Summary: Ms D says the Council delayed responding to her complaint and incorrectly removed her from the housing register. I have not found fault in the decision to remove Ms D from the housing register but there have been delays by the Council. It has accepted there is fault and offered to pay Ms D redress.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council incorrectly removed her from the housing register and failed to notify her about her right to request a review of the decision. She also states the Council delayed responding to her complaints and failed to provide homelessness assistance.

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. I have considered events from August 2024 to August 2025 when the final stage complaint response was issued by the Council.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background

7. In 2021 Ms D joined the Council’s housing register, she was living in the Borough as a private tenant. Later that year her application was updated to include her child.

Events I have investigated

8. In August 2024 Ms D sent in a medical form to the Council asking the Council to assess if her housing register application should have medical priority. Included was a letter from DWP which was addressed to Ms D at her parent’s address outside of the Borough. The Council said the information was sent to the Medical Advisor to assess and their role did not include checks on address information. Also in August Ms D was successful in bidding for an advertised social housing property through the Council’s Choice Based Lettings scheme.
9. On 12 September a Rehousing Officer made checks on the documentation supplied by Ms D to see she met the criteria, including continuous residency in the Borough for the last five years. They noted there was no proof of residency. Financial checks showed Ms D’s address at the parental address. Benefits were being paid to the same address. The Officer called Ms D and advised all the documents provided were addressed to Ms D at her parent’s address outside the Borough. As a result the Council were closing the application. At the end of September Ms D complained to the Council. She mainly stayed at a friend’s address, so she had personal documentation including information about her child sent to her parent’s address as this was a safe place to receive post. The Council had told her during a telephone call that she was disqualified because of this; she had not been told she was being removed from the housing register and was extremely distressed. The Council replied on 22 October. I have not seen a copy of the reply.
10. On 29 October Ms D asked the Council to escalate her complaint. She said she had no fixed abode and should receive homelessness assistance. The Council had not contacted her to explain why she was removed from the housing register. Ms D did not receive a reply from the Council and came to the Ombudsman in April 2025. We then asked the Council to provide a final stage complaint response to Ms D.
11. On 2 July an Officer in the Prevention and Assessment Team (dealing with homelessness) called Ms D. He noted that Ms D was sofa surfing and experiencing housing instability. She would be eligible for assistance and in priority need. Ms D was mainly concerned about receiving a response to her complaint and wanted to be reinstated on the housing register rather than to progress a homelessness application. Ms D did not want to move to temporary accommodation and was only looking for social housing. It was mutually agreed that Ms D did not want to pursue a homelessness case at that time. The Officer explained she could come back to the Team if circumstances changed. He also emailed Ms D that day to confirm the outcome of the call.
12. The Council issued its final stage complaint response to Ms D on 11 August. It apologised for the delay and said this was due to high caseloads. It accepted it had failed to confirm the outcome of the September 2024 telephone call by writing to Ms D. That decision letter should have also set out her right to request a review of the decision. The Council said that verification checks showed Ms D was unable to produce documentation of continuous residence in the Borough for five years. It explained the criteria for exemptions to the residency requirement and why Ms D did not meet any of those exemptions. The Council also set out that Ms D had spoken to an Officer dealing with homelessness and had confirmed she did not want to proceed with a homelessness application. The Council concluded it was correct to remove Ms D from the housing register. However it offered £400 redress for the delay responding to the final stage complaint and for the failure to send a decision letter in September 2024.

What should have happened

Residency

13. The Council’s housing Allocations Policy sets out that an applicant must prove they have been resident in the Borough continuously for the last five years. There are exceptions to this requirement including homeless households within the meaning of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996
14. The Council assesses the housing needs of applicants accepted onto the housing register and awards them a priority status. The applicant can then bid for advertised social housing. Where an applicant is shortlisted for a property, the Council carries out verification checks. Applicants must provide documentary evidence of their current circumstances including proof of residency in the Borough. The Council can also make additional checks using a financial check system. If the Council cannot find evidence the applicant has lived in the Borough continuously for the last five years a Rehousing Officer will speak to the applicant and advise them about the issue. The Council will not be able to allocate the applicant a property, and they will be removed from the housing register. The Council should write explaining its decision to the applicant within 14 days and advise them of their right to request a review of the decision.
15. Under the allocations policy applicants must inform the Council of any changes in their circumstances by using the change of circumstances form on the Council’s website. This includes informing the Council if they move to a new property. Where applicants send in other forms, such as a medical need form, this will not trigger an update to a change of circumstances. An applicant would need to still complete the required change of circumstances form also. Applicants who do not keep the Council informed of a change in their circumstances may have their housing application cancelled.

Failure to provide information

16. Under the Allocations Policy, unless there are exceptional circumstances, an applicant will be removed from the housing register for a range of reasons including if they have changed their address without telling the Council within four weeks of the change and have not fully updated their application for housing via the Council’s online registration system.
17. Removal from the housing register will result in the loss of any previously awarded priority and accumulated time waiting on the register if the applicant subsequently re-applies for housing or has their previous application reinstated on the housing register, with the exception of those applications that that are re-registered or reinstated within 42 days from the date of their removal/cancellation from the register.

Homelessness

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) However if an applicant notifies a council, they do want to make a homelessness application the Council has no duty to make inquiries or take further action.

Was there fault by the Council

19. The Council has already accepted failings in the case as set out in its August 2025 response. It failed to send Ms D a decision letter in September 2024 after it decided to remove her from the housing register. That letter would also have explained Ms D’s right to request a review. The Council also delayed responding to Ms D’s complaints. There was a significant delay from the end of October 2024 through to August 2025 before the final stage response was sent. That was a delay of around nine months.
20. The Council also delayed contacting Ms D to see if she required homelessness assistance. In her October 2024 complaint Ms D said she was without a fixed abode. That should have prompted a referral to the Prevention and Assessment Team. However that referral did not take place until July 2025, a delay of around seven months.
21. Ms D’s main concern is that she was incorrectly removed from the housing register. The evidence shows me the Council followed the correct process. It carried out verification checks which showed no evidence of Ms D living continuously in the Borough for the last five years. Correspondence was being sent to Ms D’s parent and benefit payments were also linked to the parent’s address outside the Borough. Ms D had not updated the Council about changes to her circumstances including changes of address. Ms D says she sent the Council a DWP letter in August 2024 showing her parent’s address. That would not be sufficient to trigger a review of her circumstances because it was sent as evidence to support a medical assessment of housing need. Under the Allocations Policy applicants should submit a change of circumstances form to notify the Council about changes of address and other key matters. I appreciate Ms D feels the decision is unfair and wrong. 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. In this case the evidence shows me the Council adhered to the correct process when making the verification checks. That means it is entitled to conclude Ms D was not eligible to remain on the housing register.

Did the fault cause an injustice

22. The delay in contacting Ms D to discuss her homelessness did not result in a significant injustice because she decided she did not want to pursue a homelessness application. The failure to notify Ms D about her right of review and the delays responding to Ms D’s complaint meant she was put to avoidable time and trouble pursuing her case

Back to top

Action

23. The Council has previously offered Ms D £400 redress for the failures in her case. In addition it is now offering £250 for the distress and time and trouble caused to Ms D. I consider that to be a reasonable remedy to the fault and injustice I have identified.
24. In respect of the delays in this case the Council has increased staffing and confirmed the complaints backlog has been cleared. The Council will also remind Officers about the need to send a written decision when an applicant is removed from the housing register.
25. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Decision

26. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman