Summary: Mr D says the Council placed him in the wrong housing band. There is fault by the Council in some parts of the complaint including delay responding to review requests. The Council is already making service improvements, and it has now agreed to apologise to Mr D and respond to his outstanding complaint which challenged a review decision on banding.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council failed to correctly assess his housing need and placed him in the wrong housing band. Mr D also states the Council delayed responding to his review request and complaint and failed to allocate him a property.

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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. In his complaint Mr D referred to a Discretionary Housing Payment. I have advised him this does not form part of my investigation because he would first need to complain to the Council.
5. My investigation has considered events from March 2024, when Mr D applied to join the housing register, through to April 2025 when his complaint was referred to our Assessment Team.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. I produced a draft decision based on the evidence available to me. The Council then sent me late additional documentation which meant I had to issue a revised draft decision statement.
8. I shared my revised draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

9. On 12 March 2024 Mr D applied online to join the Council’s housing register. On the application form he stated he needed to move because of medical need and fleeing domestic abuse. Mr D did not provide any additional supporting evidence about his need to move. The Council sent Mr D an automatically generated action plan which directed him to use the links/ telephone numbers in the document to contact the relevant Council teams if he needed assistance with issues including needing to move because of medical need, homelessness, domestic abuse. The Council placed Mr D in the Preference Needs category for housing. On 19 March Mr D emailed the Council asking it to reconsider his banding because of medical need and a risk of homelessness.
10. Mr D subsequently bid on advertised social housing properties via the Council’s choice based lettings system from March onwards. The highest he placed was 447 and the lowest was 948. On 5 April Mr D asked the Council to reply to his March email. On 15 May the Council responded to Mr D. It explained he needed to submit medical evidence and information about his local connection which would then be assessed. It also signposted him to the homelessness services at the Council.
11. On 11 June Mr D asked the Council to reconsider his banding, he said she should be in the High Needs Plus band not in Preference Needs. He enclosed a letter from his GP which said Mr D had medical conditions and was at risk of becoming homeless. On 14 June Mr D emailed the Council that he had submitted medical evidence but not heard back. The Council replied on 22 July that it had no record of medical evidence being received, it asked Mr D to resubmit the information so it could be assessed. On 23 July the Council wrote to Mr D that it had considered his medical evidence, and he remained in the Preference Needs band. The letter did not explain what evidence had been assessed or how a decision had been made. On 6 November the Council wrote to Mr D that it had considered his request to review the banding decision. It said the medical evidence from Mr D did not show an urgent need to move because of medical need. It explained the allocations policy and different types of priority. It said Mr D had been awarded Preference Needs banding because he had a local connection. It also noted that Mr D might be at risk of homelessness and offered a telephone assessment with a named Officer. I understand Mr D did not call the Officer.
12. On 5 January 2025 Mr D wrote to the Council challenging the review decision. He reiterated that he should be in a higher priority housing band. Mr D chased up the Council in February. In March Mr D complained to the Ombudsman and we then asked the Council for a complaint response. To date no reply to Mr D’s January complaint has been provided.

What should have happened

Housing register

13. Under the Council’s allocations policy a person can apply to the Council to join the housing register. Depending on the information provided in the online application the Council generates an action plan document to the applicant with information about how to pursue any additional needs/ issues. The document contains links and contact numbers on a range of issues including support on domestic abuse, how to apply for medical need priority and how to apply for homelessness assistance.
14. The Council will place an eligible applicant into a housing band to reflect the level of their assessed housing need. The highest priority band is High Needs Plus. An applicant must have ‘urgent physical health and disability needs’. This band is awarded to applicants where their health is ‘seriously at risk’ due to medical and housing difficulties in their existing accommodation. They have to provide evidence from a specialist agency, such as an Occupational Therapist, Consultant or Social Worker, to show their accommodation is unsafe irrespective of any support that could be provided. There must be a ‘substantive causative effect’ of the accommodation on the applicant’s health. The Preference Need band is an award of ‘reasonable preference at the lower assessed level of housing need’. This applies to applicants who meet the local connect criteria but who do not meet the level of assessed higher level housing need.
15. The allocations policy sets out how the Council awards priority to homelessness applicants where the Council has accepted main duty towards them. To meet these criteria a person must ask the Council for homelessness assistance and have a main duty decision on their homelessness application.

Review

16. An applicant who is dissatisfied with their banding can request the Council review its decision. The Council should send a decision letter within 56 days. If an applicant remains dissatisfied and challenges the review outcome the Council will treat this as a final stage complaint. It should log the complaint and issue a response.

Bidding

17. The Council uses a choice based lettings system. This means people on the housing register can place a bid on advertised social housing. The Council then, generally, places the bidders in level of priority and when they joined the housing register.

Homelessness applications

18. 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)

The prevention duty

19. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

20. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The main housing duty

21. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Was there fault by the Council

22. I have found evidence of fault in some parts of this case.
23. The Council should have offered to discuss homelessness issues with Mr D after it received the GP’s letter in June 2024. Whilst I see Mr D was provided with an action plan document in March giving a link to the homelessness team he should have received further assistance to contact that team in June. I do note the Council offered Mr D a telephone assessment to start the homelessness application process in November and Mr D did not respond that.
24. The Council caused confusion to Mr D by telling him on 22 July that it could not find any medical evidence he had submitted but then issued a decision the following day.
25. The 23 July 2024 letter to Mr D, after he asked the Council to reassess his banding, was insufficient. It failed to pick up on whether homelessness advice was required and did not set out what evidence had been assessed or explain how the decision had been made. As good practice the Ombudsman would expect a decision letter to contain basic details about how evidence had been assessed and how a decision had been reached.
26. The Council failed to reply to Mr D’s January 2025 letter challenging the review outcome. Mr D chased up the Council, and the Ombudsman subsequently pursued the Council for a reply from March onwards. No response has been issued despite assurances from the Council, up to September, that a letter was being prepared. The Council says the case wrongly showed as closed on its system.
27. There is no evidence of fault in respect of Mr D’s bids. I understand Mr D feels he should have been offered accommodation but the highest he has placed on bids is 447. There is no requirement on the Council to inform each bidder about who was the successful applicant or why their bid was unsuccessful.
28. In his complaint to the Council Mr D refers to not being provided with priority on homelessness grounds. I have set out the homelessness process and stages above to help clarify matters for Mr D. The Council is not required to provide a housing register applicant with additional priority on homelessness grounds unless it has accepted a main housing duty towards them. Mr D has not pursued a homelessness application with the Council. If he wants the Council to assess if he is owed a homelessness duty, he would need to take up the Council’s offer to contact the Housing Options Team and pursue a homelessness application.
29. Mr D disputes the banding he has been awarded by the Council. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong. Whilst there was fault in the Council failing to evidence how it assessed the case in July, the November review letter to Mr D did set out how the Council considered his medical need. I am satisfied the Council followed the correct process at that stage and took account of the GP’s letter provided to it. It also correctly notified Mr D about the allocations policy criteria. I appreciate Mr D feels he should be in a higher band but that would require him providing sufficient evidence from a specialist professional, as set out in the allocations policy. A letter from a GP is not enough to enable the Council to place someone in the highest priority band.

Did the fault cause an injustice

30. The faults I have identified meant Mr D was subject to delay and has not received a reply under the final stage of the complaints process.

Back to top

Action

31. The Council says it is making service improvements as a result of this case. It recognises its resources for final stage complaints and Ombudsman cases have been ‘insufficient’. It is in the process of a business improvement review to increase resources in this area.
32. To remedy the injustice to Mr D the Council has agreed to:
• Issue an apology letter to Mr D
• Issue a response to Mr D’s January 2025 complaint
33. In respect of service improvements the Council will also:
• Remind Officers that decision letters need to set out how evidence was considered and how a decision was made. If the July 2024 letter was a template document, it should be amended.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Decision

35. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman