Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to reduce her priority band on its housing register. We asked the Council to remedy the distress and uncertainty caused and it agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council had refused to limit her housing search to her preferred area, despite her providing significant evidence to show why she needed to live in that area. She also complained the Council had reduced her priority band after it said she had refused an offer, but she had not received any notification of that offer. Ms X said Council failings mean she was living in unsuitable housing for longer than needed, which was affecting her mental health and putting her family at risk.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. In January 2024, the Council agreed to award band B priority on its housing register due to her exceptional circumstances. It advised her she would get one suitable offer only and that it could not guarantee a particular property type or area. It explained there was high demand in her preferred area, so she would likely wait a long time to be rehoused there. The Council explained on a number of occasions that, although it understood she needed to be close to her support network, she could not restrict her search to one specific area.
6. In early October 2024, the Council matched Ms X with a property. It sent her a letter by post to offer it to her. As Ms X had not responded within seven days, it recorded the offer as refused. It therefore reduced her priority to band D for 12 months, based on her refusal of a suitable offer and wrote to her with its decision. Ms X replied that she had not received details of an offer, but that the Council was aware she needed to be in a specific area close to her support network.
7. In December, the Council reviewed its decision. It said it had sent the offer letter to her current address, but noted she said she had experienced some problems with receiving post. It set out why it considered the property suitable, including that it was a short distance from her support network. It noted Ms X was not bidding appropriately, so its system was bidding on her behalf. It said only six properties let in Ms X’s preferred area in the previous 12 months and that she had been advised it could not guarantee a particular area. It confirmed the decision to reduce her priority to band D for 12 months. It advised her to also consider private rented properties or applying for a mutual exchange.
8. In response to our enquiries, the Council accepted there were some errors in its process and decision-making, including failing to suspend the application when it recorded the offer was refused to prevent further offers being made. This led to Ms X being matched with another property, and the details of that property were used, incorrectly, in the review decision letter. It reinstated her band B priority in early April 2025, following which it matched her to another property, which Ms X has accepted. It accepted it was likely other offers would have been made in the period when her priority was reduced to band D, but it could not say if they would have been in Ms X’s preferred area.

My assessment

9. If we investigated further, it is likely we would find fault with the Council’s decision to reduce her priority band on the basis of her refusing an offer, despite not having taken any steps to check she had received the offer, which it sent to her by post (although Ms X said it usually sent emails or telephoned). This caused Ms X some distress. We cannot say, even on balance, that she would have been rehoused earlier if her priority band had not been reduced, given she was clear she would only accept a property in a very specific area. However, she is left with some uncertainty about whether the outcome would have been different but for that decision, which is an injustice.
10. We therefore asked the Council to take steps to remedy the injustice caused and it has agreed to carry out the following action within one month of the date of this decision:
• to apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice;
• pay her £300 as a symbolic payment to remedy the distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We have upheld the complaint about the Council’s decision to reduce Ms X’s priority on its housing register. The Council has agreed to apologise and made a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman