Summary: The Council was at fault in how it decided what priority Mr X should have for social housing. This caused Mr X avoidable frustration, particularly as the Ombudsman had previously found the Council at fault for the same issue. To remedy Mr X’s injustice, the Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and carry out a new assessment of his priority. The Council will also review what it needs to do to prevent similar fault in future.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to reduce his priority on its social housing register. Mr X was also unhappy he had to renew his application on the register and that the Council said he had only bid on two social housing properties over the past two years. Mr X said this caused him and his partner, Ms Y, significant stress and affected Ms Y’s mental health.

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

Relevant law and guidance

Housing allocations

6. 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))
7. The Council is a partner in a local choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which are advertised. The scheme sets out applicants will be placed in one of five priority bands, A to E, with band A having the highest priority.
8. When an applicant applies to the Council for the first time, or when it is carrying out a renewal of an applicant’s case, the person is required to complete a form which includes a section on their health and the health of other people in the household.
9. The Council’s policy says that it will award a person band B priority if there is a social need for them to move. This includes:
1. When the person’s existing housing poses a risk to a child; or
2. Where a combination of factors or special circumstances mean the overall effect of the existing housing is disproportionately worse than any of the individual factors would be on their own.
10. If the Council decides an applicant or someone in their household needs rehousing because their housing is affecting their health and wellbeing, it uses its health and wellbeing framework to decide what banding they should have. Band D of the framework says it will be awarded when “Quality of life would be greatly enhanced by living in a location that would allow family (or other significant support network, such as a long established friend) to provide social support at least 3 times a week. The support will enable for example the person to access transport, shops, or other essential services. The support is not available in their current location”.
11. It also says a person would have band D priority if they had mental health needs which were being impacted by the existing housing but where the mental health condition was of a less severe type and typically where the person is not being seen by a medical professional other than a GP.
12. Band B under the framework includes when the person has had mental health needs for a significant period of time, which are being affected by the housing. The criteria says usually the person has been referred by their GP to a mental health professional.
13. The Council’s policy says it will renew applicants’ cases at least every three years. The Council told the Ombudsman it chooses to ask applicants to renew their cases every year.

Child protection

14. If, following a safeguarding referral and an assessment by a social worker, a multi-agency strategy meeting decides concerns raised about a child are substantiated and the child is likely to suffer significant harm, the council convenes a child protection conference.
15. The child protection conference decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include a recommendation that the child should be supported by a child protection plan.

What happened

16. In January 2023, Mr X updated his housing register application to include Ms Y and his unborn child. Ms Y was living in another council’s area, several hours from Plymouth. Mr X told the Council Ms Y had been in an abusive relationship, experienced harassment from neighbours and the family wanted to move closer to his family and support network. Subsequently, the council whose area Ms Y lived in (council B) sent the Council a letter which said Ms Y’s unborn child was subject to a child protection plan. It said where Ms Y lived there was drug use, which she had previously engaged in. It felt this was a risk to the baby. Council B said the family needed access to Mr X’s family, who lived in the Council’s area, as a support network.
17. The Council awarded Mr X band D under the health and wellbeing framework. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman and we concluded the Council had been at fault in how it decided Mr X should have band D priority. We found the Council had failed to take into account the fact Ms Y had a history of drug use in the area. Before we issued our final decision, the Council moved Mr X to band B for social need because of the child protection plan.
18. In February 2025, the Council asked Mr X to renew his application. Mr X was unhappy with this and said he had not been asked to do one before. The Council explained it asks people to renew their applications once a year.
19. Mr X submitted an application form to say:
• Yes to the question of whether he or someone in his family needed housing because of health and wellbeing reasons;
• Yes to the question of whether he needed to move to be nearer family to give or receive support;
• He had mental health needs; and
• Ms Y needed to move out of the area her home was currently in because of the risk posed by her ex-partner and for health reasons. Mr X stated he had sent letters in support of Ms Y’s need to move previously. This included the letter from Council B referenced in paragraph 16 of this decision.
20. The Council issued its priority band decision a month later. It placed Mr X in band D under its health and wellbeing framework. The decision email quoted the framework- “you have been awarded a band D for your health and wellbeing, as Devon Home Choice policy states that this will be awarded when "Quality of life would be greatly enhanced by living in a location that would allow family (or other significant support network, such as a long established friend) to provide social support at least 3 times a week. The support will enable for example the person to access transport, shops, or other essential services and the support is not available in their current location”.
21. It said if Mr X disagreed, he could ask for a review and include any additional information he wanted the Council to consider. Mr X asked for a review of the Council’s decision. He said it had not considered the evidence he had supplied in 2023.
22. The Council asked Mr X for more information in early June. Its questions focused on whether Mr X’s children were still involved with children’s services and why and where Mr X was sleeping in his car. The Council also asked Mr X why he had only bid on two properties in the past two years.
23. Mr X said the children were no longer involved with children’s services but that he felt this did not mean he should not be on band B. Mr X said the concerns council B had raised were still applicable. He said he did not live with Miss X full-time because his mental health needs meant he needed to split his time between her home and Plymouth, where his support network was. Mr X said he had bid on many properties, not just two.
24. In early June, the Council issued its review decision. It said it had previously awarded Mr X band B because the child protection plan showed there were active safeguarding concerns, which meant alternative housing was needed urgently. That was no longer the case, so the reason for him having band B priority no longer applied.
25. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman. In response to our enquiries, the Council said:
• Mr X had not provided any current evidence to show Ms Y was at risk and it appeared Ms Y was not being supported by any agencies. It said the level of risk had evidently reduced because council B had ended the child protection plan;
• It reviews applications every 12 months and that it was six months late doing Mr X’s review because of a backlog, which it has now cleared; and
• It had reviewed Mr X’s bidding history and could see he made more than two bids over two years. It accepted it had made a mistake when it said he had not.

Findings

Housing register priority

26. When Mr X renewed his application, the Council moved him from band B for social need to band D under its health and wellbeing framework. This is evidenced by the fact its decision quoted the framework directly. However, there is no evidence of how the Council decided band D was appropriate because the decision outcome only quoted the criteria the Council had decided applied to Mr X’s case. It did not explain what information the Council had taken into account or why that information did not show Mr X needed higher priority under the framework or social need criteria. This was fault and meant Mr X could not be assured the Council took the information he supplied into account. Although the Council told Mr X he could ask for a review and submit new information with it, without knowing how the Council considered the existing information he had provided, Mr X could not make an effective review request.
27. The Council was also at fault in how it considered Mr X’s review request. There is no contemporary evidence to show it considered whether Ms Y was at risk from her ex-partner or at risk of relapse. There is also no evidence the Council considered the impact of Mr X’s mental health needs. Instead, the Council’s review focused solely on the fact the child protection plan had stopped. The Council decided that the end of the child protection plan showed the risk to the family had reduced and meant they were no longer eligible for band B under the social need criteria relating to risk to children. However, the ending of the plan does not mean all risks were removed. Nor does it mean that the household was not eligible for band B priority on another basis, such as those set out at paragraphs 9b and 12. The Council needed to consider all the key relevant information, and record having done so, before coming to a decision on the review. It could have said, in its review decision, that no up-to-date information had been provided in relation to the risks and Mr X’s mental health, which would have shown it had considered those factors. It could also have invited Mr X to provide further evidence for it to consider.
28. I have not made a judgement on what the Council might have concluded had it not been at fault. That is a decision for the Council to make, taking into account the relevant evidence. I have therefore recommended the Council carry out a new assessment of Mr X’s priority banding.
29. The faults set out in this decision caused Mr X avoidable frustration and uncertainty about what banding he could have been awarded had the Council not been at fault. This was compounded by the fact the Council had previously been at fault in how it decided what banding he should have. As a result, I have recommended the Council apologise to Mr X and make a symbolic payment in recognition of his injustice.

Renewal of Mr X’s application

30. The Council is entitled to review a person’s housing register application, to ensure their banding remains appropriate. The Council sets out how it will do this in its allocations scheme. It was not at fault for asking Mr X to renew his application.
31. The Council accepted it delayed asking Mr X to renew his application by six months. However, the fault did not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice because it meant he continued on band B for longer than he might otherwise have done.

Mr X’s bidding history

32. The Council wrongly stated Mr X had only bid on two properties in two years. It accepts this was an error. The mistake does not amount to fault, particularly as it had no impact on the Council’s banding decision.

Back to top

Action

33. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the frustration he felt because of the flaws in how it considered his renewal application and review request. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
2. Pay Mr X £200 to recognise that injustice.
3. Identify why it failed to take relevant information into account when deciding what priority banding Mr X should have. The Council should tell the Ombudsman what steps it will take to prevent those faults occurring again in future, and when it will complete them by.
34. Within six weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council will complete a new assessment of Mr X’s priority banding. This timescale should include a two-week period for Mr X to provide relevant, current information on his family’s needs.
35. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

36. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy that injustice and prevent similar fault in future.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman