Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council handled her homelessness application and request to join its housing register. We find the Council at fault for providing incorrect information, causing uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to reflect the injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about how the Council handled her applications to join its housing register and her homelessness applications between March 2024 and February 2025. Ms X says the Council gave her incorrect and misleading information which has caused real distress and means she has been waiting longer than necessary to be rehoused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered Ms X’s complaint, as set out above, between when she made her application in February 2024 and when she brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in February 2025. Any mention below to events that took place outside this timeframe are for reference only.
6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. 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

What I found

Housing allocations

8. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
9. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
10. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
11. The Council’s housing allocations policy defines who can apply to the housing register.
12. To be eligible to bid on a property, applicants must join the waiting list. The Council will assess the applicant and place them in one of three bands, from A to C.
13. Band A is for applicants with an emergency need, Band B is for applicants with an urgent need, and Band C is for applicants with a moderate need. The Council’s policy sets out the criteria for each band.

Homelessness

14. 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.
15. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
16. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. This is known as the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
17. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is known as the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
18. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). This is known as the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
19. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of decisions on eligibility and ending duties.
20. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)
21. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age;
• care leavers; and
• victims of domestic abuse.

What happened

22. I have summarised below some key events leading to Ms X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
23. Ms X made a joint homelessness application with Mr Y in February 2024 as their landlord wanted to sell the property they were living in. However, as Ms X had not yet been served with a Section 21 notice, the Council decided she was not threatened with homelessness and closed her application.
24. That month, Ms X made a joint application to join the Council’s housing register with Mr Y. Ms X said she had a medical need which meant her current property was not suitable for her and explained she had been made bankrupt.
25. The Council wrote to Ms X in March 24 to explain, based on the information in her application, she was ineligible to join its housing register. The Council said Ms X’s property was the right size for her household and she had not provided compelling evidence to support a medical need to move. The Council invited Ms X to provide further evidence and explained she could appeal its decision, within 21 days.
26. Later that month Ms X’s landlord served her with a section 21 notice.
27. Ms X submitted another joint housing application with Mr Y in April 2024. Ms X said she had been served a Section 21 notice and also needed to move to an area where she could receive support for her medical needs.
28. An assessing officer considered Ms X’s application and wrote to her in May 2024 to explain that now she had been served a Section 21 notice, the Council had accepted a homelessness prevention duty to her and provided a PHP.
29. In July 2024, the Council asked a medical assessor to consider Ms X and Mr Y’s reported medical conditions. They concluded neither Ms X nor Mr Y had a medical condition that was of significance compared to an ordinary person.
30. The Council’s prevention duty to Ms X ended in July 2024 and it wrote to her to explain it had now accepted a relief duty.
31. In July 2024 the Council wrote to Ms X to confirm she had been placed in Band B of its housing register. However, the Council has said this letter was sent in error and Ms X was subsequently removed from the housing register.
32. In August 2024, Ms X’s landlord gained an order for possession of the property she was living in.
33. In September 2024 the Council wrote to Ms X to confirm its relief duty had come to an end and it did not owe her any further homelessness duties. The Council explained it had now carried out all the tasks required of it under Ms X’s PHP and was satisfied it had taken reasonable steps to help her but unfortunately she remained homeless. The Council explained it accepted Ms X was homeless as her landlord had now obtained a possession order. However, the Council said it did not consider Ms X to have a priority need and so did not have a duty to provide her with accommodation. The Council said it would continue to provide Ms X with advice. The Council explained Ms X had the right to ask for the decision to be reviewed within 21 days.
34. Ms X requested a review of the Council’s decision to end its duty to her.
35. The Council wrote to Ms X in September 2024 to explain her housing application would be closed as she was currently residing in a suitable property. The Council acknowledged Ms X was awaiting bailiffs to remove her from the property and said she should contact its homelessness team as soon as possible if this happened. The Council explained Ms X could ask it to review this decision within 21 days.
36. In October 2024 Ms X told the Council she was unhappy with how it had assessed her housing application, and the Council agreed it would review this.
37. The Council wrote to Ms X in November 2024 to confirm her housing application had been placed in Band C as she was homeless but with no priority need. The Council said it would record the date of this application as September 2024 and explained how Ms X could bid for properties.
38. The Council responded to Ms X’s homelessness decision review request in December 2024. The Council explained it had reviewed her homelessness application and the decision she was not in priority need and was satisfied this was an accurate reflection of her circumstances. The Council explained it agreed Ms X was homeless as her landlord had obtained a possession order, but medical assessments had found she did not have a priority need. The Council explained Ms X could appeal this decision to the county court within 21 days.
39. In February 2025 Ms X informed the Council Mr Y had now left the home and asked it to consider this as a change of circumstances on her housing application.
40. The Council’s medical assessor reviewed Ms X’s circumstances. The Council wrote to Ms X to explain that the threshold for medical priority had not been met. It explained that removing Mr Y from the application did not change Ms X’s priority. The Council invited Ms X to provide more information if her circumstances changed and gave information about how to appeal its decision within 21 days.
41. In response to our enquiries, the Council said it had overlooked the previous decision that Ms X qualified for Band C and this had not been applied. The Council said it would reinstate Ms X’s application so she could bid on properties. The Council has confirmed that even if Ms X had been able to bid on properties as she should have been, she would not have been successful to this point so has not been disadvantaged by the delay.
42. Since this complaint has been with the Ombudsman, Ms X has submitted further medical evidence to the Council and has been awarded Band B. The Council has also accepted a main housing duty to Ms X, and she is in temporary accommodation.

Analysis

Housing application

43. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Ms X’s applications to join its housing register in February 2024 or May 2024. The Council gathered the evidence it needed from Ms X and asked its medical assessors to provide their opinion on whether she had a medical need to move. The Council then wrote to Ms X to explain why it had found she was not eligible to join its housing register and provided information about how to appeal this. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decisions, but as it has followed the right process to reach these, I do not find it at fault.
44. When Ms X asked the Council to review its decision, it agreed she should have been placed in Band C from September 2024, the point at which it accepted she had become homeless. I find no fault with the Council’s decision-making process here. However, the Council has accepted it overlooked this decision and failed to apply it. This amounts to fault. While I accept Ms X would not have been successful in bidding on a property before this error was discovered, this would still have created uncertainty and frustration for Ms X, which is injustice.
45. The Council also wrote to Ms X in July 2024 informing her she had been placed in Band B and could now bid on properties, but it has said this was done in error and withdrew Ms X from Band B at the time. While the error was corrected, it still amounts to fault and caused considerable uncertainty and frustration for Ms X, which is injustice.
46. Ms X asked the Council to consider a change in circumstances in February 2025 after Mr Y left the property. The Council considered the information Ms X provided as well as the opinion of its medical assessor before deciding this did not change Ms X’s priority need or affect her application. I understand Ms X disagrees, but I do not find fault with the process the Council followed to make its decision.

Homelessness application

47. Ms X presented to the Council as homeless in February 2024. Once the Council was able to meet with Ms X in May 2024, it accepted a prevention duty to her and produced a PHP. I do not find the Council at fault as it has followed the right steps in accepting a prevention duty to Ms X.
48. The Council’s prevention duty ended in July 2024 and, as Ms X was still threatened with homelessness, the Council accepted it owed her a relief duty. I do not find the Council at fault here as it has followed the right process.
49. By September 2024, the Council had not relieved the threat of Ms X’s homelessness and the relief duty came to an end. The Council considered Ms X’s circumstances and wrote to her to explain it accepted she was homeless but she did not have a priority need and so it had ended its duties to her. The Council explained it would continue to offer advice and assistance but said it did not consider it owed her any further duties and it did not need to rehouse her permanently. The Council then reviewed this decision on Ms X’s request and wrote to her explaining why its decision remained unchanged, and her right to appeal to the county court if she disagreed. The Council followed the right process when making its decision so I do not find it at fault.

Back to top

Action

50. To remedy the injustice identified above, the Council should complete the following actions within four weeks of the date of this decision:
• Write to Ms X to apologise for the misleading information provided around the banding of her housing application. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Ms X £200 in recognition of the frustration and uncertainty she was caused by the misleading information she was provided.
51. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman