exceptional circumstances.
38. However, according to the Council’s housing allocation scheme, Mr B qualified for a Band C homeless award. He therefore should not have been removed from the housing register. The Council’s decision to do so was fault.
39. I do not find fault with the Council’s decision to remove Mr X and Mr C from Mr B’s application. The Council decided that Mr X should be removed because its records showed that he would be moving into residential care when he was discharged from hospital, and would not be returning to live with Mr B. The Council decided that the criteria was not met for Mr C to be included in Mr B’s application because it considered he did not usually reside with Mr B and it was not reasonable to expect him to do so. This is a decision it was entitled to reach. While the Council has recently agreed to add Mr C to Mr B’s application again, this does not mean there was fault in the way its previous decision was reached.
40. The Council delayed reviewing its decision to remove Mr B from the housing register. Government guidance suggests reviews should be carried out within eight weeks. The Council took almost 29 weeks to complete the review. This delay was fault.
41. When the Council carried out the review, it upheld the decision that Mr B did not qualify for the housing register. This was fault because, as explained previously, Mr B still qualified for a Band C homeless award when he was removed from the register.
42. Mr B told the Council in May 2024 that he and Mr C were at risk of street homelessness and that he had long term health issues following an assault in November. In June 2024, he provided evidence which showed he had no legal right to stay at Mr X’s former property. This information should have been referred to the homelessness team for its consideration. However, the homelessness team did not speak to Mr B until September, and then it wrongly decided there was no reason to believe that Mr B may be homeless or threatened with homelessness. There was clearly reason to believe he was homeless because he was living in accommodation which he had no legal right to occupy. As Mr B’s circumstances had changed since the homelessness decision in 2021, the Council should have carried out an assessment and made enquiries to decide what, if any, further duty it owed to Mr B. If it had done so without delay, I consider it would likely have accepted the relief duty to Mr B in around June 2024, which would have led to a Band B award.
43. As a result of the Council’s failings in this case, Mr B was unable to bid for housing between February 2024 and February 2025. This caused Mr B significant distress and inconvenience and has left him with uncertainty about whether he would have been offered accommodation if he had been able to bid during this time.

Back to top

Action

44. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mr B for the failings identified in this case. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance when making the apology.
• Make a payment of £400 to Mr B. This is a symbolic payment to acknowledge the uncertainty and distress caused by the Council’s actions.
• Backdate Mr B’s registration date to 22 April 2022, when he originally joined the housing register.
45. The Council has also agreed to take the following actions within eight weeks of my final decision:
• Improve the clarity of information shared between housing and homelessness teams to ensure the housing team can clearly see when the homelessness team has decided an applicant is homeless, and therefore qualifies to join the housing register.
• Remind officers that a person is homeless if they have no accommodation in the UK or elsewhere which is available for their occupation and which that person has a legal right to occupy.
• Remind officers that councils should not consider it reasonable for an applicant to remain in occupation until eviction by a bailiff.
46. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

47. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr B’s complaint. There was fault which caused injustice. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman