Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to consider her circumstances when assessing her housing application, and did not action her request for a review within a reasonable time. We have found the Council was at fault. The Council delayed its review of her housing application by seven months. The Council has agreed to take steps to remedy her injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council failed to take into account her circumstances and removed her ‘working star priority band’ from her housing application. She also says the Council did not action her request for a review of the decision within a reasonable time.

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 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)
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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory Guidance

7. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out its procedures for prioritising applicants and allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
8. Government guidance allows councils to consider how they can use their allocation policies to support those households who want to work. This might involve, for example, framing an allocation scheme to give some preference to households who are in low paid work or to give greater priority to those households in the reasonable preference categories who are also in work or who can demonstrate that they are actively seeking work. (Allocation of accommodation: guidance for local authorities, paragraph 4.27).
9. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
10. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:
• Review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process.
• There should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable.
• The review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker.
• Reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

Southwark Council’s Allocation Scheme

11. Southwark Council’s published Allocations Scheme details its banding system, which is made up of four priority bands, with Band 1 being the highest.
12. The Council issues priority stars to increase the position within a band and these can be issued for the following reasons:
• People owed a statutory homelessness duty under either s193(2) or s195(2) Housing Act 1996.
• People occupying unsanitary or statutorily overcrowded housing (as defined by part 10 of the Housing Act 1985) or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions in accordance with hazards identified through the housing health safety rating scheme as confirmed by Southwark Council.
• People who need to move on severe medical or severe welfare grounds.
• People who need to move to a particular locality in the area of the authority where failure to meet their needs would be detrimental to their health and wellbeing and cause severe hardship.
• A working household.
• Applicants who are volunteering in the community.
13. The Council states it wants to support the growth of its borough and encourage people to work and raise levels of aspiration and ambition. The Council offers increased priority to applicants that are working and making a contribution to Southwark’s economy.
14. One priority star is awarded in respect of being a working household. The Council defines a working household as one where at least one adult member of the household is in employment.
15. Applicants must have been working for 16 hours or more per week for nine out of the last 12 months. Verification will be sought at the point of application, and at the point of offer. Applicants must provide relevant documents in order to qualify.
16. Proof must be supplied at the time of application and verified at the time of the offer. Applicants must satisfy the employment definition at the time of the offer of accommodation.
17. If an applicant requests a review of their banding, they are advised to allow 28 working days for a response.

What happened

18. In June 2021, Ms X made a housing application to the Council. She was awarded a working star priority, assessed as Band 2, and recognised as having a severe medical need.
19. In February 2025 Ms X received an offer of a property from the Council and was asked to provide documents to verify her work status. As she was no longer working, she was unable to provide the required documents and the Council removed the working star priority. As a result, she was no longer eligible for the property.
20. In March 2025, Ms X requested a review of the decision to remove her working star, explaining that she was unable to work because her daughter could not attend school. She expressed concerns that the policy disadvantaged single parents and carers. In the same month, Ms X also contacted her local Member of Parliament (MP) with the same concerns, and the MP contacted the Council on her behalf.
21. The Council responded to the MP’s office explaining why Ms X’s work priority star had been removed and that it would “request the review to be expedited”.
22. In August 2025, Ms X made a formal complaint to the Council about the length of time the review had taken. The Council apologised and assured her that the review would be completed by the end of September 2025. Later that month, she escalated her complaint. In October 2025, the Council apologised again for the continued delay and offered £140 to compensate her.
23. At the beginning of November 2025, the Council wrote to Ms X outlining the outcome of the review of her banding position. The Council assessed the information against its policy and concluded that, since Ms X had ceased employment in May 2024, she no longer qualified for the working star priority. The Council acknowledged that under its allocations scheme, some priority stars will not be available to certain applicants. The Council also noted that a new housing allocation scheme would be implemented in 2026 following a consultation process.

My findings

24. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for its decision about eligibility and priority if it has properly considered the information provided by the applicant and applied its allocations scheme correctly.
25. Both government guidance and the Council’s allocations policy allow for preference to be given to working households.
26. In this case, the Council asked Ms X to provide verification of her working status in accordance with its published policy. It then carried out a review of her housing banding and assessed the information provided against the requirements of its allocations scheme.
27. I am therefore satisfied that the Council followed its policy when deciding to remove Ms X’s working star priority and that there was no procedural fault in the decision-making process itself.
28. However, the Council’s policy states that where a review is requested, it should be completed within 28 days. The Council did not arrange the review within this timeframe and delayed the process by approximately seven months. It was at fault for this delay, and it is likely that Ms X was caused stress and inconvenience.
29. The Council offered Ms X a remedy payment of £140 due to the delay in dealing with her review. Given that the delay continued beyond the Council’s response, and in line with our remedies guidance, the offer should be increased.
30. Following a previous Ombudsman investigation, the Council told us in September 2025 that it was dealing with a large backlog of reviews and that it is taking steps to reduce the number of outstanding cases. Time will tell whether this is effective.

Back to top

Action

31. Within four weeks, the Council has agreed to:
• Write to Ms X, apologising for the delay in dealing with her review. We publish guidance which sets out what we expect an effective apology to look like. The Council will consider this guidance when writing to Ms X.
• Make a symbolic payment of £200 to Ms X to recognise that the delay in dealing with her review caused her stress and inconvenience.
32. The Council will provide us with evidence it has done these things.

Back to top

Decision

33. The Council was at fault, and this caused injustice to Ms X and her family, which the Council will now take action to address.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman