Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mr Y’s complaint about it failing to place him in the correct banding under its housing allocation scheme when he joined its housing register. It failed to promptly award his correct priority date and delayed deciding it owed him the main housing duty on his homeless application. There was no outstanding injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s failure to place him in the correct band under its allocation scheme since he first applied in February 2023 to join its housing register; as a result, he has been in an unsettled housing situation for years which caused stress, anxiety, and frustration.

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)
4. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. Part of Mr Y’s complaint is late. He complained to us in August 2025. This means we would usually only look at a complaint from August 2024 unless there are good reasons why we should exercise discretion to look at any earlier complaint. I have seen no good reasons why we should look at any earlier complaint.
6. Information before August 2024 is included to put the case into context.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr Y, the Council’s response to my enquiries, as well as relevant law, policy, and guidance. I sent a copy of the draft decision to Mr Y and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Council Housing Allocation Scheme (October 2024)

8. The Council has a choice based allocation scheme which allows applicants on the housing register to bid for advertised properties. Applicants are prioritised for re-housing based on their circumstances.
9. To join the housing register, an applicant must have a local connection to the area to qualify. They must have lived there continuously for at least five years.
10. The Council assesses an applicant’s priority through banding and shortlisting.
11. The banding assessment takes account of any accommodation the applicant is currently entitled to occupy along with medical and welfare needs. When a change of circumstances leads to a higher band, the priority date of the banding is amended to the date it accepted the new band. The Council has a qualified Medical Advisor whose advice may be sought when assessing whether to place an applicant in a higher band on medical grounds. Those with serious medical problems may complete a self-assessment form.
12. The housing officer will consider all the information, including the Medical Advisor’s opinion, when deciding whether to give a priority band and property recommendation.
13. The bands are:

• Band A: This includes applicants/households whose health or disability is so severely affected they cannot physically access their current home and/or essential facilities within it, and it is not possible to carry out adaptations to it to provide this access.
• Band B: This includes those who need to move on medical grounds because their current housing is having a severe impact on the applicant’s/family members’ health which will deteriorate if not moved to a suitable property.
• Band C: This includes those who need to move because the current housing is having an adverse impact on the applicant’s/family member’s health. While their health will not deteriorate in the current accommodation, the adverse impact will be reduced if the applicant moves to more suitable accommodation. It also includes those who are homeless within Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 who are subject to the main housing duty and those who are owed the relief duty.
• Band D: This includes singles/couples with no dependent children sharing where there is no overcrowding. It also includes sofa surfers, single-person households without a fixed address who rely on friends and family for accommodation for limited periods, and verified rough sleepers.
• Band E: Applicants who are homeless under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 who have been assessed as intentionally homeless and those who have no priority needs, for example.

14. Those who do not meet the local connection criteria but do meet the criteria for one or more of the ‘reasonable preference’ categories, will qualify for the housing register and be placed in Band E until they meet the residency requirements of the policy. Reasonable preference includes those who are homeless under part 7 of the Housing Act, and those who are homeless and in priority need, for example.
15. Applicants in temporary accommodation, which is provided by the Council under its homelessness duty (Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996), will not be entitled to a priority banding on Medical Grounds or Welfare Grounds. The applicant has a statutory right to request a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation secured for them. This is dealt with outside the allocation scheme. It will keep the suitability of the temporary accommodation under ongoing review.
16. An applicant can ask for a review of their allocation banding which is considered and decided by a senior officer within 56 days.
17. The shortlisting assessment takes place when an applicant has bid for a property. If more than one applicant bids, they are placed on a shortlist. The Council decides priority between shortlisted applicants by ranking: local connection, priority band (Band A have higher priority than Band B, for example; date of priority banding; date of registration.

What happened

18. Mr Y was homeless in 2023 and asked the Council for help. He has various health problems. The Council placed him in Band E under its previous housing scheme as he did not meet the local connection criteria. The Council did not owe him any homeless duties at this point.
19. The records also show that during 2023, the Council owed him the prevention and relief duties which meant he was in Band E under its previous allocation scheme.
20. In early 2024, the Council decided he did not have a priority need. It owed him no further duties under homeless law. His homeless case was closed. He later approached the Council again as he was sofa surfing. His case was closed for failing to provide information requested. He again applied as homeless, but the Council closed the case as he had not made a valid application.
21. In September, the Council again asked him for information when he made a further application. The case was closed as Mr Y said he had not made an application. The Council told him it had mistakenly re-opened his case and apologised.
22. In August 2024, Mr Y was still in Band E.
23. In October, the Council introduced its new allocation scheme.
24. The Council wrote to Mr Y in January 2025 explaining he needed to re-register under its revised housing allocation scheme. This now required applicants to have a local connection of five years.
25. In March, it told him he was in Band E under the category ‘Singles/couples sharing’.
26. In June 2025, Mr Y presented as homeless. He was unable to give the Council information about addresses where he had been sofa surfing. An officer found him sleeping in a car and so placed him in an emergency bed. Mr Y made a late challenge of the banding decision as he believed the E band was wrong because of his health issues.
27. The Council accepted a duty to help him resolve his homelessness. It would take reasonable steps to help find him accommodation.
28. It then moved him from the emergency bed to interim accommodation. This was because it owed him an interim duty to offer interim accommodation while it continued its enquiries.
29. The Council received further medical evidence from Mr Y in July on his homeless application but said there was no request for it to consider this as part of his banding on its housing register. It sent this to the Independent Medical Advisor.
30. The records show he was awarded Band C in August because the ‘Homeless duty owed/ended’. The records noted Mr Y was owed the Relief Duty and in temporary accommodation since 28 July. The Council has since accepted the priority date awarded was wrong. Instead of 28 July 2025, it should have been 25 June 2025 which is the date it accepted it owed him the relief duty.
31. The Council accepted it owed him the main housing duty on 30 October. The Council said as the Relief Duty was owed on 25 June, it would have expected the main duty to start at the end of August. While an officer arranged alternative accommodation, and wanted to interview Mr Y as she believed she would be able to relieve his homelessness, neither the officer nor the accommodation provider could contact Mr Y. He cancelled appointments with the provider too.
32. The Council accepted there was a delay from 26 September, when a senior officer was asked to authorise the main duty, but this was not done until 30 October. During that period, an officer asked Mr Y for details about his income and expenditure as he had told the provider he was now working.
33. At the end of the year, it made a final offer of accommodation after accepting it owed him the main housing duty. The provider later withdrew the offer as it was unsuitable.

My findings

34. I found the following on this complaint:
1. In August 2024, Mr Y was in Band E under the Council’s previous allocation scheme (2022). In response to our enquiries, the Council said this was because he did not meet the local connections criteria. Under the Council’s policy, an applicant who does not meet the local connection criteria, but does meet the reasonable preference criteria, is entitled to join it until meeting the residency requirement. During this period, they are placed in Band E.
2. This is what happened with Mr Y. He did not meet the local connection criteria but did qualify for the housing register and so was placed in band E. He could not move out of this band until he met the local connection criteria.
3. I found no fault with the Council placing him in Band E as it complied with its policy.
4. In June 2025, Mr Y presented as homeless. The Council placed him in Band C. This was because it accepted he was homeless and in priority need. Under its revised allocation scheme, he now qualified for Band C. I am satisfied there was no fault with this decision as it complied with the allocation scheme.
5. I found fault with the failure to award the correct priority date in June. Instead, Mr Y was awarded a date in July. I am not satisfied this caused him an outstanding injustice. This is because there is no evidence he bid for properties during this period. As such, he did not miss out on successfully bidding for a property during this four-week period because of this fault.
6. I also found fault with the Council delay in reaching a decision that it owed him the full main housing duty. The Council accepts it should have made this decision at the end of August. Instead, it made it at the end of October, two months later.
7. I am not satisfied this caused him an outstanding injustice. When the Council reached its decision that it owed him the main housing duty, he was already in Band C. The decision did not, therefore, increase his banding under the allocation scheme. There is no evidence he bid for properties during this period which means he did not miss out on successfully bidding for a property because of this fault.

Back to top

Decision

35. I found fault on Mr Y’s complaint against the Council. There is no outstanding injustice to him from the fault found.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman