Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’ failure to honour an agreement to secure suitable accommodation following an allocations mistake. We found the Council to be at fault. This caused Mrs X and her family to live in overcrowed conditions for longer than necessary, as well as significant distress and frustration. To remedy this injustice, the Council agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and make Mrs X a direct offer of the first, available, suitable property.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failure to honour its commitment to provide her family with suitable accommodation when she was incorrectly overlooked for a property in 2024.
2. She says this has had an impact on her family who are living in cramped conditions which has caused significant distress and negatively affected their well-being. She would like the Council to reinstate her priority status, identify a suitable property and provide a financial remedy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs 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

Housing allocations

8. 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))
9. 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))

10. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

The Council’s allocations scheme (the Scheme)

11. The Council’s Scheme includes the following priority bands (that are relevant to this investigation:

• Band 1B– High priority banding need, including additional social need; and
• Band 2A– priority banding need, including overcrowding.

12. The Scheme states the Council’s Housing Management Panel can award an applicant Band 1B. The preference date will be the date it was first considered by the Panel. If a suitable property is rejected, the additional priority will be withdrawn.

What happened

13. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
14. Mrs X lived with her husband and two children in a one room studio flat. She had been on the Council’s housing register since 2017. This is referred to as “the effective date”. This can be significant because an earlier date can be used as a “tie breaker” to determine a successful bidder.
15. She had Band 2A priority because of her overcrowding. Although eligible to bid on three bedroomed properties, she was advised by the Council to increase her chances of being rehomed sooner by also bidding on two bedroomed properties. The Scheme also allowed for this.
16. In 2024, Mrs X bid on a two bedroomed property (Property A), and was informed she was ranked the highest bidder. Despite this, she was later told she had not been allocated Property A. Instead, Property A had been allocated to another family with Band 2A, priority but a later effective date.
17. In May 2024, Mrs X complained the Council incorrectly applied the Scheme. Her complaint was not upheld. She was told this was because Property A did not meet the requirements of her household because her children required a separate bedroom due to their age and sex. This decision was made by a managing agent (the Agent) acting on behalf of the Council.
18. Mrs X complained again. At stage two, her complaint was upheld. The Council accepted she should have been allocated property A, because the Scheme allowed her to bid on two-bedroom properties. The Agent was wrong to determine Property A was unsuitable.
19. By way of remedy, the Council granted Mrs X “management priority” to increase her chances of being rehoused. If this proved unsuccessful within three months (from September 2024), the Council said it would consider making a direct offer. Her banding priority was temporarily increased to 1B.
20. In November 2024, Mrs X made a successful bid on Property B. However, when she soon realised this property was in an area of potential risk for her family, and says she had no choice but to reject the offer as being unsuitable. The Council disagreed and withdrew her 1B status. The Council later accepted Mrs X’s reason for refusing Property B and reinstated her 1B status in December 2024.
21. It was not until September 2025 that the Council made direct offer of Property C. Mrs X refused this as being unsuitable, specifically because it was much smaller than Property A, had no outdoor space or lift access. The Council disagreed and withdrew her additional priority. Her appeal about this was unsuccessful so Mrs X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in October 2025.
22. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council said:

• had the Agent not made a mistake, Mrs X would have been offered Property A;
• it was prepared to restore priority status for one more final offer. Although property C was still considered suitable, the Council acknowledged communication had been inadequate and Property C did not have a lift;
• it was not looking to match Property A, but provide accommodation to meet the needs of Mrs X and her family; and
• It complied with the timeline set out in stage two complaint response. This is because Mrs X was offered Property B within two months. Property B was suitable and an offer was made in response to a bid by Mrs X.

Analysis

23. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.
24. The Council has already accepted it acted with fault when Mrs X was incorrectly overlooked for Property A in 2024. Had this fault not occurred Mrs X would have been appropriately housed at this time and what happened afterwards was entirely avoidable.
25. I acknowledge the Council sought to remedy this fault by increasing her bidding status. This led to Mrs X being offered Property B within two months. The Council subsequently accepted this was unsuitable and reinstated her additional priority.
26. The Council says it complied with the commitment made in its stage two response. I disagree. Whilst an offer was made within this time frame, the Council later accepted it Property B unsuitable. I do not consider it reasonable for the Council to claim it fulfilled its commitment to Mrs X by offering her an unsuitable property. This was fault.
27. The records show it took about a year for a further offer to be made. Mrs X says she was not kept informed what was happening during this time and the bidding system was confusing and not properly explained. The Council has acknowledged communication with Mrs X could have been better. Whilst I accept it is entirely possible this delay was caused by housing shortage, the Council had a responsibility, because of its commitment to make a direct offer after three months, to keep her informed about what was happening. Lack of communication understandably added to Mrs X’s distress and frustration. This was further fault.
28. I found the Council’s position regarding Property C to be contradictory. Whilst it maintains the view that it was suitable, in response to my enquiries, the Council agreed to reinstate additional priority, with a view to possibly making a direct offer and ensure the next property will have a lift, like Property A.
29. I have assumed the Council has taken this corrective action in acknowledgement of its previous failings towards Mrs X. Whilst I welcome this, I remain concerned that the situation may drift as it has done previously. This concern in addressed in my recommendations below.

Injustice

30. The delays, lack of communication and overall poor case handling has resulted in a serious injustice to Mrs X. Because of the failings by the Council, Mrs X has remained in an unsuitable property where her young children have been disproportionality affected. Mrs X has described to me in some distressing detail that negative impact that four people living in one room has had on the whole family. Mrs X has also been caused avoidable time and trouble having to regularly pursue the Council for action over a two-year period.
31. These injustices are reflected in my recommendations to the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. Within four weeks from the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following action.
1. Apologise to Mrs X for the injustice caused by the Council’s faults. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
2. Pay Mrs X a symbolic payment of £5,200 for the delay of 26 months (May 2024 to July 2026) to acknowledge the distress caused by living in overcrowded conditions for an extended period of time.
3. Pay Mrs X a symbolic payment of £250 in acknowledgement of her time, trouble and frustration dealing with this matter over a prolonged time period.
4. Allocate a named officer to monitor the handling of this case and to provide fortnightly updates to Mrs X about the search for a suitable property via a direct offer. This will continue until such time Mrs X is offered a suitable property.
33. The Council will also make Mrs X a direct offer of the next property which it deems is suitable to meet Mrs X’s needs. The timing of this offer will be dependent on when such a property becomes available.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman