Summary: Ms D says the Council incorrectly withdrew an offer of housing and changed her housing band in 2025. I have found the Council at fault because it failed to clarify whether Ms D was eligible for her former banding level. Its review of the case was flawed and gave incorrect reasons for why the banding had changed. I have asked the Council to carry out a new review.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council incorrectly withdrew an offer of social housing in May 2025 and reduced her housing priority.

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 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

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have looked at events from May 2025 to September 2025 when the Council issued its review decision.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties and took account of their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background

7. In 2023 Ms D applied to join the Council’s housing register and said one of the reasons for a move was due to wanting a garden, she did not have one at her current home. In January 2024 the Council’s housing register system recorded Ms D was in a Council owned duplex flat with no garden and she had a child. She was overcrowded by one bedroom and assessed as band 3 housing priority because she met two of the criteria from band 4 (lacking a bedroom and not having a garden). The Council filled out a transfer approval form in February for the application which stated Ms D’s home had a front garden, it did not complete the section to say if the garden was sole use or communal. The Council has sent a copy of handwritten notes from an Officer’s records (which are not dated) which state Ms D’s property had a ‘shared garden’.

Events I have investigated

8. On 8 May 2025 Ms D was shortlisted for an advertised social housing property. The Council noted that day that Ms D was ‘aware [this is] not an official offer’. On 14 May an Allocations and Lettings Officer checked Ms D’s application. They found Ms D was in a duplex flat with use of a small front garden. An Officer called Ms D to advise she had been placed in the wrong housing band because she had use of a garden. She would be moved to band 4 for moderate overcrowding. The pre-termination visit was cancelled. The Council wrote to Ms D that day with its decision about her new housing band. On 19 May Ms D called the Council to complain, she said she did not have a useable garden. On 21 May the Council considered documentation from Ms D about how her home was impacting on the household’s health. This was assessed as relating to overcrowding and the Council had already accepted Ms D was overcrowded. On 9 June Ms D told the Council she did not have a garden, only a patch of grass which she did not use as a garden. The Council advised Ms D about its consideration of the health information and that it primarily related to overcrowding.
9. In June Ms D’s Councillor contacted the Council about the change to Ms D’s banding. On 12 June the Council noted that Officers had checked satellite images which showed the property had a front garden and had considered the 2023 application form and approval documents when making the recent decision on banding. Also on 12 June the Council responded to the Councillor enquiry about its decision. It said Ms D had been in band 3 based on overcrowding and not having a garden. During eligibility checks the Council found that Ms D had stated in her 2023 housing register application she did not have use of a garden. But the 2024 approval form stated Ms D had ‘sole use of garden’ and this had not been spotted in 2024. An Assistant Team Manager also spoke to Ms D that day and advised her of the checks made by the Council and its decision that she did have use of a garden. Ms D requested the Council review its decision.
10. On 17 June the Council acknowledged a review request from Ms D to reconsider the decision on her housing band. In July the Assistant Team Manager told colleagues that any deviation from the allocations policy would require an exceptions report to be considered by a panel as part of the Tenancy and Estates Team.
11. On 1 September the Council issued its review decision. It said there had been changes to the housing register from 28 July 2025 which meant that applicants without a garden no longer attracted the same level of housing need and banding. In light of this, it had reviewed the original decision and upheld that Ms D should be in band 4.

What should have happened

12. The Council’s Allocations Policy sets out how the Council assesses, prioritises and allocates housing to applicants on the housing register. The Policy currently online was last amended in 2022. It says that applicants who are overcrowded (needs one additional bedroom) and live in a property without a garden where they have a child under 18 should be placed in band 3 for housing priority. An applicant who is overcrowded (needs one additional bedroom) without meeting any additional criteria will be placed in band 4 housing priority.
13. Where there is a query over whether an applicant has sole use of a garden the Council should check satellite maps, ask colleagues who are familiar with the property or ask the applicant for photographic evidence. If an applicant has sole use of a garden, irrespective of size, they will not meet the criterion under band 4 relating to lack of garden space.
14. Applicants bid for advertised social housing properties under the Choice Based Lettings system. In general the Council will shortlist a pool of applicants who had the highest banding and earliest start date. Shortlisted applicants are notified and the Council checks their eligibility including whether they are in the correct band. If the Council finds an applicant is in the wrong band they will remove the applicant from the shortlist and notify them. Where an applicant passes the eligibility checks the Council will make a formal offer for new accommodation to highest placed bidder. If the applicant is a Council tenant the decision to agree a housing transfer must be approved by a Panel before an offer of accommodation can be made.
15. The Council can consider exercising discretion and make an exception to its Allocations Policy. An Officer would need to complete an exceptions report and set out their recommendations for a senior Officer in the Tenancy and Estates Team to assess.

Was there fault by the Council

16. The Council told Ms D she was not eligible for the shortlisted property because she had sole use of a front garden. It also told Ms D’s Councillor in June 2025 that the approval form stated there was sole use of the garden. I have considered the evidence; it is clear the approval form is incomplete and does not say whether the garden is sole use or shared, so the Council misinformed the Councillor. Furthermore the Council has told me, ‘information from the viewing and sign up [documentation] was vague and it appears nobody was clear on the responsibility of the front or rear garden’. In addition the Community Housing Officer stated in 2025 the front garden was ‘communal to some extent and not private’. The Council states in a response to me the front garden ‘is not a viable private garden’. This shows to me the Council does not have a clear view on whether Ms D has sole use of a front garden. Given there was a debate between Officers in 2025, and the records made about the site are not definitive, I would have expected the Council to have first reached a clear decision on whether the site could be considered as a viable sole use garden before it told Ms D she would be placed into band 4 and would not be further considered for the shortlisted property. The Council noted in 2025 that it could produce an exceptions report to have the matter fully considered by a senior Officer and I see no reason why this was not pursued at the time. Had the Council followed that process Ms D would not be left uncertain about the status of the garden, her banding and whether she should have been further considered for the shortlisted property.
17. The 1 September review decision is wrong. It refers to changes to the Allocations Policy from July as the reason for its decision to change Ms D’s banding. Clearly any policy changes in July had no bearing on the decision about whether Ms D was eligible for a property in May or the subsequent decision to reduce her from band 3 to band 4. In addition the Allocations Policy remains unchanged and still states the banding criteria that were in place at the start of 2025. The review should have considered and commented on whether the Council was correct to reduce the banding because Ms D’s home had sole use of a viable front garden. It failed to address that point and I consider this to be fault.

Did the fault cause an injustice

18. The failure by the Council to be clear on whether Ms D had sole use of a front garden has meant she has been left uncertain about her banding and whether she lost an opportunity to be further considered for the shortlisted property. The review by the Council was flawed as it provided an incorrect reason for why Ms D’s banding had changed.
19. Ms D says she had packed up ready to move in 2025, I do not see that is the fault of the Council because at that point Ms D had only been shortlisted and was never formally offered the property.

Back to top

Action

20. To remedy the injustice to Ms D the Council has agreed to review (and use the exceptions report if necessary) whether Ms D has sole use of a viable front garden and if she should be in band 3. If the Council finds that Ms D does not have sole use of her front garden/ reverts her back to band 3 it should consider an appropriate remedy that is line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance.
21. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within two months of this case closing.

Back to top

Decision

22. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman