Summary: On behalf of Mr X, Ms Z complained the Council delayed assessing Mr X’s household’s housing circumstances, failed to consider relevant evidence, and did not consider requests for reasonable adjustments. She said this disadvantaged the household and caused avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. We have found the Council at fault for failing to properly decide Mr X’s homelessness application and for not providing review rights. We also found fault with its complaints handling and for not considering Mr X’s requested reasonable adjustments. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic financial remedy, and invite a further homelessness application from Mr X’s household. The Council has also agreed to provide guidance to officers on reasonable adjustments. We have not found the Council at fault for how it completed its review of Mr X’s household’s housing priority. There are other parts of Ms Z’s complaint we have not investigated. We explain why in our decision statement.

The complaint

1. On behalf of Mr X, Ms Z complains the Council:
1. Delayed completing an assessment of Mr X’s household’s housing needs.
2. Failed to properly consider Mr X’s household’s circumstances and supporting evidence when assessing their housing needs.
3. Failed to consider and implement requested reasonable adjustments.
2. Ms Z said the Council’s faults mean Mr X’s household has lived in unsuitable accommodation longer than they otherwise would have. This has caused significant avoidable distress and affected their overall wellbeing. Ms Z also said the Council’s delays and failure to consider requested reasonable adjustments caused avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty.

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 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)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
6. 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.
7. 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)
8. 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

What I have and have not investigated

9. Ms Z approached the Ombudsman in March 2025, when the Council issued its review decisions on Mr X’s household’s priority. In addition to the complaints set out in paragraph 1, Ms Z later told the Ombudsman her complaint also concerned the Council providing conflicting advice and blocking Mr X from placing bids in late 2024. Her submissions also referred to events that occurred after March 2025, such as a safeguarding referral.
10. I have not considered these matters, as they were either not part of Ms Z’s original complaint to the Council, or occurred after Ms Z approached the Ombudsman. The Council has not therefore been able to consider these matters as a complaint and provide a response. The restriction set out in paragraph 4 applies. It is open to Ms Z to make a separate complaint to the Council about these matters and to then bring her complaint to the Ombudsman, if she is dissatisfied with the outcome.
11. Part of Ms Z’s complaint also concerned alleged data breaches by the Council and Authority B. I have not considered this as a standalone issue. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) would be best placed to consider such complaints. The restriction set out in paragraph 5 applies.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Ms Z and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Ms Z, Mr 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

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Homelessness applications

14. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)

Decisions and review rights

15. Every person applying for assistance from a housing authority stating that they are or are going to be homeless will require an initial interview. If there is reason to believe that they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the housing authority must carry out an assessment to determine if this is the case, and whether they are eligible for assistance. If the applicant is not eligible for assistance or if the authority is satisfied that they are not homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, they must be given a written notification of the decision reached. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 11.3)
16. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.30)

Applications to multiple authorities

17. Applicants can apply to more than one housing authority simultaneously. Where a housing authority has reason to believe that the applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it may wish to contact the other housing authorities involved, to agree which housing authority will take responsibility for conducting inquiries. Where another housing authority has previously made decisions about an applicant’s circumstances, a housing authority considering a fresh application may wish to have regard to those decisions. However, housing authorities should not rely solely on decisions made by another housing authority and will need to make their own inquiries in order to reach an independent decision on whether any duty is owed. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.9)

Reasonable preference

18. 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))

Allocations

19. 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))
20. The Council’s allocations scheme says applicants afforded “Priority Homeseeker” status are those that have reasonable preference, as defined in paragraph 18. Applicants with this priority group retain their position and accrue waiting time on the Council’s housing register, increasing the likelihood of successfully bidding on a property.
21. Applicants that require emergency rehousing on medical grounds can also qualify for “Additional Preference”, which will increase their priority further. The Council’s allocations scheme says applicants may qualify for Additional Preference where:
• their medical conditions are so severe it is considered impossible for them to continue living in their home;
• applicants cannot be discharged from hospital due to unsafe living conditions; or
• cannot access parts of their home due to medical conditions.

Review rights

22. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
23. Relevant to this complaint, statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

Reasonable adjustments

24. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
25. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services, but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need. We have published guidance for local authorities called “Equal Access: Getting it right for people with disabilities”. This looked at complaints we received about this topic and offers good practice advice to councils.

Council’s complaints procedure

26. The Council operates a two-stage complaints procedure, which it publishes on its website:
• At stage one, the Council will acknowledge complaints within five working days of receipt. The Council will respond to complaints within 10 working days. The Council says it may need up to an additional 10 working days to respond to complex complaints.
• At stage two, the Council will acknowledge receipt of a complaint within five working days. It will respond to complaints within 20 working days. The Council says it may need up to an additional 20 working days to respond to complex complaints at this stage.

Back to top

What I found

Key events

27. Below is a summary of the relevant key events. It does not detail every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.
28. In February 2024, Mr X’s family were served with a section 21 notice, requiring them to leave their home. By April 2024, Mr X’s family had moved in with Ms Z. In August 2024, Mr X approached the Council as homeless. In November 2024, the Council wrote to Mr and Mrs X. The Council said Mr X had confirmed they had approached another council, Authority B, as homeless before applying to the Council. The Council said Authority B had confirmed it had accepted the relief housing duty, and also had a duty to provide emergency accommodation. Because of this, the Council said Mr X should contact Authority B if he was homeless. It said it would close Mr X’s application as of 6 November 2024.
29. Throughout these events, Mr X remained on the Council’s housing register. On 15 November 2024, the Council said it wrote to Mr X confirming his household had been allocated “Priority Homeseeker” status. I understand this was based on the Council’s assessment of how overcrowding affected Child X’s needs. Mr X’s household had reasonable preference from this point.
30. On 18 November 2025, Ms Z sent the Council supporting medical evidence for the household. Ms Z wanted the Council to increase the household’s priority. Ms Z also provided a letter signed by Mr X, giving Ms Z permission to act on his behalf in all matters relating to his housing application. In the letter, Mr X said his health meant he could no longer manage the housing application process. Mr X asked the Council to send any queries or correspondence about his housing application to Ms Z.
31. In mid-December 2024, the Council decided Mrs X did not have reasonable preference. In January 2025, the Council also decided Mr X did not have reasonable preference. However, the Council decided Child X had reasonable preference on medical grounds and needed their own bedroom. The Council said this corresponded with its earlier decision to award the household Priority Homeseeker status.
32. The Council wrote to Mr X with its decisions. The Council accepted Mr X’s household living with Ms Z was not ideal, given it was overcrowded. However, it said it believed the property was not unsuitable and did not make the household’s health conditions worse. It said the family already had reasonable preference, so its decisions would not make any difference to the household’s application priority. The Council provided a right of review for each decision.
33. In late January 2025, Ms X complained to the Council. In response, the Council said it had completed the assessments within the required timescales and told Mr X how to seek a review if he was unhappy with the outcome. The Council said it had no record it had consent to discuss the housing applications with Ms Z. The Council provided a consent form it said Ms Z should complete if she wanted to represent Mr X in his complaint.
34. On 30 January 2025, Ms Z submitted a review request and made a formal complaint:
• Ms Z challenged the household’s medical priority decision, stating the Council had failed to review all the medical evidence submitted. She said the Council had only considered Mr X’s conditions and not the wider impact on the family unit, including Mrs X’s vulnerabilities and Child X’s needs.
• Ms Z said the Council had not made requested reasonable adjustments in its communication, despite Ms Z providing signed authorisation from Mr X to act on his behalf. Ms Z said this limited Mr X’s ability to communicate and access support.
• Ms Z complained of a lack of transparency and poor case handling.
• Ms Z asked the Council to reconsider the submitted evidence and recognise her authority to act. She also sought a reassessment of the household’s priority and housing need, an investigation into the Council’s alleged failings, improved communication and an update to her Member of Parliament (MP).
35. The Council wrote to Ms Z, confirming which matters it would deal with as a complaint and which matters would be considered through the review procedure. In further correspondence, Ms Z asked the Council to treat the matter as urgent.
36. In early March 2025, the Council acknowledged the review request for Mr X. It said there had been an error processing the information provided for Mrs X and Child X, giving Ms Z instructions to submit again any information she wanted the Council to consider. Ms Z expressed concern about the potential error and the need to resubmit information.
37. The Council told Ms Z the consent form submitted with her complaint only allowed her to represent Mr X in the complaint, but did not allow the Council to generally discuss Mr X’s housing application with Ms Z. The Council told Ms Z she needed to submit a different consent form to act as Mr X’s representative in all matters. Ms Z returned the completed consent form.
38. On 4 March 2025, the Council provided a partial complaint response. It apologised for the delay in responding. It said it did not uphold Ms Z’s complaint, but said its housing services would provide a further response on the substantive matters.
39. On 12 March, Ms Z asked the Council to escalate her complaint, as she had not received a full response. The Council said it would respond by the 20 March. The Council told Ms Z it was awaiting comments from Authority B to help the Council decide whether Mr X met the criteria to remain on the housing register. Ms Z challenged any possibility of removing Mr X from the housing register, highlighted her concerns to her MP and continued to chase the Council for a response.
40. On 21 March 2025, the Council provided a further complaint response:
• The Council apologised for its delay in responding.
• The Council set out a timeline of events and said there seemed to be a misunderstanding about the status of the household’s housing application. The Council confirmed the household had had Priority Homeseeker status since November 2024, suggesting there was confusion between this and the homelessness application.
• The Council said Authority B confirmed the household’s homelessness application had been withdrawn. The Council said there was no barrier to Mr X’s household remaining on its housing register. It said demand for housing was greater than supply, so it could not offer a timescale for when Mr X would likely be successful and said Mr X should consider alternative housing options.
• The Council said it would respond to Ms Z’s review requests within the 56-day deadline.
41. In response, Ms Z challenged the Council’s decisions on Mr and Mrs X’s reasonable preference, citing their vulnerabilities and health conditions. She said the Council should have properly assessed the household sooner, given the medical evidence submitted in November 2024, and reiterated she had consent to act for Mr X since that time. She raised concerns about information disclosed by Authority B. She also highlighted what the Council’s allocations scheme said about additional priority for medical reasons, and asked the Council to consider making the family a direct offer of housing.
42. On 28 March 2025, the Council sent its review decisions for each member of the household. Each letter set out the evidence considered and conclusions reached. In each case, the Council upheld its original decision on review.

Analysis

Did the Council act with fault?

Homelessness application

43. I have seen no evidence Mr X approached the Council as homeless before August 2024. As part of its enquiries into this application, the Council approached Authority B and established it had accepted the relief housing duty. The Council also said Authority B had accepted the duty to provide emergency accommodation.
44. The Code sets out that where an individual has submitted homelessness applications to multiple authorities, these authorities can enquire with each other. Having received this information, the Council wrote to Mr X and said he should contact Authority B, given it had accepted the relief and emergency accommodation duties. It said it would close Mr X’s application on this basis.
45. I have found the Council at fault for improperly closing Mr X’s homelessness application, for the following reasons:
• As per paragraph 17, councils should not rely solely on decisions made by other authorities. While councils can have regard for another authority’s decisions, they must still reach their own independent decision about what duty, if any, they owe the applicant.
• The Council closed Mr X’s application because he had approached Authority B, which had accepted housing duties. However, the Council did not separately establish whether it owed Mr X’s household any duties. It therefore closed Mr X’s case without making a proper decision. It also did not provide the appropriate written notification, including appropriate review rights, as per paragraph 16.

Allocations and housing priority

46. The Ombudsman’s role is to review how councils have made decisions, in the course of performing their duties. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant evidence, or not properly explained the reason it has made a decision. If we find these faults, we can consider the consequences and ask the council to address this.
47. But we do not provide a right of appeal against a council’s decisions, and we cannot make operational or policy decisions on a council’s behalf. If a council has acted without fault, then we cannot criticise it, even if a complainant feels strongly that its decision is wrong. We cannot uphold a complaint simply because someone disagrees with what a council has done.
48. The Council said it confirmed Mr X’s household had Homeseeker Priority status as of 15 November 2024. After considering Ms Z’s further evidence, the Council decided Mrs X and Mr X did not have reasonable preference for medical reasons. The Council decided Child X did have reasonable preference, as the current accommodation was making Child X's health worse. The Council said the household needed two bedrooms and it had updated the application with this information. However, because the household already had reasonable preference due to overcrowding, the additional medical priority would not make any difference to the household’s position on the housing register.
49. Ms Z sought reviews of the Council’s decisions on 30 January 2025. The Council provided review responses for each household member on 28 March 2025. This was within the eight-week timescale set out in paragraph 23. I have not therefore found the Council at fault for the time taken to complete the reviews.
50. Ms Z said the Council failed to account for all the evidence when it made its initial decision. I am satisfied the Council had regard for this evidence when completing the reviews. I have not seen any other contemporaneous evidence showing how the Council considered the information, though consider the letters are sufficiently detailed to understand what evidence the Council considered and how it reached its conclusions.
51. The decision letters explained why the Council decided the household did not qualify for Additional Preference. The Council accepted the family’s circumstances were not ideal. However, it believed the evidence supplied did not show it was impossible for the household members to reside in the property. It said the household already had priority awarded for overcrowding, which was a separate consideration from medical needs. The Council confirmed Child X already had reasonable preference on medical grounds and needed an additional bedroom, but said it had not found cause to award Additional Preference. It confirmed it would be prepared to revisit this decision if it received new supporting medical information.
52. I recognise Ms Z strongly disagrees with the Council’s assessment of the evidence provided and its eventual conclusions. However, I have not identified any procedural fault in the Council’s handling of the review. The letter sets out the evidence considered, explaining the Council’s conclusions and the reasons for them. As I have not identified fault, I cannot consider the Council’s conclusions further.

Reasonable adjustments and communication

53. In the letter Ms Z submitted in November 2024, Mr X asked the Council to communicate directly with Ms Z because of his health needs. In doing so, Mr X sought a reasonable adjustment. Ms Z complained the Council disregarded this request, continuing to send correspondence and attempting to communicate directly with Mr X between November 2024 and January 2025.
54. It would be for the Council to decide what information it needed to allow Ms Z to act on Mr X’s behalf, and whether the requested adjustment was reasonable. It would not necessarily be fault for the Council to seek clarity, or seek more specific permission, as it later did. However, the Council appears not to have had any regard for Mr X’s request in November 2024 at the time. I have found the Council at fault for this.

Complaints handling

55. Paragraph 26 sets out the timescales associated with the Council’s complaints procedure.
56. Ms Z complained on 30 January 2025. The Council replied on 4 March 2025, providing only a partial response. The Council did not provide a full response until 21 March 2025, following Ms Z asking for her complaint to be escalated and highlighting the Council’s lack of response.
57. I have found the Council acted with fault in its complaints handling because:
• The Council delayed responding to Ms X’s complaint by around three weeks, providing only a partial response at that point.
• The Council took around five weeks to provide a more detailed response, though this response did not address several aspects of Ms Z’s complaint, such as the Council’s failure to consider reasonable adjustments. The Council also did not address Ms Z’s request to escalate her complaint.

Did the Council’s faults cause an injustice?

58. The Council failing to properly decide Mr X’s homelessness application causes uncertainty about what decision it would have made, had it properly considered the application. Even on the balance of probabilities, I cannot now say what decision the Council would likely have made. This causes uncertainty, which is an injustice in itself.
59. The Council failing to issue a proper written decision also means the Council did not provide Mr X with the right to seek a review of an adverse decision. The denied opportunity to challenge an adverse decision is an injustice to Mr X.
60. The Council not demonstrably considering or acting on the authorisation letter Ms Z submitted in November 2024 means there is no record the Council considered Mr X’s requests for adjustments in communication. The Council continued to send correspondence directly to Mr X in December 2024 and January 2025, despite being asked not to. On the balance of probabilities, I consider this likely caused Mr X avoidable distress and frustration. While it may have also caused some delay, I do not consider this delay prevented the review of Mr X’s application taking place, thereby causing a disadvantage.
61. However, I consider this led to missed opportunities for the Council to clearly set out what steps Ms Z needed to take to fully represent Mr X. In turn, this led to increased correspondence between Ms Z and the Council, and Ms Z having to repeat efforts to represent Mr X. This, in addition to the faults identified with the Council’s complaints handling, caused Ms Z avoidable frustration, and time and trouble.

Back to top

Action

62. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Mr X and Ms Z for the injustice identified in this statement. The Council should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on “Making an effective apology", set out in our published Guidance on Remedies.
2. Invite a further homelessness application from Mr X’s household, should it wish to make one. If Mr X’s household does wish to make another homelessness application, the Council should ensure it considers this properly, in line with the Code. It should ensure it provides a proper written decision and, where the decision is adverse, appropriate review rights.
3. Share the findings of the Ombudsman's investigation with relevant officers, along with a copy of the Ombudsman's focus report "Equal access: Getting it right for people with disabilities". This is to provide officers with wider examples of faults and good practice concerning reasonable adjustments in service delivery and complaints handling.
4. Pay £175 to recognise the avoidable frustration and time and trouble identified.
63. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

64. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman