Summary: Mr B says the Council delayed dealing with his housing register application, wrongly suspended his application and removed him from the housing register, delayed putting him back on the housing register and failed to ask him to complete a medical priority form. There were delays in dealing with the housing register application, the Council failed to take into account all the information at various points and delayed providing Mr B with a medical form to complete. That caused Mr B distress and meant he was not registered on the housing register for part of the period. An apology, payment to Mr B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained the Council:
• delayed dealing with his housing register application;
• wrongly suspended his application and then removed him from the housing register;
• delayed putting him back on the housing register; and
• failed to ask him to complete a medical priority form in 2024.
2. Mr B says the Council’s actions have caused him distress and have impacted on his 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
6. Mr B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s allocation scheme (the scheme)

7. The scheme specifies those who will qualify for inclusion on the housing register if they are eligible and aged 16 years or over. That includes those with a local connection to the borough.
8. For social housing tenants the scheme says existing social housing tenants living in the borough within a reasonable preference category and other ‘relevant tenants’ will qualify to join the register.
9. A relevant tenant is someone who has a secure, flexible or assured tenancy, is resident in social housing in the borough, which the Council owns or has nomination rights to the subsequent vacancy, and where it is in the Council’s interest to enable them to move from their present home. This would include the efficient management or use of social housing stock, to permit major repairs or redevelopment of the land for new housing or other purposes.
10. When an applicant who was ineligible or did not qualify considers that their circumstances have changed they may make a fresh application to the Council. The application will be considered afresh on its merits and against the Council’s policy and local conditions at the time of the fresh application.
11. A new application will not usually be re considered within twelve months of a review decision that an applicant is ineligible or non-qualifying unless there is new information to support the application.

What happened

12. Mr B applied for housing with his partner in 2022. At that point they lived in a property outside the Council’s area. Mr B put in a joint application to join the Council’s housing register. The Council told Mr B he did not qualify as he had a tenancy elsewhere. At that point Mr B was included on a tenancy agreement elsewhere with his wife. However, Mr B was not included on the social housing tenancy held by his then partner. Mr B later split from his partner, although he remained in the same property. Mr B had his name removed from the tenancy agreement with his wife. Mr B provided the Council with evidence of that in December 2023.
13. In April 2024 Mr B put in an application in his sole name. The Council wrote to Mr B on 22 May to tell him it did not consider he qualified to join the Council’s housing register as he had a tenancy outside the Council’s area. The Council told Mr B if he cleared the rent arrears for that property and removed his name from the tenancy he could reapply. The Council accepts that letter was incorrect as it related to another applicant.
14. Mr B complained about that decision in June 2024. That prompted the Council to reassess the application. The Council accepted Mr B had a local connection and placed him on the housing register in band C from the date of his solo application in April 2024.
15. Mr B contacted the Council on 13 August to ask for an increase in banding to reflect his medical priority. That prompted the Council to review its previous engagement with Mr B. The Council asked Mr B to clarify his relationship status and said it would review the medical situation when it had his response.
16. Mr B contacted the Council on 22 August to confirm he had split from his partner.
17. Following a complaint to the Ombudsman the Council wrote to Mr B on 31 October to tell him it had suspended his housing register application until it had reassessed his case. The Council said if, following that reassessment, Mr B remained on the housing register the Council would provide him with a medical assessment form.
18. Mr B contacted the Council on 31 October to raise concerns about the impact the Council’s decisions were having on his mental health. Mr B chased the Council on 5 November and then put in a complaint on 13 November. The Council acknowledged that and said it would respond by 12 December.
19. The Council wrote to Mr B on 6 December to tell him it had closed his housing register application. The Council did that because Mr B was still living with his partner and she had a social tenancy and therefore the Council did not consider Mr B qualified to go on the housing register.
20. Mr B requested a review of that decision on 17 December.
21. On 25 February the officer dealing with the review asked Mr B to provide copies of his bank statements and bills for the address he was living at. Mr B provided those the following day. The bank statements were in Mr B’s sole name and the bills for the property were in his ex-partner’s sole name.
22. On 14 March the Council wrote Mr B to tell him it had overturned the decision not to allow him on the housing register. That was because, following receipt of the documents Mr B had provided, the Council was satisfied on the balance of probability Mr B was no longer in a relationship with the person who held the tenancy for the property he was living in.
23. The Council provided Mr B with a medical form to complete in April 2025. That has not resulted in Mr B receiving any additional priority on the Council’s housing register.

Analysis

24. Mr B says the Council delayed considering his solo housing register application and made several contradictory decisions on that application without considering his circumstances.
25. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council told Mr B he was not eligible to join the Council’s housing register in May 2024. The Council explained in that letter this was because he was a tenant at a social housing property outside the Council’s area. The Council has now clarified this letter related to a different applicant. The Council says it had decided Mr B did not qualify for inclusion on the housing register because he was cohabiting with a social housing tenant outside the borough.
26. The Council’s allocations policy makes clear someone who did not previously qualify for inclusion on housing register will have any new application considered on its merits. In this case Mr B had reported a change of circumstances as he said he was now applying as a solo applicant and was not included on the tenancy agreement for the property. I have seen no evidence the Council considered those points when it turned his application down in May 2024, although the Council accepts it sent Mr B the wrong letter. That is fault. I am satisfied the Council corrected that when Mr B challenged it by including him on the housing register in June 2024.
27. I note when Mr B asked the Council to give him medical priority on its housing register the Council suspended his application pending reconsideration of his circumstances.
28. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council suspended and then removed Mr B from the housing register because it believed he had not included his partner on the application only because he knew that would mean he would not qualify to join the housing register. The implication is the Council believed Mr B and his partner were still a couple.
29. I have identified nothing in the Council’s allocations scheme to suggest Mr B would not have qualified to be included on the Council’s housing register even if he was still in a relationship with the person who held the tenancy for the property he was living in. I am satisfied Mr B would only not have qualified to be included on the housing register if the Council had evidence he was included on the tenancy agreement, which he was not. Removing him from the housing register on the grounds the person he lived with held a social tenancy outside the Council’s area is therefore fault.
30. Even if the Council had concerns about the validity of the application I would have expected it to ask Mr B for further evidence as it did in February 2025 when it asked for copies of bank statements and bills for the property. Those confirmed, to the Council’s satisfaction, Mr B had separated from his partner. Failing to ask Mr B for further evidence in August 2024 is therefore fault. I consider it likely, on the balance of probability, if the Council had asked for that evidence in August 2024 it would not have removed Mr B from its housing register.
31. I am concerned about some of the delays in this case. First, the Council delayed considering whether Mr B should remain on its housing register after suspending his application on 31 October 2024. The Council did not make a decision on that until 6 December. That was followed by a delay making a decision following Mr B’s review request in December 2024 as the Council did not make a decision until March 2025. Those delays are also fault.
32. As well as those delays I am concerned about the delay providing Mr B with a medical form to complete. I am satisfied Mr B asked the Council for a medical form in August 2024. At that point Mr B was still registered on the Council’s housing register. I would have expected the Council to send him a medical form in August 2024. Failure to do that is therefore fault.
33. So, there have been a number of failures in this case. I am satisfied because of those failures Mr B was not registered on the Council’s housing register and therefore unable to bid on properties for part of the period. Mr B has also experienced distress and has had to go to time and trouble to ensure his application was assessed correctly.
34. I do not consider it likely though Mr B missed out on a property. That is because Mr B is in band C and it is likely to be years before he can secure a property. I appreciate Mr B does not believe he is in the right banding as he believes he should receive medical priority. However, the decision on medical priority was made in April 2025 and falls outside the scope of my investigation.
35. I am satisfied Mr B’s current status on the housing register has not been affected by the fault I have identified as the Council has backdated his application to April 2024. To recognise Mr B’s distress and the time and trouble he has had to go to I consider a suitable remedy would be for the Council to apologise to Mr B and pay him £200. The Council should also remind officers dealing with housing register applications of the need to send an applicant a medical form when they say their housing situation is impacting on their health. The Council should also remind those assessing housing register applications about the circumstances when a person can be excluded from the housing register because they do not qualify, particularly where they hold a tenancy elsewhere. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Action

36. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mr B for the distress he experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• pay Mr B £200; and
• send a reminder to officers dealing with housing register applications to cover:
1. the circumstances in which an applicant can be treated as not qualifying to join the housing register; and
2. the need to provide a housing register applicant with a medical priority form when they indicate their housing is impacting on their health.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman