Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about the way the Council handled her housing register application. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the uncertainty and avoidable time and trouble caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council amended her the effective date for her priority and on its housing register without notice or good reason. She says she was in band B from 2010, but the Council now says this was effective from 2021. She said there was a pattern of making changes to her application without informing her.
2. Ms X also said she had tried for months to get the Council to investigate her concern, but it failed to respond. When she complained, it sent responses with inaccurate information.
3. Ms X said the change to her effective date means she will wait longer than she should have to for rehousing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. The Council accepted Ms X’s housing register application in 2010. Ms X told us she was placed in band B at that time. A Council letter in December 2013 confirms she was in band B at that point.
8. Council records show:
• Ms X was homeless in 2014, but it was agreed she would live with a family member for a period and would remain in band B;
• Ms X contacted the Council about her band being changed to C1 even though she was still living with the relative. The Council updated its system to band B and informed Ms X;
• In June 2021 Ms X was homeless again and lost band B as she was placed in temporary accommodation;
• In August 2021, Ms X agreed to the Council’s Homeless Prevention Route and band B was awarded.
9. In September 2024, Ms X asked the Council to change the effective date from August 2021 to 2010 when her application was first registered because she had just noticed it was wrong. She said she had done everything the Council asked her throughout that period to retain her band B. The Council said it would ask the relevant team to respond.
10. Ms X sent three chaser emails in November and one in December, but the Council did not respond, so Ms X made a formal complaint in January 2025. In its complaint response, in February 2025, the Council said its allocations team had advised it couldn’t amend effective dates, but that it would ask managers to investigate and contact her with an update.
11. Ms X did not receive an update and make a stage 2 complaint in June, which the Council responded to in July. The Council said Ms X was in band C1 in 2013 as it had accepted a main homelessness duty. In August 2021, the homelessness prevention route was agreed, and she was placed in band B. The effective date was the date of that agreement, and so was correct. It said Ms X had not been in band B before August 2021.

My assessment

12. Ms X told us she became aware the effective date was wrong in September 2024, and she complained to us in November 2025. This was slightly more than 12 months later, but the evidence shows she was pursuing the Council to resolve the matter, and it did not provide a full response until July 2025. On that basis, I have decided to consider her complaint.
13. An applicant’s priority band is assessed based on the impact of their housing at the time. This means the priority band may change with each address change. In addition, councils may change their published allocations scheme, which may lead to all applications being reassessed.
14. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decisions about Ms X’s priority band were correct at every stage. Having considered the records provided and the current allocations scheme, it appears the priority band awarded at various times was in line with the scheme. However, when the priority band changed, the Council should have sent a decision letter explaining the reason for the change and setting out relevant review rights. There is no indication it did so. This meant Ms X was not always aware of changes at the time they were made and missed the chance to ask for reviews if she disagreed with the change.
15. I also note Ms X asked the Council on several occasions from September 2024 to consider whether the effective date was correct, but it failed to respond. Its stage 1 complaint response was inadequate because it indicates no investigation had been made. Its stage 2 response said she had not been in band B before August 2021, which was inaccurate.
16. If we investigated further, it is likely we would find the Council was at fault for failing to send decision letters with relevant review rights when it made changes to Ms X’s priority band, for missing the chance to consider whether the effective date was correct from September 2024, and for complaints handling failures.
17. The decision to award band B from August 2021 was in line with the scheme and followed a short period where a lower priority band was effective. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to recommend it back-dates the effective date to 2010. However, the faults caused uncertainty for Ms X and she was put to avoidable time and trouble pursuing the matter, which was an injustice to her.
18. We therefore invited the Council to take steps to remedy the injustice. It has agreed to take the following steps within one month of the date of this decision:
• apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice;
• pay her £150 as a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused; and
• remind relevant staff of the importance of issuing a decision with relevant review rights when it changes the priority band or effective date on a housing register application.

Back to top

Final decision

We have upheld the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman