Preston City Council (25 001 649)
Category : Housing > Homelessness
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 02 Sep 2025
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: The Council has apologised for poor communications in relation to Mr X’s homelessness application and that is sufficient to remedy the frustration caused. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to remove Mr X’s band C priority on its housing register to justify further investigation.
The complaint
- Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness and housing register applications. He said he should have been awarded a higher priority band on the housing register and that his communications with officers were ignored. He said he refused a property offered as it was unsuitable and the Council should not have removed his priority on the housing register as a result.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:
- there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
- further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
What happened
- The Council accepted a prevention duty in May 2025 because it accepted Mr X was at risk of homelessness. A prevention duty would usually last for 56 days.
- The Council also accepted Mr X onto its housing register. It awarded band C. I have seen an email from the Council confirming Mr X would be awarded band B in mid-August if he had not been rehoused by then, but this did not happen. Mr X tried to contact the officer about this, but the officer had left the Council. An agency officer handled Mr X’s case for a short period before they also left.
- In its complaint response the Council acknowledged there was no record the agency worker contacted Mr X and accepted there was a failure to respond to Mr X’s communications, for which it apologised.
- In December 2024, Mr X was matched to a property through the housing register. Mr X refused the property because he had concerns about its location and said he would not feel safe there. However, he did not provide details of any specific risk to him in that area.
- As a result of his refusal, the Council removed his band C priority. This decision was upheld on review in March 2025. At review, the Council explained that no areas could be excluded unless there was a specific risk. There was no evidence of a specific risk in the area where the property offered was located, so the decision to remove band C priority was correct.
- The review decision went on to say that the prevention duty should have ended after 56 days and that, since Mr X had not become homeless after that period and was not at risk of homelessness within 56 days at the time of the offer, the property should not have been offered to him.
My assessment
- The Council accepted a prevention duty, which should have lasted for 56 days. There is no record the Council considered whether Mr X had become homeless or was at risk of homelessness within 56 days at the end of the prevention period. There is also, no record the Council wrote to him ending the prevention duty and explaining he could ask for a review of that decision if he disagreed with it.
- That said, there is no indication Mr X did become homeless, nor that he was at risk of homelessness within 56 days at the end of the prevention period. Therefore, the injustice caused was limited to a failure to communicate properly with him, for which the Council has already apologised. Further investigation by us would not reach a different outcome.
- Mr X was awarded band C on the Council’s housing register, which was in line with its published allocations scheme. It is not clear why the original officer told Mr X the banding would be increased to band B, nor does it appear Mr X would have been entitled to band B in mid-August, which was after the end of the prevention duty period. Although this raised Mr X’s expectations, it did not cause him a significant injustice because he did not qualify for band B and the Council’s failure to actively progress the homelessness application meant he actually benefitted from remaining in band C longer than he should have done.
- When Mr X refused the property offered in December 2024, he did not give specific reasons why he would be unsafe in the area where the property was located. Therefore, the removal of his band C priority was in line with the Council’s published scheme. The Council considered his reasons for refusing at review but explained the reasons why the decision to remove the band C priority was correct. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered this to justify further investigation.
- For all the reasons set out above, we will not consider this complaint further.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has apologised for poor record-keeping and communications for a period, which is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way it decided to remove the band C priority to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman