Summary: There was fault by the Council in how it dealt with Mr X’s housing situation. It took too long to assess Mr X’s change in circumstances and to ask him for proof that he was the primary carer for all his children. Its communication was also confusing. The Council’s failings caused Mr X distress, confusion, and frustration. The Council has delivered training and improved its guidance to its staff. It will also apologise to Mr X and make him a symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council considered his housing application. In particular he says the Council did not offer him accommodation that he bid on despite him being in Band One priority. The Council says that this was because Mr X had not provided child benefit proof for some of his children. Mr X says he did not receive the Council’s request for further information.
2. Mr X says that as a result of the Council’s failings he has missed out on suitable properties to house his family.

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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council 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 and guidance, and the Council’s policy

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))
8. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in certain categories. This includes homeless applicants.
9. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
10. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.
11. The Council’s policy says that a child will be included as part of the applicant’s household if the applicant is the primary carer for that child. This means that the applicant must show that they receive child benefit for that child, or they have a court order that says the child should live with them for 50% of the time or more.

What happened

12. Mr X was homeless. In 2018, the Council accepted that it owed him the main housing duty. Mr X was eligible to bid on two-bedroom properties because he had one child living with him.
13. In January 2023, Mr X added three more of his children to his housing application. In February 2024, Mr X bid on a two-bedroom property but because he had added his three other children to his housing application, the Council did not offer him the property. The Council’s case notes show that it phoned Mr X to explain that he should now bid on three-bedroom properties.
14. The Council should have asked Mr X to verify whether he received child benefit for the three further children or had a court order where he would have them for 50% of the time or more. This was needed to verify the children as part of the household and would have confirmed Mr X’s entitlement to a three-bedroom property. However, the Council did not do that until April 2024. Mr X said he did not receive an email from the Council about this, but its records show that it emailed him asking for the necessary proof.
15. In August 2024, the Council sent Mr X a decision letter. This said that he had been accepted as having a band A priority, and he was entitled to a three-bedroom property. The Council has acknowledged that this was wrong as Mr X had not submitted the information it needed to verify that he was primary carer to all of his children. The Council says that the officer should have followed the Council’s procedure for changes of circumstance. It has given further training to relevant staff and improved its internal guidance.
16. Mr X continued to bid on three-bedroom properties. He was ranked as first place but the Council did not offer him these. Mr X complained to the Council.
17. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council explained that he had been awarded priority for a three-bedroom property, but it would not offer him a property until he submitted the required proof for his children.
18. Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage two of its complaints process. He said that the Council had not asked him for proof that he had child benefit or a court order for all his children.
19. The Council responded to Mr X’s stage two complaint. It said that it could not see that it had requested proof from him. It clarified that the lack of proof meant that he had not been offered properties, and he still needed to submit this if he needed a three-bedroom property.
20. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman. In August and September 2025, the Council again asked Mr X for proof that he was the primary carer for his children. In January 2026, Mr X sent the Council a number of documents relating to his children. However he did not submit child benefit or a court order as required. The Council decided that it could only verify one of Mr X’s children as part of his household, and so he would only be eligible for a two-bedroom house. The Council told Mr X that he had the right to ask it for a review of its decision but Mr X did not request a review.

Was there fault by the Council causing Mr X and his family injustice?

21. There was fault by the Council. Mr X added three further children to his housing application in January 2023. The Council should have assessed his change of circumstances then by requesting proof from Mr X that he was their primary carer. The Council did not request this proof until April 2024. This was too long.
22. Mr X says he did not receive the Council’s request. The Council’s case notes suggest this was emailed to him. If Mr X did not receive this, it is not fault by the Council.
23. It was fault when the Council wrongly told Mr X that he was eligible for a three-bedroom house despite not verifying that he was the primary carer for all the children. The Council told Mr X this by telephone in February 2024, and by letter in August 2024.
24. The Council’s complaints responses are confusing because it told Mr X that it had requested proof from him, and then that it had not. This was fault by the Council. However, in its complaint response of April 2025, the Council was clear that it would not offer Mr X a three-bedroom house until he had submitted this proof. This put Mr X on notice that he should submit proof and he did not do this until January 2026.
25. The Council asked Mr X again for this proof in August and September 2025. Mr X finally submitted some proof in January 2026, but it was not sufficient for the Council to verify all the children as part of the household. If Mr X did not agree with the Council’s decision he had the right to ask it for a review of this.
26. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
27. I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities that Mr X would have been housed had the Council not made any mistakes. Mr X was never eligible for a three-bedroom house based on the evidence that he supplied. Had the Council assessed his change of circumstances sooner, and been clear with him that he needed to submit proof, it may have reached its decision that he was eligible for a two-bedroom property sooner, but we cannot say that Mr X would have bid on a two-bedroom property, nor that he would have been successful.
28. The Council’s mishandling of Mr X’s housing situation and his complaints caused him distress, confusion and frustration.

Back to top

Action

29. The Council has delivered further training, and it has improved its internal guidance so that officers follow its procedure to make sure it verifies changes of circumstances in good time.
30. The Council will also within one month of today’s date:
• Apologise to Mr X for the impact on him of its mistakes. 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.
• Make a symbolic payment to Mr X of £500 in recognition of the distress, confusion and frustration it caused him.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman