Summary: We have found fault with the Council for how it reached its decision to remove Miss X’s emergency rehousing status. This caused Miss X and her family avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council unfairly removed her family from the emergency housing list. She said the Council accepted her reasons for refusing the properties offered due to their locations. It then offered her another property in the same area and then removed her from the emergency list when she refused it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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

6. Miss X brought her complaint to us in June 2025. Although Miss X’s complaint relates to matters which happened as far back as 2022, I have not investigated back earlier than June 2024 (12 months before she brought her complaint to us). I have seen no reason why Miss X did not bring her complaint to us sooner.
7. I have referred to earlier events as these provide a content to part of the complaint I am investigating. The complaint I am investigating relates to the Council’s ‘final offer’ of a property.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. 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

Housing Allocation Policy

Exercising discretion

10. The Council’s allocation’s scheme allows for officers to exercise discretion when making decisions. It says that the Council considers the individual circumstances of each applicant in every case. It says this is based on applicant information on their Housing Registration Form plus additional information that may result from applicant’s answers. The Scheme allows for exceptional circumstances where any provision can be considered and waived.

Reasonable preference

11. The Council says that all applicants will be placed in the appropriate Housing Needs priority group based on an assessment of their needs. This will ensure that the Council lets homes to those in the highest assessed need and ensure that they meet their legal obligations.
12. The law sets out five categories of applicants to whom the Scheme must give a reasonable preference. This includes applicants who need to move on medical or welfare grounds (including grounds relating to a disability).

Urgent housing need

13. The policy says:
• the Council considers a person, or household is in urgent housing need if they need to move urgently on harassment, medical or social/welfare grounds (Emergency Rehousing).
• that this group has the highest priority in the allocations scheme.
• that allocations outside of choice based lettings are made to direct offer groups of which the Additional Preference (Emergency Rehousing) is one.

Reasonable offers and refusing a direct offer

14. The scheme addresses the reasonableness of offers and refusals including the consequences of refusing a direct offer as well as the criteria for permanent offers.
15. The policy regarding the reasonableness of offers says:
• applicants with a Direct Offer may be offered any property type and generally do not have any choice.
• applicants must specify a minimum of 4 lettings areas where they are willing to be housed.
• tenants moving on violence and harassment grounds will be moved to any areas outside of identified risk.
• tenants with emergency rehousing status, are far as possible, offered properties on a like-for-like basis in terms of the number of bedrooms.
16. The policy covering refusals says:
• if a refusal is reasonable the applicant will either be entitled to another offer or can bid again where they remain within the time limits.
• a refusal of the correct size and district which meets any medical requirements will be considered unreasonable. However, there are circumstances where the refusal may be reasonable.
• if an applicant refuses a reasonable offer, the Council will inform them they have made an unreasonable refusal.
• the consequence of an unreasonable refusal of the final offer for those applicants in the emergency rehousing category is the removal of emergency status and placement in the priority homeseeker (PH) category.

What happened

Background

17. Miss X lives with her children in a Council-owned property. In 2022, a medical assessment of her child (B) concluded that due to their mental health condition, they could not share a bedroom with their sibling (C). The Council awarded the family ‘reasonable preference’ on medical grounds on their housing register application.
18. After an incident in March 2023, the Council awarded the family an additional ‘emergency rehousing’ preference on violence and harassment grounds in November 2023. The emergency rehousing scheme provided for one suitable offer of accommodation in an area that was not considered to be a risk to the family.
19. Miss X completed a form identifying areas that she deemed the family would be ‘at risk’.
20. In January 2024, the Council offered Miss X a property. Miss X refused this on the grounds that it was too close to the location where the incident took place. The Council accepted this reason for refusal was reasonable.
21. In February, the Council offered Miss X an alternative property in a different location (not identified as an ‘at risk area’). Miss X refused this property on the grounds that it was ‘too far’. In March, the Council said that Miss X’s refusal was unreasonable and removed her emergency housing status.
22. Miss X requested a review of the Council’s decision to remove her emergency status.
23. In May 2024, the Council informed Miss X of its review decision. It said the Council considered its original decision, that Miss X’s refusal was unreasonable, to be correct and upheld it. The reasons for this were that the property was a like for like offer, in an area that was not identified as a risk.
24. The Council said that it considered new information from Miss X. This was that her child (B) was an inpatient at a medical facility and that the offered property was too far from there. The Council concluded that it would exercise discretion and reinstate Miss X’s emergency housing status and allow for a further final direct offer. The Council said that an offer closer to the hospital was appropriate in that instance.

Final offer

25. In December 2024, 7 months after the Council agreed to make one final direct offer, the Council offered Miss X another property. The property was in the same area as the previous property Miss X refused.
26. Miss X refused the property on the grounds that it was too far from the hospital where B was an inpatient. The Council said it was an unreasonable refusal and gave Miss X a further 24 hours to rethink her decision to refuse.
27. Miss X refused the property and requested a review of the Council’s decision to revoke her emergency status. She said the Council had already established in its May 2024 decision that it would offer Miss X a more local property due to her and her children's needs.

Review decision

28. In February 2025, the Council’s review decision was to uphold its original decision that Miss X’s refusal was unreasonable and that her emergency status would be removed.
29. The Council referred to its Housing Allocations Scheme that stated that tenants moving due to violence and harassment would be moved to any areas outside of identified risk.
30. The Council referred to its earlier decision (May 2024) to exercise discretion and provide Miss X with one further offer as B was hospitalised in an area far from the offered property. It said that it understood that B remained hospitalised but that it only agreed to offer Miss X property nearer to the hospital ‘in that instance’. The Council said that its reasons for awarding one further offer was due to a change in circumstances relating to B’s needs. It said the decision was over 6 months ago and that the property was reasonable, and Miss X should have accepted it.

My findings

Failure to show how a decision was made

31. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
32. In this case, I struggle to see how the Council reached its decision that the final offer was reasonable, and Miss X’s refusal was unreasonable although the family’s circumstances remained the same as May 2024.
33. The Council failed to demonstrate how its decision was reached. The Council has agreed to review its decision again.

Fettered discretion

34. The Council exercised its discretion in May 2024 when it became aware of new information related to B’s hospitalisation. The Council was aware that B remained in the same hospital in December 2024 when it offered a property in the same area and then decided that Miss X’s reason for refusal was unreasonable. When Miss X requested a review, the Council did not consider exercising discretion although B’s medical circumstances remained the same.
35. I have found fault with the Council for fettering its discretion. The Housing Allocation Policy states that the Council considers the individual circumstances of each applicant in every case. I do not consider the Council to have considered the family’s specific circumstances when it reached its December 2024 and February 2025 decisions.
36. The Council has agreed to consider whether it should exercise discretion considering the family’s specific circumstances

Avoidable distress

37. The family remain living in a property where the Council deemed it appropriate to award ‘emergency rehousing’ status in November 2023. Miss X says that she is constantly stressed and living in fear for her child’s safety due to violence and harassment. But she can’t move so far away from her other child who is an inpatient at a local hospital. She feels like the Council expects her to choose between her children given the family’s unique circumstances.
38. The Council has agreed to apologise for causing the family avoidable distress and make a symbolic payment of £500.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. Within 4 weeks of my decisions, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Miss X for failing to show how it reached a decision and for fettering its discretion.
2. Pay Miss X £500 in recognition of the avoidable distress caused by the fault.
3. Review its decision that Miss X’s refusal was unreasonable and that her emergency status should be removed.
4. Consider whether it should exercise discretion and allow another offer taking into account the family’s specific circumstances.
40. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

41. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman