Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to deal with a homelessness application, failed to grant appropriate housing priority and delayed responding to a SAR. He also complained about its complaint handling. We found no lack of response to a homelessness application, but we found there had been fault in the Council’s priority banding decisions. There was no fault in complaint handling. We recommended an apology and that action be taken to address the housing priority issue.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:

• failed to properly deal with a homelessness application he made in December 2024 and did not provide a formal outcome letter.
• failed to properly consider the medical information that he provided and did not grant sufficient medical priority for housing to reflect the composite needs of his family.
• There was a delay in dealing with a Subject Access Request (SAR) that related to his housing application.
• The Council’s response to his complaint focused on one element of what he raised and did not address the whole complaint.

2. Mr X complains the way the Council dealt with his application adversely affected his family’s health conditions and did not give the family the correct priority to bid for housing.

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. Mr X complained to the Council on 16 June 2025. The Council responded on 23 June 2025. Mr X asked the Council to escalate the complaint and it responded further on 5 August. Mr X brought a complaint to us on 5 August as he remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response. At around the same time the Council responded to queries Mr X raised via his MP.
6. We have investigated Mr X’s complaint from December 2024 to the point the Council responded and Mr X brought a complaint to us. We have not investigated events that have occurred since Mr X’s complaint to the Council. This is because the law requires issues to be raised formally with the Council as a complaint before they can be brought to us.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and 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 Council’s Housing Allocations Policy

9. The policy sets out how the Council prioritises housing applications.
10. The Council allocated applications to Bands 1 to 4. Band 1 being the highest priority. Applicants are then given priority via the date they were assessed into a given band.
11. The policy also states, if someone has two or more (composite) housing needs, their priority date will be backdated by 6 months. If they have three or more composite needs, it will be backdated 12 months.
12. The policy sets out the criteria for each band.

• Band 1 priority includes (amongst other criteria), life threatening physical or mental health issues.
• Band 2 priority includes harassment issues. It states this is where a household needs to move due to domestic abuse, violence or other harassment and is at significant risk of harm. It also includes households where a full homelessness duty has been accepted or someone is considered to be homeless at home (this is defined in various criteria and includes situations where someone is residing with others temporarily but there remains a threat of homelessness). Band 2 also includes unsatisfactory housing conditions, so serious as to pose an immediate threat.
• Band 3 includes medical and welfare criteria (where an issue is partly related to their existing housing). It also includes people who are threatened with homelessness, and owed homelessness prevention duties.
• Band 4 is general needs with no specific priority.

What Happened

13. The information in this statement provides an overview of the key events most relevant to the complaint. It is not intended to set out everything that happened.
14. Mr X told us he presented as homeless to the Council in December 2024, but the Council failed to process the application.
15. The Council provided a copy of its records from the interactions with Mr X in December 2024. It says Mr X did not present as homeless, rather, his partner agreed that he could be added to an existing housing application she already had. I understand Mr X’s partner’s application was placed in Band 4 at the time the housing form to add Mr X was submitted.
16. The content of the housing form appeared to be ambiguous as to Mr X’s current address and circumstances. It set out that Mr X and his partner were currently living with a member of her family (Mr B) but also provided a different current address for Mr X. Mr X also stated he was ‘no fixed abode’ and the form stated that Mr X and his partner were homeless or about to become homeless. The form stated the applicants were not experiencing domestic violence.
17. The Council reached a decision on the revised application for housing on 27 February 2025. The Council determined that Mr X and his partner were adequately housed, so it found they should remain in Band 4, with the priority date remaining unchanged, as 16 April 2020. The letter noted Mr X’s comments about the issues with health and Mr B, but it did not consider priority should be awarded. The letter confirmed Mr X and his partner were eligible to bid for properties with two bedrooms. The letter provided various links for general housing advice, including signposting them to the Council’s homelessness prevention team if they considered they were homeless or about to be made homeless.
18. The Council’s case notes indicate that the Council considered a health form, harassment form (relating to altercations with Mr B) and disrepair issues. It noted the main issues related to disrepair. However, the Council decided, based on the information received, that Band 4 remained appropriate.
19. Mr X sent the Council a letter from medical professionals in March along with his own further comments about his application and health. He sought a review of the banding decision. In his email to the Council Mr X stated Mr B had asked him and his partner to leave his house by the end of March and he was faced with imminent homelessness. He set out issues with Mr B’s behaviour and that he believed the accommodation was unfit to live in as a result. Mr X also set out disrepair and mould issues and commented on his son’s mental health.
20. The Council decided, on the basis of Mr X’s health, it should grant Band 3 priority. A letter was sent to Mr X stating this on 10 April 2025. It set out the information that had been considered and the Council’s reasons for reaching its decision. It stated the effective date of the new priority was 16 April 2020. It did not refer to Mr X’s comments about imminent homelessness.
21. There are records showing Mr X queried the priority date because the letter stated April 2020, but the council records stated April 2025.
22. On 10 June the Council wrote to Mr X about its previous correspondence. It told Mr X its policy stated the effective date for a move to a new priority band should be the date that the application was assessed into that band. In Mr X’s case, it had assessed and increased his medical priority to Band 3 on 10 April 2025. It noted that, in error, it had told him the effective date for his Band 3 priority was 16 April 2020. This was incorrect, and it was 10 April 2025. The Council apologised for any confusion caused.
23. Mr X complained on 19 June about the Council granting the priority date of 2020 and then removing it. He believed he was being treated unfairly. He stated he had contacts with the Council several times since and was not told of the error. Over the following weeks Mr X says they prepared for a potential house move, on the assumption that they were close to securing a home. Mr X says the Council’s decision not to honour the 2020 priority date had caused a profound impact on their health. He considered this was unacceptable and sought the reinstatement of the 2020 effective date.
24. The Council’s response accepted there had been an administrative error; the wrong effective date was quoted in its letter. However, it did not agree that this error in itself caused a significant impact to the family. The Council explained demand for social housing remained high. It explained, while Mr X and his partner had been given higher priority, the home choice system showed them and the Council the results of the bids they placed, and from those results it was clear they had still not been close to securing a property.
25. Mr X escalated his complaint on 23 June. He reiterated his complaint about the error in the Council’s letter and explained that it caused distress. Mr X also stated that he had composite needs (caused by medical and disability issues and multiple other issues including disrepair and risk of harm and harassment). He sought a further review of his housing priority in addition to a more appropriately written apology for the error in the letter, and the council honouring the incorrect priority date it had stated in April. He also sought further priority to reflect ‘delays and harm caused’.
26. On 21 July the Council sent a revised decision on Mr X’s application. It noted the information it had received and considered. The Council agreed that Mr X should be awarded priority for welfare issues in addition to the existing Band 3 medical priority he had. The benefit of this was that his effective date in Band 3 would be backdated 6 months (the effective date now being 10 October 2024). The Council suggested that Mr X sought advice from the environmental health team regarding the disrepair issues at Mr B’s property.
27. On 23 July the Council received a query forwarded by Mr X’s MP. This raised many of the same points Mr X raised in his complaint. In this correspondence Mr X also questioned the level of priority he had been given, querying why he did not meet Band 1 or 2 priority levels. The Council responded on 6 August explaining its position.
28. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint further on 5 August. The Council restated its apology for the error in its letter. It did not alter its position that the impact of this was not significant and did not warrant further remedy. It addressed comments Mr X made about various contacts with officers. It noted in the meantime, the Council had reviewed Mr X’s priority and written to him providing an additional priority award on the basis of welfare and a six-month backdate was applied to that in accordance with the Council policy.
29. I understand Mr X asked the Council to send him information via a Subject Access request on 18 July 2025. It was passed to a housing team to deal with on 18 August 2025.
30. On 4 September the Council wrote to Mr X stating that, when compiling information for Mr X’s SAR it decided to grant Mr X and his partner Band 2 priority, due to domestic violence. The Council stated this was based on information he provided in December 2024 and January 2025 and it recognised the significant difficulties they had experienced with Mr B. The Council said, as the information was received prior to its banding decision on 27 February 2025, Band 2 priority had been backdated to this date. As this demonstrated more composite needs, the Council had also justified backdating the priority date by a further 12 months, so it was now 27 February 2024.
31. We asked the Council to explain why Band 2 priority was not granted in February 2025 at the time the relevant information had been received. It provided comments which stated that despite changing its decision in September 2025, the Council considered the February 2025 decision was reasonable on the information received at that time, which in itself did not justify Band 2. It suggested that the reason it changed its view in September, was based on a holistic view of Mr X and his partner’s circumstances after the submission of further information, particularly medical information received in June 2025. Its response to Mr X’s MP also commented on this. In this correspondence, the Council stated, the decision was a very borderline one and, although it had ultimately awarded the higher level of banding priority, the original decision to award a lower level of priority was not an inherently unreasonable one based on the information provided. The Council also stated it had provided a significant backdate of the effective date to reflect the fact that Band 2 priority could have been awarded earlier, and it considered this placed Mr X in the same position (as far as bidding is concerned) as he would have been in if Band 2 priority had been awarded to start with.
32. The Council responded to the SAR response on 5 September. There was further correspondence between Mr X and the Council challenging the content of the SAR which the Council responded to.
33. Since the events up to September 2025, Mr X advised us he had made further submissions and complaints to the Council, partly on the basis of the SAR information he received. He also sought to challenge whether the Council had fully responded to his SAR.

What should have happened

Homelessness Application Dec 2024

34. There is no evidence that Mr X presented as homeless in December 2024. Rather, he and his partner sought to add Mr X to her existing housing application. The content of the form completed at that time is slightly ambiguous about his address and boxes were ticked stating he was of no fixed abode and homeless as well as giving current addresses. However, overall the form and Mr X’s correspondence made it clear that he was living with his partner’s relative Mr B. His application was considered on this basis, which was appropriate. While the Council could have commented specifically about the form recording Mr X was homeless, I note that the Council provided contact details of its homelessness team to gain homelessness advice or report as such should Mr X have wished to do so. There was no fault in this part of the complaint.

Consideration given to Housing Priority, Medical and other Information

35. Councils should be able to show how they have reached decisions on medical priority and applicants should be told what evidence has been considered and how these decisions have been made.
36. The Council’s decision letters state the information considered and have provided explanations of how the decisions were reached. However, there were several issues with decisions on Mr X’s housing priority:
37. The Council’s April 2025 banding letter incorrectly quoted the original priority date given to his partner’s application (April 2020) rather than the date it had assessed them into a new band. It is clear from the council policy that the priority date should have been April 2025 (when their application was assessed into Band 3). The error was fault by the Council. However, the error was identified in June and the Council apologised for it several times to Mr X. It did not cause any significant injustice and it would not have been appropriate for the Council to honour the 2020 date, as it would have given Mr X an earlier priority date than he should have had. So, the Council’s response to the error was appropriate.
38. We found there was some further fault by the Council. In September the Council decided to increase Mr X’s priority. The decision letter and its response to our enquiries (and response to Mr X’s MP) offer different explanations for why it reached this decision. The Council told us and Mr X’s MP that the decision was borderline and the original February 2025 decision (Band 4) was not unreasonable. It says it only took a different view in September when looking at the situation holistically and based on information received in June. However, the September decision letter gives a different explanation for the decision.
39. I give most weight to the decision letter written at the time of the Band 2 decision, in September 2025. This letter states clearly the decision was based on information received prior to February 2025.
40. I understand decisions can be finely balanced, but if the Council had been persuaded by new information received in June as it has now says, I would have expected it to have backdated the decision to June, not to February as it did. As a result, I have concluded that the decision could and should have been reached in February 2025. The fact that it was not, meant Mr X had lower housing priority than he should have between 25 February and 4 September 2025. The Council doubts that Mr X would have been successful gaining housing in this period in Band 2 but this has not been properly checked.
41. Other decisions the Council made indicate it had regard for the composite needs the family had and that it had applied backdated priority dates as required by the housing allocations policy where it considered this was appropriate. However, the issue above indicates that Mr X ought to have had higher housing priority from February 2025. This causes potential injustice to Mr X and I have recommended below how this is remedied.

Time taken to respond to the SAR

42. There was some delay responding to a SAR from Mr X. It appears it was not forwarded to the housing team promptly so its timescale to respond was shortened and it took longer than it should have overall. This was fault by the Council but it did not cause significant injustice to Mr X. I have recommended the Council apologises to Mr X for the delay.
43. I am aware that Mr X went on to challenge the SAR content. The Council responded further after correspondence from Mr X. We have not investigated whether the SAR was fully responded to as the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) is better placed to consider this and reach a decision should Mr X consider it is significant and appropriate to take this further.

Complaint Response

44. Mr X argued that the Council focused its response to his complaint on the issue of the incorrect date in its April letter and that it did not respond to other points he made. I do not consider the responses to Mr X’s complaint were unreasonable. Mr X’s complaint was focussed on the date issue to begin with, and about the impact of this. I found no fault in the way the complaints were handled.

Back to top

Action

45. Within four weeks of our final decision:
46. The Council should send a written apology to Mr X for the delay in responding to his SAR and because the Council did not reach the banding decision from September earlier, based on the information it had. The apology should adhere to our guidance on making effective apologies. This can be found on our website, within our Guidance on Remedy here.
47. The Council should carry out an assessment of what eligible properties have been allocated to people with less priority than Mr X should have had in Band 2 between 27 February 2025 and 4 September 2025. If any properties were won by bids with lower priority than Mr X should have had, the Council should seek to offer the next available property to Mr X to remedy this.
48. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

49. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman