Summary: Ms X complained the Council refused to rehouse her family when she told it they were at risk of harm. We do not find the Council at fault when it did not move her to its urgent or other priority housing allocation band.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council refused to rehouse her and her family when she told it they were at risk of harm.
2. She says this has left her family at risk and caused distress to her and her children.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
5. 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 s34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated the Council’s actions from February 2023 when it considered Ms X’s concerns about risks to her family, until April 2023 when it reconsidered the risks.
7. Ms X’s complaint was first referred to us by the Housing Ombudsman in August 2025 after it completed an investigation into parts of her complaint that I cannot investigate. Therefore all matters before August 2024 are late. Ms X complained to the Housing Ombudsman in March 2024. I have decided this is a good reason to exercise my discretion to investigate from February 2023 because it would be unreasonable to expect Ms X to complain to us about those matters earlier.
8. Ms X raised concerns about the Council’s actions before February 2023. I have decided there are not good reasons Ms X did not come to us about the earlier matters sooner, I therefore cannot investigate them.
9. Ms X also raised concerns about recent Council actions that she has not complained to the Council about. I have not investigated beyond April 2023 because the law says the Council should usually be given a reasonable opportunity to investigate matters before we do. I have seen no reason to exercise my discretion to investigate those matters in this case.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Ms 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

Law and guidance

Housing allocations schemes and reasonable preference

12. 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))
13. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

What happened

14. In early February 2023 a lawyer acting on Ms X’s behalf complained to the Council. The complaint centred on the Council’s decision not to move Ms X and her family into a different address via a process called a management priority move. She had requested a management priority move because Ms X considered she and her family were at risk in their address.
15. The Council held a meeting with various senior officers and the police later in February. It reviewed any risk involving Ms X and her family. The record of the meeting concluded there was no evidence or information that suggested Ms X or her family were at risk of harm.
16. In early March 2023 the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint. It maintained its decision that Ms X did not meet the threshold for a management priority move.
17. Later in March Ms X raised concerns with the Council’s children’s social work team about risks to her family. The Council referred it for consideration at a Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC).
18. In April 2023 the MARAC referral was considered. The Council and other agencies were involved. The MARAC record noted there was no information or intelligence to substantiate Ms X’s concerns. The referral was considered as low risk. The Council maintained its decision not to provide Ms X a management priority move.

Analysis

19. The Council did not provide a management priority move. The law says I cannot investigate this action. The Housing Ombudsman can investigate this. It did so before referring Ms X’s complaint to us.
20. The Council also did not give Ms X priority based on reasonable preference when she raised concerns about the welfare of her family. I can and have investigated whether the Council should have considered reasonable preference.
21. I have considered the Council’s actions with reference to its Housing Allocation Scheme (the allocation scheme). The allocation scheme explains it will give reasonable preference to certain groups by including them in a priority banding system.
22. The group relevant to Ms X’s complaint is those that may require a greater priority to move because of welfare reasons.
23. The allocation scheme says the Council may give reasonable preference for welfare reasons by awarding priority bands as follows:

• Band A: Emergency and Top Priority. This may include applicants suffering extreme violence and/or harassment as verified by professionals and statutory organisations.
• Band B: Urgent need to move. This may include applicants suffering evidenced persistent harassment and/or violence of a serious but not life-threatening nature as confirmed by professionals and statutory organisations.
• Band C: Identified Housing need. This may include applicants suffering evidenced harassment and/or violence of a serious but not life-threatening nature as confirmed by professionals and statutory organisations.

24. The Council responded to Ms X’s concerns by gathering information and evidence from the police and other professionals. It did so during the meeting in February and MARAC in April.
25. On both occasions it recorded the police and other professionals confirmed there was no information or evidence that Ms X or her family were at risk of harassment or violence.
26. I also note Ms X did not directly request a reasonable preference decision from the Council.
27. Ms X said the Council did not consider relevant information going back to 2020. This included earlier social services assessments, a comment she says a judge made, and other contextual information.
28. I have decided the evidence shows the Council acted promptly and gathered appropriate and relevant information that allowed it to properly consider Ms X’s concerns. I have seen no evidence Ms X met the threshold for any of the priority bands in its allocation scheme. It is also relevant Ms X did not request reasonable preference or a priority band. For these reasons I find the Council was not at fault when it did not give reasonable preference to Ms X.

Back to top

Decision

29. I find no fault because the Council gathered appropriate and relevant information to consider Ms X’s concerns and I have seen no evidence it did not follow its allocation scheme. I have finished my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman