Summary: There was fault by the Council, because it made an unsafe judgement about the value of the complainant’s property, when deciding what band it should apply to her application to join its housing register. This caused an uncertainty, which is an injustice, but the Council has more recently revised its position, and we are satisfied this resolves the injustice. The Council was not at fault for how it considered the complainant’s bedroom entitlement. We have therefore propose to complete our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Ms D.
2. Ms D complains about the Council’s handling of her application to join the housing register. Specifically, she says the Council has placed her application in a low band because of a flawed valuation of her current property, and because it has not taken proper account of her medical situation and harassment she says she has experienced. Ms D also complains the Council has given her an inadequate bedroom entitlement.

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’.(Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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 s34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, Ms D included a significant number of other, related points of complaint. For the sake of brevity I will not list those points individually here. However, I have not investigated them for various reasons, which include that the Council has already provided an adequate response, to which we could not add; that there is no evidence of fault in the complaint; that the complaint should be made to another body; or that we have already addressed the complaint in a previous investigation.
6. My investigation is therefore limited to the points set out in paragraph 2.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.

Back to top

What I found

8. The following is a brief summary of the key events relevant to this complaint. It is not intended to provide a detailed chronology of everything that happened.
9. Ms D owns and lives in a park home, on a site licensed by the Council. For some time she has been in conflict with the site manager, whom Ms D accuses of harassing her, and which has led her to make a series of complaints to the Council. We investigated a previous complaint from Ms D about how the Council had handled this, and so it does not form part of my investigation.
10. As a result of the conflict, Ms D decided she could no longer live at the site. In December 2024, as a result of this, the Council met with Ms D to take an application from her to join its housing register.
11. In January 2025 the Council decided to place Ms D in band 4 – the lowest priority – of its allocation scheme. This was because it considered her home was valuable enough to give her assets above the threshold of £60,000 set out in the scheme. The Council also explained Ms D was entitled to bid for one-bedroom properties.
12. Over the following months Ms D submitted more information to the Council, concerning her medical circumstances and the alleged harassment by the site manager. She also submitted a private valuation of her property, which estimated it to be worth £55,000, and pointed out she also was required to pay 10% of the value of any sale to the site owner. The Council considered this information but decided it did not justify a change in Ms D’s banding or bedroom entitlement.
13. In July Ms D submitted a formal complaint to the Council about these points (and the other matters I have not investigated). This culminated in a final response from the Council in August, in which it explained:

• the Council’s research had shown two other similar properties on the site, currently listed for sale at £65,000 and £75,000 respectively. The Council therefore did not accept Ms D’s property was worth less than the assets threshold set out in the allocation scheme;
• it was not required to “apply a 10% disregard to the valuation”;
• it recognised the impact of Ms D’s medical conditions. However, because the Council considered Ms D had sufficient assets to arrange her own housing, her medical situation did not justify a change in her banding; and
• it would consider increasing her entitlement to an additional bedroom if Ms D provided evidence she needed overnight care, although it warned Ms D this would not change her banding.

14. On the same day, Ms D referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Legislative background

15. 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))
16. The Council’s scheme explains it operates four bands, from band 1, the highest priority, to band 4, the lowest. The scheme sets out several reasons why the Council might place an applicant in band 4, one of which being that they have assets and/or capital above £60,000. This is because the Council considers this provide adequate resources to buy or privately rent a home in the area.
17. The scheme also explains how the Council decides the number of bedrooms an applicant is entitled to. A single person is entitled only to a one-bedroom property, but the Council may permit them a second bedroom under certain circumstances, including where they have a “non-resident overnight carer” and are in receipt of certain benefits.

Back to top

Analysis

18. Ms D’s complaint covers two elements: the Council’s decision on her banding; and its decision about her bedroom entitlement. For the sake of clarity I will address each separately.

Banding

19. The Council has placed Ms D in band 4, the lowest priority in its allocation scheme. This is because it considers she has assets of at least £60,000, meaning the Council believes she has the financial means to arrange her own accommodation. This contradicts private valuations Ms D has obtained from estate agents, which suggest her property would sell for less than £60,000 if she were to place it on the market.
20. I am conscious, first, that the figures quoted by both parties are only broad estimates; this is, in effect, a dispute about which is the more likely of two hypothetical scenarios. I cannot make my own judgement which is the more credible, and the only way to conclusively settle this dispute would be for Ms D to actually sell the property.
21. This said, I share Ms D’s misgivings about the Council’s rationale for concluding she has at least £60,000 in assets.
22. The Council explained it had found two other properties on the site, listed for sale at £75,000 and £65,000 respectively. Neither advert is still available and so I cannot verify this, but, either way, I do not consider they can be taken as reliable indicators of the value of Ms D’s own property.
23. Ms D says the other properties were listed for sale at inflated prices. I cannot comment on this. Even so, there are numerous factors that can affect the value of a property, such as size, age, condition, and precise location. The mere fact a property is on the same site as another does not mean they are worth the same amount of money, but I see no recognition of this by the Council.
24. I note the Council also told Ms D the allocation scheme did not require it to disregard 10% of the valuation of her home. This was a curious comment. The allocation scheme exists, by necessity, to cover a wide range of possible circumstances. It does not, and clearly could not, give precise guidance on how officers should calculate a person’s assets in all possible circumstances.
25. But the relevant part of the scheme merely says that a person with assets (and/or capital) of £60,000 and above should be given reduced priority. Clearly, if Ms D is required to pay 10% of the sale value of her property to the site owner, and in doing so that brings her assets under the £60,000 threshold, then this very much is a relevant factor for the Council in deciding her priority. It cannot merely dismiss it because the scheme does not envisage this exact scenario.
26. The Council’s decision about the value of Ms D’s property is therefore unsafe, and this is fault.
27. However, the Council has provided us with a copy of its response, dated November 2025, to a more recent complaint of Ms D’s, which covers similar ground. In its response, the Council said:

“For the Council to move its position on valuation and be able to reconsider the implications of your medical circumstances we would require an independent valuation report undertaken by a qualified valuer. This would need to set out their professional view that the value of your property was not in excess of £60,000.

“To prepare this report they would require access inside and outside your property to conduct an inspection and there would be a fee involved which you would need to pay. If you do want to do this we can help identify suitable organisations who could conduct this valuation for you or you can, of course, source your own company.”

28. Although Ms D has provided several valuations of her property by estate agents, they are all contained only within very brief messages from the respective agents. There is little to no detail about how the agents assessed the property, and I note Ms D has expressed a general reluctance to permit entry into her property, suggesting the agents carried out their assessments from an external point of view only.
29. Therefore, while there is clear fault in the way the Council produced its own estimates, it was within its rights to be cautious about accepting Ms D’s valuations. It follows, therefore, I consider the Council is entitled to ask Ms D to provide a more thorough valuation, before it accepts her estimate.
30. Although the Council’s fault created an uncertainty, which was an injustice to Ms D, I consider the more reasoned position the Council has now taken is sufficient to remedy this injustice. It has given Ms D clear and logical instructions on what she needs to do, for it to accept her assets are below the threshold set out in the allocation scheme. It is for Ms D to decide whether she wishes to follow this advice.
31. Ms D has also complained the Council has not given proper consideration to her medical circumstances, and the alleged harassment she says she faces from the site manager, in considering her banding.
32. The Council has explained these factors are superseded by the question of her assets – in other words, for the purposes of the Council’s housing register, the impact of Ms D’s medical and other issues is immaterial, because she has the financial resources to secure alternative accommodation without the Council’s assistance.
33. I have explained why I consider the Council to be at fault for the way it has calculated its estimate of Ms D’s assets. This does not mean, however, the Council is factually incorrect to say her assets are above the £60,000 threshold, because a more thorough valuation may still support this view.
34. And the Council is correct to say a person with assets over the threshold should remain in band 4, regardless of any medical or other circumstances they may have. That is what the allocation scheme says.
35. For this reason I cannot treat this point of Ms D’s complaint as a separate, independent element. It stands or falls entirely with the question of valuation.
36. If, in future, the Council does accept that Ms D’s assets are below the threshold, it will then need to decide how these other issues affect her banding. Until that question is settled though, I cannot draw any conclusion about whether the Council has properly considered them.
37. Taking these points together, I find the Council is at fault for the way it made its original decision about her assets, and that this fault caused Ms D an injustice because of the uncertainty it creates. However, the Council has remedied this injustice by taking a more logical approach to the valuation question. I can make no finding on Ms D’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of her medical issues, or the alleged harassment, in its decision about her banding.

Bedroom entitlement

38. The Council has decided Ms D is only entitled to bid for one-bedroom properties. Under the allocation scheme, as a single person household, this is correct.
39. Ms D says she should be entitled to an additional bedroom under the scheme, because of her care requirements. Specifically, she says a family member stays with her two or three nights each week to provide care, meeting the requirement for ‘overnight care’ set out in the allocation scheme.
40. I will first note the scheme also requires the applicant to be in receipt of certain benefits, and although I note Ms D has referred to her receipt of benefits, I am not in a position to say whether this makes her eligible under the scheme.
41. Either way, I am satisfied the Council has addressed this issue properly. In its final response to Ms D’s complaint, the Council explained what evidence she needed to provide to demonstrate her eligibility. Again, it was then for Ms D to decide whether she wished to pursue this.
42. I am conscious some time has passed since the Council issued its response. I do not know what developments, if any, have come since then, but I can only consider Ms D’s complaint up to the point she approached the Ombudsman. Anything more recent is premature for investigation by us and must form part of a new complaint, if Ms D is dissatisfied with it.
43. I find no fault in this element of Ms D’s complaint.

Back to top

Decision

44. I find fault causing injustice, but which the Council has already remedied.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman