Summary: Miss X complained the Council misapplied its allocation policy and refused her housing application. We find the Council at fault for failing to correctly assess Miss X’s banding. This caused Miss X distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Miss X to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council misapplied its allocation policy and refused her housing application. Miss X also complained the Council failed to respond to her complaint. Miss X told us this has caused distress and disadvantaged her application. Miss X would like the Council to apologise and provide a payment in recognition of the injustice caused.

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. 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

4. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Miss 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 found

Legal and administrative background

The Council’s allocations policy

6. 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))
7. The Council’s allocation policy sets out that priority banding will be given to households who have a particular need to be housed within the London Borough of Lewisham.
8. One of the qualifying criteria for this priority banding is where the applicant has a long standing arrangement to provide essential care to another family member in the London Borough of Lewisham who is not part of the household. Applicants applying under this criteria must be in receipt of carer’s allowance and the person being cared for must be in receipt of the daily living component of Personal Independent Payments (PIP).

What happened

9. Miss X first submitted a housing application in 2022.
10. In February 2025 Miss X contacted the Council to report a change in her circumstances. Miss X provided evidence she was in receipt of carers allowance for a family member who is a Lewisham resident in receipt of both the daily living and mobility elements of PIP.
11. The Council acknowledged Miss X’s contact and advised it would carry out an assessment of her housing need and provide its decision within 20 weeks.
12. Miss X contacted the Council again at the beginning of March regarding her change in circumstances. Miss X’s contact was treated as a stage one complaint, however the Council told Miss X it was unable to accept her complaint as there was no evidence of service failure. The Council told Miss X the assessment of her housing needs may take up to 20 weeks, and she would receive notification of the outcome in writing once the assessment was complete.
13. Council records show it considered Miss X’s change of circumstances in June, and it determined Miss X was not eligible for band 2 priority as her family member was not receiving the enhanced rate of PIP.
14. The Council wrote to Miss X at the end of June and said it had completed a medical assessment and Miss X was eligible for band 3 priority.
15. Miss X contacted the Council again at the end of June to escalate her complaint to stage two.
16. Miss X’s stage two complaint explained she had received confusing and contradictory information from the Council about her change in circumstances request. Miss X explained she believed the Council had incorrectly completed a medical needs assessment rather than an assessment of her change in circumstances. Miss X also explained she believed she met the criteria for band 2 priority under the homeless with additional need eligibility and the Council had failed to apply the correct assessment criteria.
17. The Council issued a stage two complaint response and upheld Miss X’s complaint that it had provided confusing and contradicting information, however it did not agree it had misapplied its eligibility criteria.
18. In August 2025 the Council reconsidered Miss X’s change in circumstances application and agreed the wording in its allocations policy does not require an enhanced level of PIP. The Council awarded Miss X priority band two.

My findings

19. The Council’s allocation policy does not require a specific level of Personal Independent Payments for a carer to be eligible for priority band two. The Council incorrectly applied a higher threshold to the criteria than is written in its policy. This is fault which caused Miss X distress and frustration.
20. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to refuse Miss X’s stage one complaint as there was no evidence of fault at this point.

Back to top

Action

21. Within one month of the final decision the Council will:
• Apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused by the faults identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making its apology.
• Make a symbolic payment of £250 in recognition of the distress and frustration caused by wrongly applying the allocation criteria.
• Ensure Miss X’s band 2 award is backdated to June 2025, when the initial consideration of the application was completed.
22. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

23. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman