Summary: We found fault on Miss Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her request for a review of its housing banding decision. It delayed deciding it for two months which caused frustration. There was no fault on her complaint about how it assessed her housing application for banding. The Council agreed to send a written apology for the delay.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about the Council wrongly assessing her housing priority need under its choice based allocation scheme when deciding her housing application: as a result, she shares a small bedroom with her two young children in her extended family’s house which affects her mental health. She is concerned she may have missed bidding for suitable accommodation due to the lower priority awarded.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Miss Y, the notes of our telephone conversation, the Council’s response to my enquiries, as well as relevant law, policy, and guidance. I sent a copy of the draft decision to Miss Y and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Council Housing Allocation Policy (July 2022)

5. This is the allocation policy for Gateway to Homechoice choice based lettings scheme. This is a single Housing Register, and a choice based lettings scheme for allocating social housing. There are seven partner organisations (local authorities) which includes the Council.
6. It uses a banding system to identify those with the greatest housing need and decides which band an application will be placed in. The bands are:

• Band A: This is for those with critical or urgent needs such as critical medical/welfare awards.
• Band B: This is for applicants with serious needs such as tenants who are overcrowded in social or private rented housing.
• Band C: This is for those with medium need for housing such as those threatened with homelessness within 56 days and are owed the prevention duty. It also includes applicants who are either sharing facilities or lacking facilities.
• Band D: This for those with reduced preference which includes those who have a reasonable preference but, for example, have enough resources to buy a property on the open market.
• Band E: This is for those with no housing need, such as owner occupiers.

7. Applicants are entitled to a two bedroom property where there is one adult with two children of the same sex under 10 years old.
8. Applicants can ask for a review of a decision made which affects their housing application. The Council will respond to the request within eight weeks.

Gateway to Homechoice website

9. Band B applicants include, ‘Applicants who are overcrowded in social or private rented housing within the Gateway area of operation’.

What happened

10. Miss Y has two children and lives with her mother in her three bedroom house. She is not the tenant for this property. Miss Y’s brother also lives there. She lives in one bedroom with her young sons. She struggles as there is a cot in the bedroom for the youngest.
11. In November 2024, the Council accepted Miss Y on to the housing register and placed her in Band C (sharing). She is eligible for a two bedroom property. Miss Y complained that since, none of her bids for accommodation under its choice based letting scheme succeeded.
12. Miss Y appealed the banding decision the following month as she believed the Council had not placed her correctly.
13. In February 2025, the Council told her what information she needed to send for a Welfare Panel review. It apologised for not contacting her sooner about her request.
14. The following month, Miss Y sent the information in support of her appeal.
15. In April, the Council refused her appeal after consideration by the Welfare Panel. Overcrowding was considered.
16. Miss Y again asked to appeal this decision about her banding award. She explained her eldest son was sleeping in a cot too small for him because of the limited space available for the three of them in the bedroom. She also told the Council she had some mental health issues but, her housing did not affect her health. In fact, living with her mother had helped.
17. The Council reviewed her banding the following month and decided it was correct. This was because this was in the banding for applicants who shared facilities or lacked them or who had no fixed abode.
18. In July, she sent the Council evidence from her health visitor about their living arrangements but, following a further assessment, the Council said there was no new evidence to increase her priority under its scheme.
19. In response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed Miss Y was not eligible for a Band B award. This is for tenants who are overcrowded in social or private rented accommodation. Miss Y is not the tenant of the house but considered to be a ‘household member’.
20. The Gateway to Homechoice website referred to those in Band B as, ‘Applicants who are overcrowded in social or private rented housing within the Gateway area of operation’ and Band C as including, ‘Overcrowded applicants who are living with friends or relatives’.
21. The Council confirmed it has a new website which will go live soon. This was checked to ensure there were no discrepancies. It also noted the Gateway website has links to the allocation policy.
22. The Council accepted it aimed to respond to review requests within 28 days but, at the time Miss Y sent hers, there was an eight week delay with review officers receiving cases. This was partly due to volume of requests received. The Council’s policy states councils will aim to respond to review requests within eight weeks of receipt. It has since employed another team member to help with the back log of review requests and to improve response times. It reviewed the way choice based lettings officers completed tasks to try and streamline the process. There is also a more structured weekly rota to ensure tasks are identified more efficiently.
23. In response to our draft decision, the Council acknowledged the delay did not meet the standards set out in its policy. It explained the service had undergone a structured programme of improvement to ensure review requests are managed promptly and consistently. Extra staff were introduced to support the team. It completed a wider review to identify and remove inefficiencies across the service which led to several further changes. It strengthened the internal review process to ensure monitoring and the progression of cases without delay. It carried out refresher training. As a result, it is now starting the review process within one week of receiving a request. The average completion time for cases received in January/February 2026 was now 20 days.

My findings

24. I found the following on this complaint:
1. Miss Y sent her request for a review of the Council’s banding decision in mid-December 2025. Under its allocation policy, it had eight weeks to send its decision. This would have been 10 February 2026. The Council failed to send its review decision until 10 April. This was two months late. I am satisfied this was fault as it missed the timescale set out in its own policy. I consider this caused Miss Y some injustice in the form of frustration.
2. I found no fault on Miss Y’s complaint about the banding award decision. The Council reached this decision after properly considering and applying its policy.
3. While the website referred to an ‘applicant’, rather than the ‘tenant’ which was set out in the allocation policy, I am satisfied the Council correctly applied the policy when reaching its decision. This is because it considered Miss Y was not a tenant, which was the correct approach. The website’s reference to an applicant does not match the policy and is, therefore, incorrect.

Back to top

Action

25. I considered our guidance on remedies, as well as action the Council has already taken.
26. The Council agreed to send Miss Y a written apology for the delay reaching a decision on her December 2025 review request. The apology should be sent within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Decision

28. I find fault causing injustice on Miss Y’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman