Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled his housing/homelessness case. There was fault by the Council for its failure to have a policy in relation to the storage of homeless applicants’ personal belongings in line with the provision of the Housing Act 1996. This caused no significant injustice to Mr X, but the Council will take action to complete the service improvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council handled his housing situation. In particular, that the Council:
1. failed to backdate its housing register priority band decision
2. delayed paying a two-week advance rent payment to secure an offer of accommodation for him and the Council’s subsequent failure to refund him the money after he made the payment to the housing provider
3. failed to store and protect his personal belongings when he was homeless.
2. Mr X said the matter caused him severe anxiety, distress, financial strain/loss and it affected his health.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
8. Mr X made a complaint to the Ombudsman in September 2025, so our investigation should start from September 2024 (12 months from when Mr X made his complaint). However, to make a meaningful investigation, I have exercised discretion to investigate matters from April 2024 when Mr X submitted a homeless application to the Council.
9. Therefore, I have investigated matters from April 2024 to September 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Mr 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

Homelessness

12. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
13. The Main Housing Duty - if a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). The accommodation a council provides until it can end the main housing duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193).
14. Councils must put all its key decisions in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to ask for a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.30)

Protection of belongings

15. Where the council owes or has owed certain housing duties to an applicant, it must protect the applicant’s personal property if there is a risk it may be lost or damaged. A council may make a reasonable charge for storage and reserve the right to dispose of the property if it loses contact with the applicant. (Housing Act 1996, section 211, Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 20)

Housing Allocations

16. 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))
17. 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))

18. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications within a suggested timeframe of 21 days. This includes decisions about the applicant’s housing priority.
19. Choice based lettings scheme enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which councils and/or other registered providers advertise.

The Council’s Housing Allocation Policy

20. All applicants must complete the application process, only completed applications, with relevant supporting evidence will be considered.
21. Once an applicant’s level of housing need has been assessed, applicants will be placed in one of the following five priority bands - Band A (emergency/urgent), Band B (high), Band C (medium), Band D (low) and Band E (no recognised housing need).

Background

22. Mr X had been on the Council’s housing register for several years and he was awarded Priority ‘Band C’.
23. Mr X said he became homeless in December 2023.

Key events

24. In April 2024, Mr X submitted a homeless application to the Council.
25. In early May, the Council accepted it owed Mr X the main housing duty.
26. On 7 May, the Council sent an email to Mr X to notify him it had awarded him Priority ‘Band A’ under its housing register due to a change in his circumstance.
27. In February 2025, Mr X informed the Council that he had kept his belongings at some of his relatives’ houses. Mr X said one of the houses was about to undergo some substantial building work which meant he needed to move his belongings. Mr X said he had no alternative place to keep them, and he could not afford storage costs. Mr X said his belongings was therefore at risk of being lost and/or damaged and he asked the Council to help him with the storage of his personal belongings.
28. Mr X also asked the Council to provide him with its policy on how it protects applicants’ personal belongings if there was a risk of loss or damage.
29. The Council told Mr X that it had no provision for storage and that it did not have a policy for protecting applicants’ belongings. The Council said each household circumstance would be considered on a case-by-case basis. The Council said it was happy to consider any affordable storage units for Mr X, and it asked him to complete an income and expenditure form and provide it with his bank statements. The Council said Mr X did not provide it with the financial information it requested to establish how much he could afford for a storage unit.
30. In mid-March, Mr X requested a statutory review of the date the Council awarded him Priority ‘Band A’. Mr X said he believed the Council should have backdated his ‘Band A’ priority from May 2024 to December 2023 which was when he initially became homeless. Mr X said he was never informed of the date of his priority band otherwise he would have challenged the Council’s decision at the time.
31. At the end of April, Mr X was made a provisional offer of a property (Property 1) by a housing provider through the Council’s choice-based lettings scheme.
32. The Council said although Mr X’s review request was not submitted within 21 days of its decision notification, it would review his request about its priority banding decision. Upon review, the Council found it correctly applied the May 2024 priority band date to Mr X’s case following its assessment of his homeless application which he submitted to it in April 2024. The Council also explained the effect it would have on other applicants on its housing register if it backdated Mr X’s priority band. The Council upheld its original award date, and it refused to backdate Mr X’s priority band to December 2023. The Council also said Mr X had been offered Property 1, so he was not disadvantaged by the priority band date.
33. On 6 May, the Council made a final offer of Property 1 to Mr X with the intention to end its main housing duty.
34. In May, several correspondence was exchanged between Mr X, the Council and the housing provider. The housing provider sent an invoice of £532.97 to Mr X for a one-month rent advance payment. Mr X asked the Council to help with the payment, but it agreed it could only cover a two-week payment after it received a copy of the signed tenancy agreement and that Mr X would need to pay the balance. The housing provider maintained the full payment of a month rent advance was required.
35. While the Council was liaising with the housing provider, Mr X said he had to borrow £266.49 from a relative to secure the property. He said this was the amount of the two-week payment the Council had promised to pay towards the rent advance. By 13 May, Mr X made the one-month payment to the housing provider, and the tenancy agreement was signed on 16 May.
36. Mr X sent a copy of the signed tenancy agreement to the Council, and he informed it he had borrowed the two-week payment it had agreed to pay towards the rent advance. Mr X said he had to pay the one-month payment because he was at risk of losing the property offer. Mr X asked the Council to reimburse him with the £266.49. The Council told Mr X it could only make the payment to the housing provider, and it did not agree to pay Mr X.
37. On 28 May, Mr X moved to Property 1.
38. Mr X said he received no support from the Council with the storage of his belongings from February to May when he moved to Property 1. Mr X said the building work which was scheduled to be completed at his relative’s house had to be postponed because he was unable to move the bigger items of his belongings. Mr X said when he moved some of his other belongings from one place to the other, some of the items went missing and damaged but he could not recall exactly what those items were.
39. In June, the Council ended the main duty it owed Mr X because he had accepted Property 1.
40. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council about its failure to backdate its priority band date decision, its delays with supporting him with the rent advance payment and its refusal to reimburse him with the £266.49 he borrowed to secure Property 1.
41. In its responses to Mr X’s complaint, the Council:

• said the advance rent payment was not a statutory entitlement, but a discretionary support which it agreed to pay in Mr X’s case.
• said it agreed to pay a two-week rent advance towards Mr X’s property once the tenancy agreement was signed, which it informed Mr X and the housing provider.
• said it was still in the process of liaising with the housing provider when Mr X went ahead to pay the one-month rent advance. The Council said it followed the correct process and reiterated it had agreed to pay the money to the housing provider and not to Mr X.
• signposted Mr X and offered to support him with applying for discretionary crisis fund to help him with essential household needs if he was found eligible.

42. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s responses, and he made a complaint to the Ombudsman.
43. The Council confirmed Mr X made the full one-month rent advance payment to the housing provider directly before it received any evidence. The Council said it therefore did not make the two-week rent advance payment to the housing provider as it was a discretionary payment to support applicants who cannot afford the payment based on required evidence.

Analysis

44. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
45. I note Mr X said he became homeless in December 2023; he did not submit his homeless application to the Council until April 2024. I am satisfied the Council properly considered Mr X’s application, the housing register priority band and its decision to award him ‘Band A’ from May 2024. The Council also completed Mr X’s review request about backdating the priority Band A and it upheld its original priority band date decision with an explanation for its refusal to backdate. These actions were completed in line with the Council’s allocation scheme, and it was not fault.
46. I acknowledge Mr X’s reason for paying the one-month rent advance to the housing provider to ensure the property was secured, but I do not find fault by the Council in this matter. This is because the Council agreed to make a two-week rent advance payment to the housing provider after it received the signed tenancy agreement. This is a decision the Council was entitled to make, and it was not fault. I also find no fault by the Council for its refusal to reimburse Mr X with the £266.49 as this was not what it agreed to do. The Council maintained ongoing contact with Mr X and the housing provider, and it was clear with what it agreed to do in terms of the rent advance payment. This was not fault.
47. Councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect applicants’ belongings, but it can also make a reasonable charge for the storage. After Mr X asked the Council that he needed support with storing his belongings in February 2025, Mr X did not provide the Council with the financial information it requested to consider the matter further, such as affordable storage units for Mr X. There was no fault by the Council.
48. I note Mr X said some of his belongings got lost and damaged during the period he moved them between his relatives’ houses. I am unable to make a finding on this matter. This is because it is a matter for the court to assess any alleged loss or damage of personal belongings and it is out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
49. Councils should have a clear policy regarding the storage of personal belongings for homeless applicants. In this case, the Council confirmed it had no policy in place for protection of applicants’ belongings. This is fault and not in line with the Housing Act and statutory guidance, but it caused no significant injustice to Mr X. I will address this in the action section below.

Back to top

Action

50. Within three months of the final decision, the Council has agreed to produce and publish a formal policy on its website or produce a formal guidance to staff and put it on its intranet in relation to storage of homeless applicants’ personal belongings in line with the provision of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance. This is to ensure the Council’s actions are clear, consistent, transparent and to ensure it complies with its legal duty to protect the belongings of vulnerable people.
51. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

52. I find fault not causing injustice to Mr X. The Council will take action to complete the service improvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman