Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not properly deal with the housing and homelessness applications for her adult child, Mr Y. The Council was at fault for not investigating Miss X and Mr Y’s concerns about the suitability of his interim accommodation and for not responding to Miss X’s stage one complaint. This caused both Mr Y and Miss X uncertainty, frustration and time and trouble. It did not result in Mr Y missing out on a property. The Council was not at fault for the delays assessing Mr Y’s housing application or for its decisions about Mr Y’s housing priority. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Miss X and Mr Y.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council put her adult child, Mr Y, in the wrong housing banding on several occasions and wrongly updated the effective date of his application once it moved him into a higher priority band. Miss X also complained the Council did not consider Mr Y’s medical and care needs, delayed assessments and placed him in unsuitable interim accommodation following a homelessness application.
2. Miss X said this caused her and Mr Y distress, uncertainty and emotional harm. Miss X said she would like the Council to find Mr Y secure, long-term accommodation, apologise and pay compensation for the distress and harm caused. Miss X would also like the Council to review its homelessness processes.

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. 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

5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended).
6. Miss X complained about the Council delaying assessments between Mr Y’s application in September 2023 and it putting him in band D in November 2024. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman in June 2025. I have decided to investigate events from Mr Y’s application in September 2023.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Miss X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Law

Housing Allocations

9. 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)).
10. 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)).

11. We expect councils to process housing applications within eight weeks. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

The Council’s scheme

12. The Council’s allocations policy says it uses a banding system to prioritise the housing needs of applicants. The banding system is:
• A – those with critical or urgent needs
• B – applicants with serious needs
• C – those with medium need for housing
• D – reduced preference
• E – applicants who do not have a housing need
• F – non-bidding band for applicants waiting for extra care, supported housing or being directly matched to a property

The policy says that applicants in bands A, B and C have reasonable preference.

13. The policy says if an applicant would be entitled to reasonable preference, but the applicant’s behaviour affects their suitability to be a tenant, the Council will place the applicant in Band D. The policy lists examples of these behaviours, including the applicant having former tenant arrears.
14. The policy says applicants who are under a homelessness prevention duty, a homelessness relief duty or the Council owes a main housing duty to cannot also have a medical award added to their application.

Homelessness

15. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
16. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175).
17. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18).
18. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
19. 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).
20. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available (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)

Review rights

21. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:

• their eligibility for assistance;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end;
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

22. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)
23. Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request:

• eligibility for assistance;
• not in priority need;
• intentionally homeless;
• suitability of accommodation;
• notice being given of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to cooperate and the effect of the notice is to bring the relief duty to an end.

24. These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
25. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

What happened

26. Mr Y submitted a housing application to the Council on 26 September 2023. On 7 November 2023, the Council told a representative for Mr Y that it needed identification documents from Mr Y to process his application. The Council also told the representative Mr Y needed to contact the revenue department about his former tenant arrears. On 23 November 2023, the Council activated Mr Y’s application based on the information he provided and said he should contact his former landlord to clear the arrears. The Council told Mr Y it had placed him in Band D with reduced preference, in line with its allocation policy. The Council told Mr Y it would not remove this until he provided evidence that his arrears had been cleared or that he had a payment plan.
27. There is no record of Mr Y responding to the Council’s request. Following renewed contact in mid-2024 the Council re-iterated the information it needed. In November 2024, the Council told Mr Y he remained in band D of its housing eligibility banding with an effective date of 26 September 2023. The Council said it put Mr Y in band D in line with its allocation policy because it had been told Mr Y had former tenant arrears.
28. On 4 November 2024, Miss X asked the Council to review its decision. The Council then received new information from Miss X and a Council officer in December 2024, which confirmed the arrears were part of a debt relief order. At the same time Mr Y submitted a homelessness application to the Council.
29. Following the new information about the debt relief order, the Council reassessed Mr Y and placed him in band C on 16 December 2024. It kept the effective date of his application as 26 September 2023.
30. Miss X contacted the Council on 17 December 2024. She asked for Mr Y’s banding to be reviewed and complained the Council had not considered Mr Y’s disability and vulnerability.
31. The Council completed a homelessness assessment and personalised housing plan for Mr Y on 18 December 2024. It said it was satisfied Mr Y was threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance. On 14 January 2025, the Housing Options Officer recommended the Council upgrade Mr Y to band B because he was homeless and because of his health. On 31 January 2025, the Council told Mr Y it had moved him up to band B. The Council said it changed Mr Y’s effective date to 31 January 2025, in line with its allocation policy.
32. In April 2025 Miss X chased the Council for a response to her December 2024 complaint. The Council responded on 23 April 2025 saying its decisions were in line with its allocation policy. The Council accepted it should have completed a medical or welfare assessment in November 2024 when it received Mr Y’s application. The Council said this oversight did not affect how it banded Mr Y and would not have changed the effective date. Miss X raised a stage two complaint to the Council on 24 April 2025.
33. Mr Y became homeless later in April 2025. The Council accepted a homelessness duty and offered Mr Y interim accommodation. In early May 2025 Mr Y raised concerns over the suitability of the interim accommodation.
34. The Council responded to Miss X’s stage two complaint on 19 May 2025, saying it should have told Mr Y about his right to appeal the outcome of the review in December 2024, but it did not do so. The Council apologised and said it would consider the complaint as an appeal, which it would send to another independent Council to consider. The Council also said in its stage two complaint response that it placed Mr Y in band C because he had no fixed address and due to his health. Once the Council moved him up to band B and accepted a main housing duty, it said he could no longer receive an award for medical reasons.
35. In June 2025 Miss X asked the Council to review its decision to end its prevention duty and accept a relief duty to Mr Y. She also raised several other issues, including the Council allegedly placing Mr Y in unsuitable interim accommodation, incorrectly saying Mr Y had rent arrears and failing to take safeguarding action. Miss X also raised concerns about the Council’s decision making around Mr Y’s banding, saying it was inconsistent and contradictory.
36. On 20 June 2025, the Council told Mr Y it had accepted its main housing duty towards him. In early August 2025 the Council responded to Miss X’s review request. It confirmed its decision to end its prevention duty to Mr Y. It said this was because Mr Y told the Council he was homeless in April 2025 and so the prevention duty no longer applied, and the Council placed him in interim accommodation.
37. On 20 August 2025, the Council wrote to Mr Y with a final offer of accommodation, which Mr Y accepted. Mr Y moved into secure accommodation in September 2025 and the Council told him its main duty had ended as he had accepted accommodation. Miss X told the Ombudsman she agreed Mr Y was now in suitable accommodation, so she was now looking for the Council to apologise and pay compensation for the distress and harm caused to Mr Y because of the alleged incorrect banding and effective date decisions, as well as the Council placing Mr Y in suitable interim accommodation.

My findings

Mr Y’s housing application

38. Mr Y submitted his application on 26 September 2023. The Council asked Mr Y to provide information and documents to help it process his application in November 2023. The Council activated Mr Y’s application in late November 2023 based on the information it had at the time. The Council contacted Mr Y on several occasions in August, September and October 2024, saying it still required information from Mr Y to help it process his assessment.
39. The Council was not at fault for the delays assessing Mr Y between September 2023 and October 2024, as it had activated his application but did not have the information it needed from Mr Y to complete the assessment until October 2024.

Mr Y’s housing priority and homelessness application

40. The Council’s allocation policy says it will put applicants who are entitled to reasonable preference but have former tenant arrears in band D, which the Council calls reduced preference. The Council put Mr Y in band D based on the information it had, which was that he had former tenant arrears. Once the Council received information that confirmed the arrears were part of a debt relief order, it upgraded Mr Y to band C and kept the effective date as 26 September 2023. This was not fault. The Council followed the guidance in its allocation policy, and the banding upgrade did not affect Mr Y’s effective date.
41. On 14 January 2025, Housing Options asked the Council to upgrade Mr Y to band B as he was homeless and social housing was the only or most suitable solution. The Council reviewed the request and agreed to move Mr Y up to band B on 31 January 2025. This was not fault. The Council assessed the new information in the form of the request and agreed Mr Y was eligible to moved up to band B.
42. The Council’s allocation policy says it will change the effective date to a new date when it moves an applicant to a higher band. This is to reflect the date the person became eligible for the higher banding. The Council changed Mr Y’s effective date when it upgraded him to band B. I recognise Miss X’s view is that Mr Y’s circumstances had not changed and that he should have been in band B earlier. However, the Council did not receive Mr Y’s homelessness application until December 2024 and completed processing the application in January 2025. It then moved him into band B with a new effective date. This was not fault. The Council followed the guidance in its allocation policy and acted on the information available at the time.
43. On Miss X’s point the Council did not consider Mr Y’s medical and care needs, the Council discussed Mr Y’s health and needs with him when it completed the assessment and personalised housing plan forms and upgraded Mr Y’s banding status when it received new information that it was fitting to do so. However, the Council accepted it should have completed a medical or welfare assessment for Mr Y in November 2024. This was fault but did not cause Mr Y a significant injustice. The Council said this did not affect Mr Y’s banding or his effective date.
44. The Council said that when it moved Mr Y up to band B and gave him a full homeless duty, he could no longer receive an award for medical reasons. This was not fault. The Council followed the guidance in its allocation policy.
45. The Council identified it should have told Mr Y about his right to appeal the banding review in December 2024, but it did not do so. This was fault. The Council apologised and said it would consider Miss X’s complaint as an appeal, which it would send to another independent Council to consider. It is unlikely the Ombudsman could achieve significantly more than this and so we consider the Council’s remedy suitable.

Mr Y and Miss X’s complaint

46. The Council did not respond to Miss X’s stage one complaint that she made in December 2024. It only responded in April 2025 after Miss X made another stage one complaint. This was fault. It caused Miss X uncertainty and frustration over whether the Council would resolve the issue and time and trouble in making the complaint again.
47. Mr Y and Miss X also both raised concerns over the suitability of Mr Y’s interim accommodation. There is no evidence of the Council investigating or responding to these concerns. This was fault. Due to the length of time that has passed we cannot say whether Mr Y’s interim accommodation was suitable and what would have happened had the Council investigated the concerns. However, the Council’s failure to respond caused Mr Y and Miss X further uncertainty.

Back to top

Action

48. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following action:
1. Apologise to Mr Y and pay him £150 for the uncertainty caused by the Council not investigating his concerns about the suitability of his interim accommodation.
2. Apologise to Miss X and pay her £150 for the uncertainty caused by the Council not investigating her concerns about the suitability of Mr Y’s interim accommodation. The apology and payment are also for the uncertainty, frustration and time and trouble caused by the Council not responding to her stage one complaint, causing Miss X to complain again.

Back to top

Final decision

49. I find fault causing injustice, which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman