Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council dealt with her housing and homelessness applications. We found there was fault in how the Council reached and communicated its decisions. We recommended an apology and a payment to recognise the frustration and distress caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains:

• The Council made errors and there were issues with processing her housing/homelessness applications which caused delays in decision making.
• The Council offered her a property and withdrew it without properly explaining the reasons.
• The Council made a referral to Children’s Services about her children which she believed was malicious.

2. Miss X complains the matter was stressful and she was left not knowing where to turn for help.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

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

The Council’s Housing Allocation Policy

7. Section 3.1.1 of the Council’s policy sets out the eligibility criteria to join the housing register. It states an applicant must have been resident in the borough continuously for five years prior to applying. The policy includes various exceptions to this. These include someone ‘accepted under the full housing duty Section 193(2) or 195(2) of the Housing Act 1996.’

• Section 193(2) of the Housing Act is where a council has accepted a main duty to house someone.
• Section 195(2) of the Housing Act is the Council’s duty to take reasonable steps to help the applicant secure accommodation that will be available for them to occupy. This is referred to as the Prevention Duty.

8. Section 3.6.8 states that where an applicant is accepted as homeless, who doesn’t meet the residency requirement, they will ‘only be made live’ when they are deemed to have met the five-year residency requirement.
9. Section 6.1.1 of the policy says when homelessness points (100) will be awarded:

• When someone is accepted for the full homelessness duty and is accommodated in Temporary Accommodation.
• Where someone is threatened with homelessness within 28 days, and on a case by case basis, where they are threatened with homelessness with 56 days, where this is agreed by the Housing Assessment Manager, or any other person designed by the Head of Service.

10. Section 6.3.5 explains when room deficiency points are awarded. It records that a two-bedroom dwelling would be regarded as 3 rooms. This should be deducted from the rooms available to someone in their current situation. Where someone is sleeping on a friend’s floor on a temporary basis the current situation would be regarded as 0 rooms (a three-room deficiency). If they have their own room in a friend’s house, this would be regarded as 1 room (a two-room deficiency).
11. Section 9.9 of the policy states that all applicants in receipt of homelessness points would be subject to auto-bidding. They would then be made one offer of accommodation.

What Happened

12. The information in this statement provides an overview of the key events most relevant to the complaint. It is not intended to set out everything that happened.

Homelessness Application

13. Miss X presented to the Council as homeless in March 2025. She then submitted various documents and supporting evidence following a telephone assessment with a housing officer.
14. When she presented as homeless, she explained she had been living with her parents but they had asked her to leave seven months earlier. Since then, Miss X had been without a place to live and she was sofa-surfing at a friend’s property. She explained her children were still staying temporarily with her parents, but this was time limited as her parents were selling their property and moving away.
15. Miss X chased progress a number of times during April. At the Council’s request she provided contact details for her friend, her parents and her uncle who she, and her children had stayed with at various times.
16. On 30 April 2025 the Council decided Miss X was ‘threatened with homelessness’ and accepted a Prevention Duty to her under Section 195(2) of the Housing Act. It wrote to her to confirm this.
17. In early May the Council questioned if a medical form Miss X submitted had been completed by a doctor. Miss X challenged this and the Council accepted it should not have questioned it because the document had been signed and stamped by her doctor. Miss X also queried the extent of the enquiries the Council was making in general. The Council had sought information from Miss X’s parents about their circumstances and property sale in addition to asking her to explain expenditure it had noted from her bank statements. Miss X explained the Council’s contact with her parents was causing further difficulties with their relationship.
18. In June the Council asked for details of her children’s school and her uncle’s contact details. Miss X stated she had already explained to the housing officer that she did not wish the school to be aware of this to prevent her children being affected by knowledge of her situation. She asked the Council to justify why this was needed. She also expressed frustration that the Council was repeatedly asking for information she had already provided. Examples were her bank statements, her mother and uncle’s contact details and details of her children’s school, which she had already responded to. Miss X explained the way the matter was being handled had affected her mental health and she was struggling to cope.
19. The Council apologised that some information had been provided already. It explained that contacting the school was normal practice. It stated it had to decide what information was needed and it considered her reluctance to provide the school details was of concern in itself. In later correspondence the Council stated, if this was not provided it would consider making a safeguarding alert. As Miss X remained unprepared to share this without further justification by the Council, the Council raised a safeguarding alert towards the end of June.
20. Miss X also raised concerns about things that some officers had said to her during her interactions with them. The Council responded to this and apologised for any upset caused.
21. There was delay in the Council acting on some of the information Miss X provided. For example, the Council did not contact her friend or uncle for some time after Miss X had provided details.
22. The Council continued to make enquiries on Miss X’s application into July 2025. However, on 25 July Miss X told the Council her uncle had assisted her to find accommodation. As Miss X was appropriately housed, the Council ended its consideration of her homelessness application.

Eligibility for the Housing register and offer of accommodation

23. On 30 April 2025 Miss X applied to join the Housing Register. The Council accepted the application and it went live on 7 May 2025. It wrote to Miss X to confirm this. The Council granted Miss X 160 priority points. These included points for medical need (50), room deficiency (3 rooms lacking) (100) and shared facilities (10). The Council’s records show Miss X’s application was not allocated homelessness points.
24. On 14 May Miss X queried why a bid had not been placed for a particular property she was eligible for (Property A). She stated the allocation policy stated automatic bids were placed for homeless applicants, but one had not been placed for her on Property A.
25. Council officers looking at the issue considered Miss X should have been on auto-bidding. The notes state that it was not possible to add her to the shortlist for Property A now, but she had a higher number of priority points than the highest person on the shortlist. Officers established that, if an auto-bid had been placed for Miss X on Property A, she would have been top of the list, and won it. As a result, a housing officer decided they should make Miss X a direct offer of accommodation due to the failure to place an auto-bid in her case.
26. The case notes record the officer gaining confirmation that the Council had accepted a 195(2) Prevention Duty to Miss X and they were satisfied, as a result, that she was eligible for an offer of accommodation in accordance with the allocation policy and homelessness Code of guidance.
27. On 14 May the Council wrote to Miss X, nominating her for an offer of accommodation with a housing association.
28. On 15 May a senior officer reviewed the offer made to Miss X. They instructed housing officers to withdraw the offer. They stated that Miss X was not eligible to join the housing register. This was because the council was still conducting enquiries and not yet satisfied it owed a homelessness duty to Miss X. They stated ‘only when assessment and prevention activity was completed’ would section 3.1.1 of the allocation scheme be relevant. At that time 100 homelessness points be awarded and auto-bidding would be added. They also questioned why Miss X had been considered to be lacking three rooms.
29. The Council revoked the nomination for a property as a result.
30. Miss X challenged why the Council made her an offer of housing and then withdrew it. She stated she believed that she met the criteria to join the housing register because the Council accepted she was homeless. The Council responded in several emails to Miss X. The Council told her that the offer was removed because investigations into her homelessness application were still ongoing and her application had not been determined. This meant she was not eligible to join the housing register.
31. The Council told us that it withdrew the offer because, at the time of the nomination, officers were still making inquiries and as homelessness had not been confirmed, Miss X was not eligible for homelessness points, so these were removed and the nomination was withdrawn.

Was there fault by the Council

Homelessness Application

32. The Ombudsman’s role is to review councils’ adherence to procedure in making decisions. Where a council has followed the correct process, considered all relevant information, and given clear and cogent reasons for its decisions, we generally cannot criticise it. We do not make decisions on councils’ behalf, or provide a route of appeal against their decisions, and we cannot uphold a complaint simply because a person disagrees with a council’s decision.
33. We found there was some fault in the Council’s approach to Miss X’s homelessness application.

• Miss X sent information to her housing officer and received confirmation it was received. However, on numerous occasions the Council later asked for the same information it already had. I found this was fault.
• There was evidence that some of the necessary enquiries on her application were avoidably delayed. This was also fault.
• In early May the Council questioned if a medical form Miss X submitted had been completed by a doctor. The Council accepted that this was an error when Miss X challenged it, as the document had been signed and stamped by her doctor. It seems the Council had little or no reason to question this. I found this was also fault.
• These issues were clearly frustrating for Miss X.

34. We were unclear why the Council only accepted a Prevention Duty to Miss X. Miss X was the applicant. By accepting a prevention duty the Council considered her ‘threatened with homelessness’. However, at the time of her application, she had already left her accommodation (her parents property) and had no-accommodation that she could occupy. She was sofa-surfing. The Council told us a prevention duty was accepted because she was not actually homeless at the time of the application. She and her children were housed with family or friends. On balance I found this a judgement the council could make.
35. Miss X did not wish to provide her children’s school’s details when they were requested by the Council. I understand she had concerns and wished to shield her children from the homelessness application becoming known. I also recognise that Miss X found the extent of the Council’s enquiries (particularly its request to contact the children’s school) difficult. However, councils have a wide remit to seek information to establish the circumstances of homelessness applicants and it was entitled to do so. The Council explained it raised some concern that Miss X was not open to the school being contacted and this ultimately led to the Council raising a safeguarding alert. While this was upsetting for her, the decision to raise an alert amounts to a professional judgement by officers. This was not fault by the Council.

Housing Register Application/Withdrawn offer of Housing

36. There was confusion between officers over Miss X’s eligibility to join the Council’s housing register. Based on the information we have seen, the way the Council handled the application for the housing register represents fault. I say this because:
• Initially, officers checked Miss X’s circumstances and, in the knowledge of them, they accepted Miss X onto the Housing Register. The Council case notes on the day the application was approved say both that the application was on hold until a homelessness duty confirmed and that the local connection requirement was waived due to paragraph 3.1.1 of the policy.
• Later, a senior officer found she was not eligible, but stated this was because homelessness enquiries were not complete. This seems to ignore that the policy states that acceptance of either a main housing duty (S 193(2)) or a prevention duty (S195(2)) qualify as an exception. The council had accepted a prevention duty, so on the face of it, it appears Miss X was eligible to join the housing register as an exception, which the council had recorded at the outset.
• The allocations policy appears to say, in separate places, that applicants like Miss X are exempt from the need to have five years local connection and that their applications cannot go live until they are deemed to meet this requirement. This appears contradictory. It may have caused the confusion that occurred. In any event, we found this confusion and mixed messages given to Miss X amounted to fault.
• When officers considered that Miss X should have been placed on auto-bidding, following her query in early May, this also appears to have been wrong. This is because, while Miss X may have been eligible to join the housing register, auto-bidding is only used for those applicants with homelessness points. Miss X did not have homelessness points at that point. So, auto-bids were not appropriate and Miss X did not miss out on a property as a result. The offer of accommodation made to Miss X seems not to have been justified as a result. Making such an offer no doubt raised her expectations that she may be housed imminently and the immediate withdrawal added to her anxiety and frustration.
• It is possible Miss X should have had homelessness points added a week or so later. The Council’s case notes indicate her housing officer had an action to agree with their manager whether to add 100 homelessness points. However, this was not done. The failure to refer this and decide whether to add homelessness points is further fault.
• When the Council explained its decision to withdraw the offer of accommodation it told Miss X she was ineligible for the housing register. As we say above, this seems unclear, based on what appear to be different interpretations of the policy, which is unclear.
• In a later explanation to us, the Council stated the problem was that Miss X should not have had 100 homelessness points and these were removed and the offer withdrawn. On the evidence before us, this explanation appears to be wrong too. Miss X may have been eligible to join the housing register, but was not (at the time of her query about bids) eligible for auto-bidding. It seems to me she did not miss out on Property A, so this was why the nomination for a property was not correct. Miss X had never been granted homelessness points so these were never removed.
37. We could not conclude that Miss X would have been housed but for the fault we identified with the Council’s handling of her homelessness and housing applications. It is not clear if she was eligible for the housing register or would have been granted homelessness points had this been considered properly. However, we found there was avoidable frustration and distress because of the way the matter was handled.
38. The Council told us a new housing allocations policy was being developed already which resolved the confusion issues raised in Miss X’s case. This will be implemented in July 2026.

Back to top

Action

39. Within four weeks of my final decision:
40. The Council should apologise to Miss X for the fault we identified in the handling of Miss X’s homelessness and housing register applications. The apology should adhere to our guidance on making effective apologies. This can be found on our website, within our Guidance on Remedy here.
41. The Council should make a payment to Miss X of £300 to recognise the frustration and distress the identified fault caused.
42. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

43. I find fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman