Summary: Miss X complained the Council wrongly prioritised her housing application and failed to review its decision properly. The Council was at fault for delaying the review. This distressed Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council awarded the wrong priority band to her housing application and did not review its decision properly. This distressed Miss X because she wanted to move out of her supported accommodation.

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 the 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

How I considered this complaint

4. I read Miss X’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the phone.
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 had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background Information

7. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme setting 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))
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))

9. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:

• the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.

10. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
11. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
12. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:

• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

13. The Ombudsman 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.
14. The Council operates a housing allocations scheme which places qualifying applicants into one of four priority bands A, B, C or D based on their circumstances. Band A is the highest priority for rehousing and Band D is the lowest.
15. The Council’s housing allocations scheme gives Applicants the right to request a review of their priority banding within 21 days of receiving a housing application decision. The scheme says the Council should complete the review within 56 days of the review request.
16. The Government’s social housing allocations guidance says “The review should be considered on the basis of the authority’s allocation scheme, any legal requirements and all relevant information. This should include information provided by the applicant on any relevant developments since the original decision was made.” (Paragraph 5.23 (v)). The guidance does not require the Council to formally request any specific information from the applicant for the review.

What happened

17. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
18. Miss X made a housing application to the Council in November 2023.
19. The Council wrote to Miss X in April 2024 asking her to provide her support worker’s contact details because she said she lived in a supported accommodation scheme. The Council asked Miss X to complete its case worker details form and upload this information to her on-line housing application account. It explained how to do this and provided links to the relevant documents.
20. The Council closed Miss X’s housing application in May 2024 because she failed to provide the information requested by the Council.
21. Miss X made a new housing application in August 2024.
22. The Council closed Miss X’s housing application in September 2024 because Miss X had not provided all required documents. The Council wrote to Miss X after closing the application and told her what documents it needed.
23. Miss X made a new housing application in November 2024. Miss X’s application said she needed to move on from supported accommodation.
24. The Council wrote to Miss X in December 2024 asking her to provide the contact details of her support worker because she said she lived in supported accommodation. The Council’s letter told Miss X how she could upload her case worker details to her on-line housing application account.
25. The Council accepted Miss X’s housing application in January 2025 and awarded her priority band C. The Council recorded Miss X had not supplied the information it asked for in December 2024.
26. In February 2025, Miss X asked the Council to review its decision to award priority band C.
27. The Council issued its review decision 98 days later, in May 2025. The Council upheld its decision. The decision said the Council asked for details of Miss X’s support worker and she had failed to provide the details. The Council said this information would have enabled it to consider Miss X’s other housing needs. The Council again provided Miss X with details of how she could upload her case worker details to her on-line housing application account.
28. The Council spoke to Miss X and her support worker after its review decision. It advised Miss X to upload supporting documents for reassessing her application.
29. Miss X did not upload any case worker details or supporting documents after the Council’s review decision.
30. Miss X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Miss X would like the Council to increase her priority banding.
31. In response to my enquiries the Council stated it had awarded Miss X priority band C for overcrowding. It stated it had received no response to its request for information on Miss X’s need to move from supported accommodation.

My findings

32. While the Council was assessing Miss X’s application, in December 2024, it asked her to upload details of her support worker to her on-line housing application account. Miss X did not do so. I note the Council made the same request to Miss X on a previous application and she did not do so. As stated in paragraph 16, the Council is not required to request information when carrying out a review. Therefore, the Council did not have to ask Miss X for these details again when carrying out its review.
33. I recognise the Council had previously spoken to Miss X’s support worker. However, it was reasonable for the Council to ask Miss X to upload the support worker details to her account. The Council needs to confirm its information is correct and up to date. The Council told Miss X how to upload the support worker details . Miss X did not tell the Council she could not do this. Miss X had made an on-line application and uploaded other information. This indicates Miss X should have been able to upload the support worker details as requested by the Council. She did not do so.
34. Paragraph 16 explains what the Council should have considered in its review. The Council had all the relevant information from Miss X’s application and the information provided in Miss X’s review request. The Council was entitled to uphold the original decision on Miss X’s housing application on review. There is no fault in the Council’s decision-making process for Miss X’s review.
35. The Council’s housing allocations scheme says the Council should complete a review within 56 days. The Council’s review decision for Miss X was 42 days late. This is fault which distressed Miss X. The Council’s review decision did not change Miss X’s priority band, so the delay did not affect her rehousing chances.

Back to top

Action

36. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Miss X by the fault I have identified, the Council should take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:

• Apologise to Miss X for the distress caused by the delay in completing the review of her housing application. 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.

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

Back to top

Decision

38. I have found fault by the Council which caused injustice to Miss X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman