Summary: Ms X complained that changes to the Council’s housing allocations policy unfairly affected her qualifying date and lowered her bidding position. We find no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms X says she gave up her temporary accommodation in 2023 under the Council’s ‘Move on’ scheme in exchange for Band B priority. However, despite being on the housing register since 2019, the Council reset her qualifying date to 2023, lowering her bidding position. She says this consequence was not explained to her, and she is now homeless with a reduced chance of securing accommodation. She also says under the Council’s 2024 housing allocations policy, homeless applicants were moved from Band C1 to Band B without any requirement to give up their temporary accommodation and kept their original qualifying date. Ms X also complained of poor complaint handling.
2. Ms X says she has been disadvantaged by the introduction of this new policy and feels this is unfair. She feels upset, stressed and frustrated by the situation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council. I have considered relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. 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

7. 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).
8. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.
9. 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.
10. The Ombudsman recognises that the 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.

What happened

11. This chronology includes an overview of key events and does not detail everything that happened.
12. In 2019, the Council accepted a homeless duty to Ms X and it housed her in temporary accommodation (TA). She lived there with her daughter. She remained on the Council’s housing register, where she bid to try and secure permanent accommodation.
13. In 2023, the Council introduced the ‘Move on’ scheme. This offered those living in TA the opportunity to move from Band C1 to Band B if they gave up their TA to source alternative accommodation, including living with family or friends, while waiting for an offer of permanent accommodation.
14. Ms X said the Council told her that if she participated in the scheme and gave up her TA, it was likely it would offer her permanent accommodation within a year.
15. Ms X accepted the terms of the scheme and in May 2023 gave up her TA to move in with a friend. The Council moved her from priority Band C1 to Band B as per the terms of the scheme.
16. In April 2024 the Council introduced a new housing allocations policy. This included a change to its banding system and to the way it calculated an applicant’s qualifying date. The Council disbanded Band C1, and moved all statutorily homeless applicants previously in this band to Band B. These applicants were allowed to keep their original qualifying dates (when they first joined the register). The Council amended the qualifying date of all other applicants to when they entered the relevant Band.
17. Ms X complained to the Council in July 2024, saying she felt disadvantaged by the new scheme and the way her new qualifying date had been calculated. She said the new Band B applicants had ‘flooded the system’ and lowered her bidding position. The Council did not uphold her complaint and said it had applied its new policy correctly.
18. Ms X remained unhappy with the Council’s response and escalated her complaint to stage two of its complaints process. She said she would never have given up her TA had she known that her bidding position would become worse. She said had she not given up her TA under the Move on scheme, she would now be in Band B with her original qualifying date of 2019. She asked the Council to backdate her qualifying date to 2019.
19. In its stage two response in September 2024, the Council:

• Explained Ms X’s priority within Band B was based on the date she joined Band B rather than the date she applied to be on the housing register. It said this was the case for all other applicants.
• Accepted the change to its policy meant she had dropped priority, but considered the changes made the policy fairer across the board.
• Said Ms X’s banding had changed due to the new housing allocation policy.

20. In January 2025, the Council emailed Ms X to say an allocations officer (Officer A) had agreed to backdate her qualifying date. Shortly after, a different council officer (Officer B) contacted Ms X to say this was an error due to a misunderstanding by the first council officer. It apologised for the error and confirmed it would not be backdating her qualifying date to 2019.
21. Ms X remained unhappy with the Council’s response and complained to the Ombudsman in February 2025.

Analysis

22. Ms X says she would not have given up her TA if she had known the Council would have amended her qualifying date to 2023 and her bidding position drop under its new policy. She says the Council did not explain this consequence to her at the time. However, the Council only began consulting on its new allocations policy in October 2023 and implemented it in April 2024. Therefore, at the time Ms X accepted the terms of the Move on scheme, the Council would not have known the qualifying date would change for other homeless applicants a year later.
23. The Council explained it updated its policy to reflect the current housing need in its area. It said it considered it fairer to applicants across the board to change the qualifying date based on the date their band was awarded. The exception to this new policy was the homeless applicants the Council moved from the disbanded Band C1 to Band B, who were allowed to keep their original qualifying dates.
24. I understand Ms X is frustrated that due to her new qualifying date and the influx of applicants to Band B, her bidding position has now dropped to a much lower position. Ms X says this is unfair and, had she not given up her TA in 2023, the Council would have moved her to Band B anyway and she would have kept her original qualifying date. However, the Council explained because Ms X was already in Band B, having given up her TA a year prior to the implementation of the new policy, her qualifying date has been updated to the date she joined her band, along with other applicants. I have reviewed the Council’s policy and, although I consider the circumstances unfortunate for Ms X, her band and qualifying date is in line with the Council’s new policy. I understand she strongly disagrees, but the Council is entitled to review and change its policy in the way it has done. I therefore find no fault by the Council.
25. I have seen communication between Ms X and the Council following its stage two response that caused her some confusion. Officer A told her in January 2025 the Council had agreed to backdate her qualifying date to when she first joined the housing register. However shortly after Officer B contacted her and said this had been agreed in error and was due to a misunderstanding by Officer A. In addition, the Council said in its stage two response that it had moved Ms X into Band B with the introduction of the new policy, which is incorrect. Though I understand this miscommunication was confusing for Ms X, this is not significant enough to amount to fault. In addition, the Council corrected itself and apologised for the confusion. I therefore have no recommendations to make.

Back to top

Decision

26. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman