Summary: Miss X says the Council failed to award her the homelessness priority award from April 2019 despite the evidence provided to it. Miss X states this should have placed her in Band two. Miss X says her mental health and supporting evidence from professionals was disregarded. This has resulted in Miss X being left in unsuitable and overcrowded accommodation for 5 years. Miss X says she was stopped from bidding on 1-bed new builds despite being eligible. We have found fault in the Council’s actions for delaying in adding Miss X’s homelessness star and delay in responding to her complaint. The Council has agreed to write to Miss X to issue an apology and pay her a symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council failed to award her the homelessness priority award from April 2019 despite the evidence provided to it. Miss X states this should have placed her in Band two. Miss X says her mental health and supporting evidence from professionals was disregarded. This has resulted in Miss X being left in unsuitable and overcrowded accommodation for 5 years.
2. Miss X says she was stopped from bidding on 1-bed new builds despite being eligible.

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. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have not investigated Miss X’s claim that her accommodation was unsuitable, this is because the Courts have considered this.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Miss X and the Council were invited to comment on my draft decision. I have considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The main housing duty

9. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

The published scheme housing allocations scheme

10. 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))

Reasonable preference

11. 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))

What happened

12. Miss X approached the Council in early 2019 regarding her housing and the Council accepted the main housing duty in around October 2019. Miss X was assessed as being placed in Band three.
13. Miss X moved to her current accommodation in around January 2021.
14. The Council asked to add a homelessness star to Miss X’s account in April 2022, but this did not happen.
15. Miss X asked the Council to review the suitability of her accommodation in around May 2022. Miss X was unhappy with the outcome of the review and took the matter to Court. The Judge dismissed Miss X’s appeal in around December 2022.
16. The Council applied a homelessness star to Miss X’s account in around April 2024.
17. Miss X also sent a change of circumstances form in around April 2024. The Council assessed this and decided Miss X’s family had a moderate medical need to move but that her band remained as Band three. Miss X supplied further medical information in May 2024 which the Council assessed. The Council decided there was no change to Miss X’s household medical priority.
18. Miss X bid on four one bed properties between January 2025 and April 2025 and was unsuccessful as Miss X needed a two-bed property.
19. Miss X raised a complaint in late- July 2025 and said the Council had delayed in awarding her a priority star. Miss X also said it had allowed her to bid on properties she was not eligible for and had placed her in an incorrect band due to its failure to consider that she was a survivor of domestic abuse.
20. The Council acknowledged Miss X’s complaint and said it would issue a response by early August. The Council did not respond by the date it advised but did tell Miss X shortly after that the response was delayed.
21. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint in late August 2025 and said it had assessed Miss X’s medical priority in April 2024 and placed her in Band three. The Council explained that being a survivor of domestic violence does not meet the criteria for Band two. The Council apologised for the delay in adding Miss X's priority star but said it could not backdate this. In recognition of the delay the Council offered £1,140 and said it would improve checks to ensure it awarded stars promptly.
22. Miss X raised a stage two complaint in late August 2025 and said the Council had evidence of her mental health and medical conditions. Miss X also queried the offer of compensation the Council had made as it was on the lower tariff and said the improvement suggested by the Council did not address the issue.
23. The Council issued a stage two response in late October 2025 and apologised if Miss X was unhappy. It also invited Miss X to provide any further medical evidence she felt was relevant.
24. The Council offered Miss X a permanent accommodation placement in November 2025. I understand this is a new build and the Council were awaiting handover. Miss X has confirmed the Council has now withdrawn this offer due to the delay in the development being handed over.
25. In response to my enquiries the Council has confirmed it completed a missed opportunity check which has shown that Miss X could have missed out on housing opportunities due to its failure to add her homelessness star. It has found Miss X may have been successful in bids placed between February 2023 and March 2024 had the star been applied. Up until this point the missing star would not have had an impact. The Council has therefore reconsidered its offer to Miss X and has suggested a payment of £600 for the delay in adding the star up until April 2024 and £1,400 to recognise the missed opportunity between February 2023 and April 2024 totalling £2,000.

Analysis

26. The Council has accepted it delayed in applying the homelessness priority star to Miss X’s account. It has said it overlooked opportunities to realise the error and only added the star in 2024. This is fault. The Council has confirmed that had the star been applied Miss X may have been successful when bidding on properties between February 2023 and March 2024.
27. Miss X has said the Council disregarded information provided to it regarding mental health and supporting evidence to mean she should be placed in Band two. The Council has assessed the information Miss X has provided in relation to her or her family’s medical conditions and explained why this means she falls within Band three.
28. Miss X has also said that as a survivor of domestic violence she should be placed in Band two. The Council’s allocation policy shows that applicants fleeing domestic violence and assessed as being in immediate danger should be in Band two. The Council assessed the information provided but I understand formed the view that Miss X fell within Band three as the danger was not immediate.
29. Miss X says she was stopped from bidding on one bed new build properties despite being eligible. The Council has assessed Miss X was entitled to up to two bed properties. The Councils policy for bidding on new build properties says that applicants cannot bid on properties which are the wrong size for their households needs. Therefore, Miss X would not have been eligible to bid on one-bed new build properties.
30. I understand Miss X could bid on some one-bed properties, but the Council contacted her to advise why she was unsuccessful. While I understand this may have been frustrating for Miss X, there is a disclaimer on the bidding system which states you cannot move to a one bed property if that is below your assessed need. I understand the Council is taking action to stop bids on new build properties where bedrooms are below the assessed need. I have not found fault in the Council’s action in relation to this element of the complaint.
31. The Council failed to respond to Miss X’s complaint within the published timescales. I cannot see it informed Miss X it could not meet the timescale until after the time had passed and Miss X had to chase a response. This is fault and would have caused Miss X frustration and inconvenience.

Back to top

Action

32. Within four weeks of a final decision, the Council should:

• Write to Miss X to apologise for the distress and frustration caused by the faults identified.
• In line with its offer to Miss X pay her £600 to recognise the delay in adding her homelessness star and the distress and frustration this caused.
• In line with its offer to Miss X pay her £1,400 to recognise the missed opportunities on potential successful bids caused to Miss X by not applying her homelessness star.
• Pay Miss X £100 to recognise the time and trouble caused to her by the delayed complaint response.

33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

34. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman