Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to remove him from its housing register following a policy change. He also complained about the way it handled his reports of hazards in his privately rented property. The Council is not at fault for removing Mr X from its housing register. However, it is at fault for the way it handled his reports of hazards in relation to his housing application, and for poor record keeping. This fault caused Mr X uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a symbolic payment, and make a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council wrongly removed him from the housing register following a policy change in 2024. He also says the Council failed to investigate his reports of hazards in his privately rented property. Mr X says the Council’s actions have caused him significant distress, anxiety, and uncertainty. He wants the Council to reinstate his application on the housing register.

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. 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)
4. 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.
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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. 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 have not investigated

8. In addition to the complaint investigated, Mr X raised concerns about the Council’s handling of his concerns about his landlord’s House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) license. We typically expect people to bring a complaint to us within 12 months of first becoming aware of an issue, unless there are good reasons for not doing so. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in July 2025 but first became aware of the HMO licensing issue in 2022. He provided no good reason for not approaching us sooner. Therefore, I have not investigated this complaint and have only considered events from July 2024 to July 2025.

Back to top

What I found

The published scheme

9. 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))

Reasonable preference

10. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

Decisions and review rights

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

• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;

12. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
13. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

No fault

14. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
15. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

Housing Health and Safety Rating System

16. Private tenants may complain to their council about a failure by the landlord to keep the property in good repair. Councils have powers under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) (introduced by the Housing Act 2004, Part 1) to take enforcement action against private landlords where the council has identified a hazard which puts the health and safety of the tenant at risk. The hazards are categorised as:
17. Category 1 hazards which are hazards which could cause serious harm.
18. Category 2 hazards which are less serious hazards which may need remedial work by the landlord.

What happened

19. Mr X lives in an HMO. In 2023, Mr X was allocated Band B priority on the Council’s housing register under the ‘Sharing Facilities’ criteria.
20. In April 2024, the Council implemented a new allocations policy. Under this new policy, ‘Sharing Facilities’ was no longer a qualifying criterion. The Council invited all applicants to reapply for a place on the housing register.
21. Mr X reapplied to join the housing register under the Council’s new allocations scheme in June. He stated on the application there was disrepair in his property.
22. The Council wrote to Mr X in August to advise that he did not meet the new qualifying criteria to join the scheme.
23. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision in September. He said he disagreed with the Council’s decision. He explained that his circumstances had not changed, and he was still sharing facilities, including one toilet, with five other individuals. He also said his property had significant damp and mould issues.
24. The Council responded to Mr X in February 2025. It upheld its original decision and stated it had assessed Mr X to have no housing need. It explained this was because he was living in a property where he was not currently at risk, and because there was no disrepair present in his property.
25. In March, the Council says it held a community action day. It selected some HMOs in the area for inspection, which included Mr X’s property.
26. Mr X approached the Ombudsman in July.
27. In November, the Council inspected Mr X’s property and identified category 1 and 2 hazards, which included damp and mould. It subsequently issued Mr X’s landlord with an Improvement Notice, which stated the landlord must complete the improvement works by April 2026.
28. The Council awarded Mr X Band A priority in December and backdated this to November, when it issued the Improvement Notice.

Back to top

Analysis

29. The Council was within its rights to amend its policy and eligibility criteria. I understand this was frustrating for Mr X, and he feels the Council should have made provision for those already on the register before the policy changed. However, it had no duty to do so, and once Mr X no longer met the new eligibility criteria, the Council was entitled to remove him from the register.
30. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. He explained there was overcrowding and issues of damp and mould in the property. I have reviewed the Council’s allocations policy. A shared kitchen and bathroom do not fit the definition of statutory overcrowding. The overcrowding threshold is only met in HMOs if tenants are sharing bedrooms. Each tenant in Mr X’s property has their own bedroom. Therefore, the Council’s decision in this respect was sound and in line with its allocations policy.
31. However, the Council did not investigate Mr X’s reports of damp and mould in his property. It had a duty to do so. Mr X checked a tick box on the initial application he made in June that reported disrepair in his property. The Council did not contact Mr X to ask for further information or request supporting evidence. The application form also gave no opportunity to provide supporting evidence at the point of submission.
32. The Council’s appeal decision letter states there were no disrepair or hazards in Mr X’s property and therefore upheld its decision not to add him to the housing register. It made this decision without investigating Mr X’s concerns, passing the information to the relevant team, or carrying out an inspection. At no point did the Council contact Mr X or seek to establish the extent or severity of the reported hazards. It’s failure to do so was fault.
33. The Council says an inspection was only carried out six months later in March 2025 as part of a community action day. This was not a proactive response to Mr X raising the concerns. The Council has told the Ombudsman that it did not find any hazards during this inspection. Mr X says the Council did not inspect his bedroom. The Council could not provide notes or any reports from that inspection. I therefore cannot make an assessment about whether the inspection was carried out thoroughly, nor whether the Council inspected the areas Mr X said had the mould and disrepair. This demonstrates poor record keeping, which is fault.
34. Mr X has now been awarded Band A priority on the Council’s housing register on the grounds of the hazards identified in his property in November. In the absence of any evidence from the Council from the March inspection, it is not possible to say, even on the balance of probabilities, whether the hazards identified in November 2025, existed in March. In turn, it is therefore not possible to say whether the inspection in March 2025, if conducted thoroughly, would have resulted in the Council awarding Mr X housing register priority sooner than November. The Council’s failure to investigate sooner and keep records of the March inspection has therefore caused Mr X uncertainty.
35. In response to my written enquiries, the Council said the housing register application form now allows applicants to upload relevant evidence to support their applications. I have made further service improvement recommendations below.

Back to top

Agreed action

36. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the uncertainty caused by the identified fault.
2. Pay Mr X £150 in recognition of the uncertainty caused by the identified fault.
37. Within two months of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Review its internal referral processes to ensure reports of property disrepair raised through the allocations or appeals process are automatically flagged to the relevant teams for consideration.
2. Review its record keeping procedures to ensure officers keep adequate records when they complete property inspections.
38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

39. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a symbolic remedy, and implement a service improvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman