Summary: Miss D says the Council incorrectly removed her from the housing register. I have not found any evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) says the Council incorrectly removed her from the housing register after a reassessment in 2025. Miss D says the Council has not taken account of the medical needs of her family and has wrongly included disability benefits in its income calculations.

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)

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have looked at events in 2025 up to 29 October when the Council issued its review decision. I have solely considered how the Council dealt with the reassessment of Miss D’s housing register application. If Miss D is dissatisfied with other actions by the Council, she will need to make a new complaint about those issues before bringing them to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Miss D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background

6. In May 2024 the Council carried out an Equality Impact Assessment into its proposals to change its allocations policy. Later that year it carried out a public consultation, and a Cabinet meeting approved the revised allocations policy in November 2024.
7. In November 2024 Miss D applied to join the Council’s housing register.

Events I have investigated

8. On 6 January 2025 the Council accepted Miss D was eligible to join the housing register. On 18 July the Council notified Miss D, via her housing register account, that all applicants on the housing register would be reassessed using the new allocations policy. A decision would issued at the end of the month. If the applicant disagreed with the outcome they could ask a for a review. On 31 July the Council introduced the new allocations policy.
9. On 1 August the Council wrote to Miss D, it had reassessed her case and she was not eligible to be on the housing register because she did not meet the financial qualification criteria. Her income exceeded the threshold set out in the allocations policy. It explained she could ask for a review and the Council would reply within 40 working days unless it requested an extension. On the same day Miss D asked the Council to review her case. She could not afford a private sector rental home.
10. On 3 October the Council notified Miss D it would take longer to reply to the review because of a high demand for the service. On 29 October the Council issued its review decision. It had considered information provided by Miss D, her landlord, a housing needs assessment from July (which stated Miss D required grab rails to use stairs) and medical information. It advised the household’s income exceeded the threshold set out in the allocations policy. The Council had considered whether there was a medical need for a three bedroom property or a ground floor home. The evidence had not demonstrated there was a medical need. Some stairs could be managed by the family, and adaptations could be made, such as handrails, to address mobility concerns. There was no evidence to support a need for an additional bedroom on medical grounds. The Council explained it was allowed to consider all income, including disability benefits, as part of its assessment. It said it had also considered the case under its allocations policy to see if it should exercise discretion. The evidence had not shown there were health/ support needs for the family that could not be met by a private sector rental. It found no basis to exercise discretion to the allocations policy, and it concluded it was correct to remove Miss D from the housing register.

What should have happened

11. The Council’s allocations policy, prior to July 2025, did not take into consideration an applicant’s state benefits when assessing their income. In July 2025 the Council introduced a new allocations policy. Part of the assessment to determine if an applicant was eligible to join the housing register (and therefore bid for social housing) included a financial and needs assessment. An annual gross income cap was set for different size properties. An applicant requiring a two bedroom home was allowed an annual gross income up to £32,000 which included state benefits. The Council’s financial assessment of applicants should take account of the ‘financial resources of the applicant and the cost and availability of alternative suitable accommodation’.
12. When the new allocations policy was introduced in July 2025 the Council reviewed all existing housing register applicants to see if they remained eligible under the new criteria. Where the Council found an applicant was no longer eligible it sent a decision letter explaining the reason and advising there was a right to request a review of the decision.
13. An applicant can request a review of decision about the allocations policy within 21 days. The review is carried out by a senior officer to the person who made the decision being appealed. If applicant who is ineligible to join the housing register due to their annual income states they have health or support needs which cannot be met by a private sector rental home, the Council will assess their case to see if discretion should be exercised to allow them to join the housing register. An applicant will need to supply supporting evidence from professionals where they claim they have a health need that would require the Council to exercise discretion and allow them to join the housing register. The process is the same as for a review of any other allocations policy decision except where the Council finds there may be grounds for discretion due to health or support needs not able to be met by a private sector home, in that instance the case is passed to the Head of Strategic Services to decide whether discretion should be allowed.

Was there fault by the Council

14. Miss D feels the Council show allow her to remain on the housing resister. I have considered the evidence and have not found any fault by the Council. It followed the correct process in this case. The Council reassessed all existing applicants on the housing register and so was correct to reconsider Miss D’s case. It notified Miss D about the changes to the allocations policy and that it would reassess her case. Following that reassessment the Council explained to Miss D why she was no longer eligible to remain on the housing register. The Council also carried out a review in line with its procedures. It took account of the evidence provided by Miss D and again explained how it had reached its decision. I appreciate Miss D strongly disagrees with the decision taken by the Council. However, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong. In this case I am satisfied the correct process was adhered to by the Council.

Back to top

Decision

15. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman