Summary: We found fault on Mr Y’s complaint about its failure to move him to more suitable accommodation following his application to join its housing register. The Council delayed processing it. There was no fault with the homeless application. The Council agreed to send an apology and carry out a review about why the failures happened.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council failing to:
1. process his homelessness application promptly;
2. communicate with him while it decided it; and
3. move him to more suitable accommodation.
2. As a result, this prevented him from bidding on properties under its choice based lettings scheme. It has affected his mental health and means he continues to live in an unsuitable property which does not meet his needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr Y, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, the Council’s response to my enquiries, as well as relevant law, policy, and guidance. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr Y and the Council. I considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

7. 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.
8. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)

Housing allocations

9. 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))
10. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded, or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others.
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

11. 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.
12. The Ombudsman recognises demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

Council housing allocation scheme (1 April 2024)

13. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. Applicants are encouraged to actively search for properties. Vacant social rented housing, including registered providers, is advertised and applicants can express an interest (bid) for properties they are entitled to. The policy sets out who its eligible to join the housing needs register, who is eligible for allocation, and how it decides priorities within the policy using Bands.
14. If an applicant can show they were ‘Born and Bred’ in Harlow, and have lived there all their life, they will have their application backdated by 12 months to give them additional priority for those with a strong connection to Harlow. They cannot have lived outside of Harlow for more than 6 months during the whole period.
15. An applicant is placed into one of three priority bands after assessing their housing needs:

• Band 1: Urgent need to move. This includes a member of the household who has a life-threatening medical condition and was assessed as a ‘special’ medical priority which is seriously affected by current housing.
• Band 2: High Priority. This includes a household with a high need to move for medical or social reasons (which are assessed as high priority).
• Band 3: Identified housing need. This includes a person or household who has a need to move for medical or social reasons, assessed as a ‘moderate medical priority’ or because of unsatisfactory housing conditions such as insanitary conditions.

16. Priority for medical conditions affected by an applicant’s existing accommodation will be considered by a suitably trained senior officer in consultation with the applicant’s GP/consultant, for example.
17. Applicants with a disability, and/or requiring an adapted property to meet their housing needs, will be assessed by the Council. The assessment decides how their condition is related to their housing need. Properties are placed in categories and applicants will also be placed into one of the following categories:

• Band 1: life threatening condition seriously affected by current housing.
• Band 2: applicant experiencing considerable difficulty and has a high need to move.
• Band 3: a move is not essential.

18. Applicants are also awarded a mobility level to provide them with a guide to bidding for properties which might meet their housing need:

• Mobility Level 1: suitable for wheelchair users for full-time indoor mobility.
• Mobility Level 2: suitable for those not using a wheelchair indoors but cannot climb steps/stairs.
• Mobility Level 3: suitable for those who do not use a wheelchair but have limited mobility.

19. A ‘priority date’ is given to each new application which is the date the application was received except where an applicant is moved to a higher band, priority is given on medical or social grounds, or they are accepted as homeless.

What happened

20. Mr Y has lived in his home for several years. It is a privately rented first floor one bedroom flat accessed by 14 steps, with no lift. He complained the flat is not suitable for him because of his disabilities. As a result, he remains housebound in his flat for most of the time unless his partner helps. The landlord put the flat up for sale. Mr Y claims he cannot have further operations needed, including knee replacement, until he has a ground floor property.
21. In March 2024, he applied to the Council for suitable accommodation on medical grounds.
22. In April, the Council revised its housing allocations scheme which now required a strict seven year continuous residency within the area for an applicant
23. His application was allocated to an officer in July, who asked Mr Y for proof of residence for the last seven years.
24. This officer left the Council, and his application was not considered further until August when proof of residence was asked for again. The officer queried one address he gave as it was within another council’s area and Mr Y said it was his mum’s address which he used as a care of address for mail.
25. In March 2025, the Council completed the medical needs assessment and awarded Mr Y Band 3 (Moderate Medical award) with a priority date of March 2024 to reflect his previous application. An occupational therapist (OT) was arranged to visit him to do a housing needs assessment.
26. The OT report was done in April. It noted his mobility issues and his inability to use the stairs without help which impacted on his ability to leave home. It recommended he have level access to a home with only 2-3 steps with a handrail. He also needed a wet room or shower tray, and outdoor space.
27. In May, the Council apologised for not contacting him sooner and confirmed it had the report from the OT.
28. In June, the Council apologised for the delay updating his application following the medical review
29. In July, the Council confirmed Mr Y was now in Band 2 (High Medical) with a new priority date of April 2024. The Council had applied the ‘Born and Bred’ criteria which gave him a further 12 months backdated on his priority date. The Council had taken account of a further housing needs assessment done in May 2025 when it received his OT report. He needed a ground floor property adapted to meet a mobility level of 2 or 3.
30. I have seen the letter sent to him in July. It said while it backdated his effective date, it would carry out additional verification checks to ensure its criteria was satisfied. Should it not be able to verify it, the Council would remove the one year backdate. It asked him to review his application on its website to check whether he had submitted his full birth certificate.
31. In October, Mr Y presented to the Council as homeless. It considered it might be unreasonable for him to occupy his flat even though the landlord had not served him with a notice. During discussions, Mr Y was concerned about the possibility of going into interim accommodation or getting financial help to move to other privately rented accommodation. This was because he did not want it to impact on his rehousing application and was only interested in getting accommodation through the housing register. A joint decision was made later that month to close his homeless case because of his reluctance to go into interim or privately rented accommodation.
32. In response to my draft decision, the Council:

• accepted there were initial delays with processing his application. It explained the current policy was agreed by committee and amended with effect from 1 April 2024. At the time, it was introducing significant changes to its systems. It began to update housing applications from this date. Other changes were gradually introduced throughout the year following it.
• explained it recently completed its verification checks on Mr Y’s application. It found no reason for the backdate under the Born and Bred criterion. This was because his birth certificate showed an address outside of its administrative area.
• Mr Y had not asked for his complaint to go to stage 2 either on his first complaint (September 2024) or when it raised a separate stage 1 complaint (February 2025).

My findings

Complaint a): failure to process homeless application promptly

33. There was no fault with the Council’s processing of Mr Y’s homeless application. The evidence showed there was contact with Mr Y during which it became clear he did not want to be allocated interim accommodation under homelessness law but wanted accommodation through its housing register. Within a few weeks of making the application, Mr Y agreed to the closure of the application because he did not want to go into interim accommodation or privately rented accommodation.

Complaint b): failure to communicate with him about it

34. There was no fault with the communication between the Council and Mr Y during the short period before he agreed to close his application. The evidence showed there was face to face contact with him about it during which his wishes were considered.

Complaint c): move him to more suitable accommodation

35. I found fault on this complaint for the following reasons:
1. The Council delayed processing Mr Y’s application to join the housing register. He made his application in March 2024. Although a new housing allocation policy was introduced shortly afterwards, his application was not allocated to an officer until July, four months later. I consider the Council delayed allocating and considering his application.
2. The officer who received the application in July contacted him about the time he had lived in Harlow. Mr Y responded. This officer left and the case was allocated to another officer in August. The new officer asked Mr Y a follow-up question about his previous response to which he replied.
3. The Council made a decision to admit him to the register, and told him his banding priority, in March 2025. This was seven months after the case was allocated to the new officer. There was no explanation about what was happening during this period.
4. Once the Council had the OT report in April 2025, it took a further three months to update Mr Y’s application having taken account of its recommendations.
5. Although the allocation policy does not set out a timescale within which an application would be processed, I am satisfied 12 months was too long. This is because we would usually expect a decision on a housing application within about six to eight weeks. The avoidable delay on this case was about 10 months. In addition, there were further delays once the OT report was received.
6. On balance, I am satisfied that had the Council processed his application properly, without delays, he could have been awarded Band 3 with a priority date of March 2024 in about May.
7. This also means, even taking account of the time taken to amend his records after the OT report, that he could have been awarded Band 2 sooner than it did. This could have been awarded in about September. On balance, I consider it more likely than not that had an OT report been done around September/October 2024, it would have been very similar to the one done in March 2025. This is because of the long-standing nature of Mr Y’s disabilities.
8. When assessing the injustice to Mr Y caused by the fault, I considered the list of 15 properties the Council sent as well as the recent verification check outcome. The list provided showed the banding and effective date of the successful applicant for each property Mr Y could, or did, bid on. Taking this into account, as well as the recent verification check decision, I am satisfied Mr Y did not miss out on an allocation of a property between 2024 and 2025 because of the delays.
9. I am satisfied the fault found caused him some frustration.
36. I found no fault on how the Council dealt with his complaint. The reason for neither complaint progressing to stage 2 was because he never asked the Council to take it to the next stage.

Back to top

Action

37. I considered our guidance on remedies.
38. The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this case:
1. Send Mr Y a written apology for the injustice caused by failing to process his housing application promptly, without delay.
2. Review why the delays on his housing application happened and act to ensure these cannot be repeated on future cases.
39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

40. I found the following on Mr Y’s complaint against the Council:

• Complaint a): no fault;
• Complaint b): no fault; and
• Complaint c): fault causing injustice.

41. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman