Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to remove her from the housing register in February 2025. Miss X says this has caused her distress and financial hardship. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for failing to act in accordance with its allocation policy. The Council has agreed to issue Miss X an apology and reviews its allocation policy.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to remove her from the housing register in February 2025.
2. Miss X says this has caused her distress and financial hardship.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Miss X and the Council were invited to comment on my draft decision. I have 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))

Reasonable preference

8. 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))

The Council’s allocation policy

9. The Council’s policy allocates into three bands- gold, silver and bronze.
10. Within these bands applicants are awarded various groups based on other factors such as medical, welfare, severe and/or persistent harassment and local connection. The medical and welfare groups are split into groups one and two depending on the level of an applicants need. Group one are allocated to gold band and group two to silver band.

What happened

11. Miss X approached the Council in May 2024 for assistance with housing. The Council completed an assessment and awarded Miss X the Prevention Duty and placed her in its silver band.
12. Miss X secured private rented housing with financial assistance from the Council in September 2024. The Council ended the Prevention Duty following Miss X securing housing.
13. The Council contacted Miss X in January 2025 to say she would need to update her circumstances if she wanted to remain on the housing register. The Council sent a further letter in late January to say its housing duty to Miss X had ended after she had secured accommodation and was no longer homeless.
14. Miss X completed a change of circumstances form shortly after receiving the Councils letter advising its duty had ended. Miss X said she could not afford her current accommodation and there were medical reasons it was not suitable. Miss X also contacted the Council in early February to say she could not afford the rent and this was affecting her mental health.
15. The Council wrote to Miss X in mid-February 2025 with the outcome of her change of circumstances assessment. The Council said Miss X was not in arrears with her rent and had a £50 deficit at the end of each month. The Council said because of this Miss X did not have a housing need. The Council said Miss X would receive an additional payment to help with her rent.
16. Miss X asked for a review of this decision based on her welfare and medical needs. Miss X also said her current property was unaffordable.
17. Miss X continued to communicate with the Council during April and discussed her welfare needs. Miss X said she had a deficit of around £300 per month.
18. The Council reviewed its decision to remove Miss X from the housing register in mid-April 2025. It concluded Miss X had incorrectly calculated her affordability and found a smaller deficit of around £130. The Council said it could only award a financial hardship banding if there is a deficit of more than £150 a month. The Council upheld its decision to remove Miss X from the housing register.
19. Miss X provided the Council with further information regarding her welfare needs and medical evidence regarding the distress her housing situation was causing her in late June 2025 and completed a further housing register application.
20. The Council reviewed the new information and application in August 2025 and concluded Miss X was eligible and qualified for the housing register. The Council awarded Miss X silver band- group two medical.
21. I understand the Council have continued to try and work with Miss X regarding the affordability of her current property.

Analysis

22. The Council made its decision to remove Miss X from the housing register following her securing a private rented accommodation. It made its decision in line with its policy and explained this to Miss X.
23. Miss X challenged the decision, and the Council reviewed this and explained why it upheld its decision. The Council told Miss X it had reviewed the affordability of her property and concluded she had a deficit of £130 a month. The Council said this did not meet the threshold of £150 to qualify for a financial hardship banding. The Council’s allocation policy does not mention this threshold. Council’s must make allocations strictly in accordance with its published scheme. By not doing so this is fault.
24. Miss X made a new application and was re-added to the housing register in August 2025 based on the medical and welfare information she provided.
25. Miss X has been caused distress by the Council implementing an additional consideration regarding financial hardship which is not detailed in its allocation policy. Miss X would not have been aware this step was in place until after receiving the decision from the Council. However, I cannot say Miss X would have been in a different position had she been aware of the threshold.
26. There is a wider public interest in this as it is possible others may also apply to the housing register and not be aware of the threshold to qualify for a financial hardship banding.

Back to top

Action

27. Within four weeks of a final decision, the Council should:

• Write to Miss X and apologise for the distress caused by the fault identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.

28. Within three months of a final decision, the Council should:

• Review its allocation policy to decide if it wishes to apply the threshold to decisions about financial hardship and if so, amend its allocations policy.

29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

30. I find fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman