Summary: Miss X complained the Council wrongly suspended her housing register application because of housing-related debt. The Council acted in line with its Housing Allocation Scheme when it suspended the application, treated the outstanding charges as housing-related debt, and reactivated the application once the debt was cleared. We have not found fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council wrongly suspended her housing register application because of housing-related debts. She said the debts did not justify suspension under the Council’s Allocation Scheme and that she was not properly notified or given an opportunity to challenge them. Miss X said the suspension prevented her from bidding for accommodation for several months. She said this caused her distress and prolonged the difficulties she and her children experienced while living in temporary accommodation.

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 the future we may recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have not investigated Miss X’s complaint that the temporary accommodation the Council provided was unsuitable for her medical needs.
6. As per paragraph 4, the law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court.
7. Miss X had a statutory right to challenge the suitability of her temporary accommodation. The evidence shows she was aware of that right and told the Council she intended to pursue an appeal to the County Court.
8. I consider it was reasonable to expect Miss X to use that statutory route. I have therefore not investigated the suitability of her temporary accommodation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Miss X and the Council were offered an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments submitted before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Housing allocations

11. Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 governs the allocation of social housing. Councils must have an allocation scheme which sets out how they assess applications and determine priority for housing.

Housing-related debt

12. The Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme says housing-related debt includes current and former rent arrears, use and occupation charges and temporary accommodation contribution costs.
13. Section 11.1 of the Scheme says where an applicant owes housing-related debt to the Council or a partner registered provider, the application will be suspended until the debt is cleared or a payment arrangement has been made and maintained.
14. For applicants in Band B, the relevant debt limit is £300. Where housing-related debt is below £300, the applicant must still clear the debt or make and maintain a payment arrangement. Where the debt exceeds £300, the application remains suspended even if a payment arrangement has been made.

Review rights

15. The Council’s housing register decision letters explain that applicants may ask for a review of a decision about their housing application, normally within 21 days.

Back to top

What happened

16. I have included a summary of some of the key events in this complaint. This is not intended to be a comprehensive account of everything that took place.
17. Miss X was on the Council’s housing register. In July 2025 she moved into temporary accommodation at Accommodation C.
18. The Council says it reassessed Miss X’s housing application on 5 August 2025 after she accepted the temporary accommodation. As part of its checks, it identified housing-related debts of £23.96 connected with former accommodation at Accommodation A and £26.70 in contribution charges connected with her previous temporary accommodation at Accommodation B.
19. The Council later said Miss X’s housing application was suspended on 25 August 2025. At that time, her rent account for Accommodation C also showed arrears of £353.82.
20. The Council subsequently applied a backdated housing benefit award to the Accommodation C account. This cleared the £353.82 arrears. The other two debts, totalling £50.66, remained outstanding.
21. Miss X complained to the Council in October 2025. She said her application had been suspended because of rent arrears despite her receiving housing benefit and that she had been unable to bid for properties.
22. The Council responded at stage one on 23 October. It said applicants in Miss X’s housing band could have housing-related debt of up to £300, but an applicant with outstanding debt was required to make and maintain a repayment arrangement before their application could be activated. It told Miss X she could either pay the remaining £50.66 or arrange to repay it. The Council also said an officer would contact her about making payment or setting up an arrangement.
23. Miss X escalated her complaint. She said Provider A had told her she was not liable for the Accommodation A debt because it related to housing benefit. She also said she had received housing benefit while living at Accommodation B. Miss X said she had not previously been notified about either debt or given an opportunity to respond before the Council suspended her application.
24. The Council issued its stage two response on 3 December 2025. It said the £23.96 Accommodation A debt was a personal charge which housing benefit did not cover. It said Provider A had recently confirmed Miss X remained liable for it. The Council also said the £26.70 Accommodation B debt was a contribution charge which housing benefit did not cover. The Council did not uphold Miss X’s complaint.

Enquiries to the Council

25. Before the complaint was allocated for investigation, the Council provided further information about what had happened to Miss X’s housing application since its final complaint response. The Council confirmed:
• Miss X paid the £26.70 temporary accommodation contribution charge on 25 November 2025;
• the £23.96 personal charge remained outstanding after that date;
• on 23 March 2026, the Council paid the remaining £23.96 from its homelessness prevention fund;
• it did this to prevent applicants in temporary accommodation with low-level housing-related debts from being excluded from the Homeseekers register; and
• Miss X’s housing application became active again on 24 March 2026.

Back to top

Analysis

Suspension of Miss X’s housing application

26. Miss X says the Council should not have suspended her housing application because the debts were below £300.
27. When the Council suspended Miss X’s application on 25 August 2025, its records showed £353.82 in current rent arrears, as well as the £23.96 Accommodation A charge and £26.70 contribution charge. The £353.82 was later cleared by a backdated housing benefit award.
28. The Council’s Allocation Scheme says an applicant with housing-related debt will be suspended until the debt is cleared or a payment arrangement has been made and maintained. It also says an applicant will remain suspended where the level of debt exceeds the relevant limit in section 11.2.
29. I do not read the £300 limit as meaning the Council must disregard housing-related debt below that amount. Rather, where debt is below the relevant limit, the Scheme still requires the applicant to clear the debt or make and maintain a repayment arrangement. Where the debt remains above the limit, a repayment arrangement alone is not sufficient.
30. Therefore, although Miss X’s remaining debt later reduced to £50.66, she had neither cleared it nor entered into a repayment arrangement. The Council was entitled to continue the suspension under its Allocation Scheme. I do not find fault in the Council’s decision to suspend Miss X’s housing application.

The housing-related debts

31. Miss X says the Accommodation A debt was not hers and that Provider A had told her she was not liable for it. She also says she had received housing benefit while staying at Accommodation B.
32. The Council’s Stage 2 response says it checked the position with Provider A, which confirmed Miss X remained liable for the £23.96 personal charge. It also explained that the £26.70 Accommodation B charge was a contribution charge and was not covered by housing benefit.
33. It is not my role to determine the underlying liability for a debt between Miss X and Provider A. I have considered whether the Council had a reasonable basis for treating the debts as outstanding when applying its Allocation Scheme.
34. The records show Provider A recorded the £23.96 charge as outstanding in August 2025. The Council later said it checked the position with Provider A and was told Miss X remained liable. Its own records also showed the Accommodation B contribution charge remained outstanding. I have seen no evidence showing either debt had been cancelled at that time, or that the Council ignored such information.
35. I therefore find no fault in the Council treating the two amounts as outstanding housing-related debt when deciding whether Miss X’s application should remain suspended.

Notification and opportunity to resolve the debts

36. Miss X says she was not told about the debts or given an opportunity to dispute them before the Council suspended her application.
37. The Council’s records show Miss X was subsequently issued with a housing register decision which explained her application was suspended, identified the outstanding debts, explained what she needed to do for the Council to consider removing the suspension and advised her of her right to request a review.
38. The Council also explained the position in its Stage 1 complaint response in October 2025. It told Miss X she could clear the remaining £50.66 or enter into a payment arrangement and said an officer would contact her to explain how she could do this.
39. I have not seen evidence showing exactly what notification Miss X received at the point the Council first suspended her application in August 2025. However, the evidence shows she was aware of the suspension and the Council subsequently explained the debts, how she could resolve them and her review rights.
40. On the evidence available, I do not consider there is sufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s communication to justify a finding against it.

Lifting the suspension

41. Miss X paid the £26.70 Accommodation B contribution charge on 25 November 2025. However, the £23.96 Accommodation A charge remained outstanding.
42. The Council later paid the remaining £23.96 from its homelessness prevention fund on 23 March 2026. It reactivated Miss X’s housing application on 24 March 2026.
43. As some housing-related debt remained outstanding after Miss X paid the £26.70 charge, the Council was not required by its Allocation Scheme to lift the suspension at that point. Once the remaining debt had been cleared, the Council reactivated the application the following day.
44. I therefore find no fault in the time the Council took to lift the suspension.
45. Miss X says the suspension caused distress and prevented her from bidding for accommodation which may have better met her medical needs. I recognise the difficulties she describes. However, as I have not found fault in the Council’s decision to suspend or later reactivate her housing application, I cannot link those claimed consequences to Council fault.

Back to top

Decision

46. I find no fault in the Council’s decision to suspend Miss X’s housing application or in the way it later reactivated the application once the outstanding housing-related debt was cleared.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman