Summary: Miss Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her housing application. We have not found fault with the way in which the Council carried out its reassessment of Miss Y’s housing priority. We have found fault with the Council’s delay starting the reassessment process and that it has already taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice this caused.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about the way the Council dealt with her housing application in 2023.
2. She says the Council failed to properly assess her priority band on the housing register. It failed to take proper account of her circumstances, the ongoing impact of domestic abuse and her disability and to inform her of her rights to appeal its assessment.
3. Because the Council failed to place her in an appropriate priority band, she had to give up the tenancy on her council accommodation in February 2024 to move to suitable alternative accommodation.
4. She wants the Council to make financial redress for the impact of its failures on her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these.
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. 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

9. 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)
10. Miss Y brought her complaint to us in August 2025. I have investigated her complaint about the way the Council dealt with her housing application from 2023 because, having considered what she has told us about her personal circumstances, I have decided there are good reasons why she did not complain to us about this part of her complaint before then.
11. I have not investigated what happened before 2023. This is because I have decided there is no good reason why any complaint about these events could not have been brought to us within the 12-month timeframe.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Miss Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Miss Y 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

What should have happened

The published scheme

14. 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))

Decisions and review rights

15. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
16. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:

• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process;
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

The Council’s allocations scheme

17. The Council’s scheme in force in 2023 prioritised applicants using a banding system. Applicants assessed as having the greatest needs were placed in the highest bands. The following bands were used:

• Band A (highest band)
• Band B: including those with high medical needs and victims of domestic abuse
• Band C: including those with low medical needs or lacking one bedroom
• Band D
• Band E (lowest band)

18. The policy stated applicants could use its review procedure to challenge allocation decisions, including about their banding. It had a two-stage review procedure:

• Stage one: review by a manager not involved in the original decision. The review would also consider any further information from the applicant or other agencies since the date of the original decision, and give reasons for the decision where these were against the interests of the applicant; and
• Stage two: if the manager’s review upheld the original decision the applicant could request a review by the Officer Review Panel

What happened

19. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

Background

20. Miss Y joined the Council’s housing register and was initially assessed and placed in Band D.
21. In her application form submitted in May 2023 she told the Council she needed to move because her current one-bedroom council home was unsuitable. She was pregnant and would need another bedroom for her child. She was being stalked and harassed by her ex-partner, who would show up at her property. She did not feel safe or comfortable there and wanted to move closer to her family for support, away from her current area. She answered yes to the question about suffering abuse, harassment, domestic violence or other violence.

June 2023: request for reassessment of Miss Y’s priority band

22. In June 2023 a housing support organisation contacted the Council about Miss Y’s priority band. It said it was working with her to support her request for an increase in her priority and provided information in support of this request. The Council asked the allocations team to reassess Miss Y’s priority need.
23. In September 2023 the organisation and Miss Y sent the Council further information, including medical information from her GP, in support of her request for increased priority. The organisation said it had been working with Miss Y since 2021. It told the Council Miss Y’s current accommodation wasn’t suitable for her needs and she:

• was still experiencing subtle ongoing harassment by her ex-partner (from whom she had experienced extreme domestic abuse) affecting her mental health and wellbeing;
• needed family support as she could be bedbound due to severe migraine attacks;
• was 16 weeks pregnant; and
• on sick leave from her employer.

October 2023: Reassessment of Miss Y’s priority band

24. The Council re-assessed Miss Y’s circumstances and priority band. It told her on 16 October 2023:

• it had completed its reassessment and increased her priority to Band C low medical need with additional priority for a ground floor property;
• there were currently around 18,000 applicants on its waiting list for rehousing and there was no guarantee applicants would ever be offered a property. She might wish to consider other rehousing options for a quicker move such as registering direct with housing associations or private rent; and
• if she disagreed with its assessment or band awarded, she had the right to request a review of the decision by a senior officer. The request must be made within 21 days. It would tell her of the review decision within 28 days of the request. If she did not agree with its decision, she had the right to appeal to Officer Review Panel and beyond that to the Housing Appeals Panel.

Miss Y’s review request

25. On 19 October Miss Y asked for a review of the decision to award her Band C. She asked to be placed in Band B and said:

• she had high medical need because of the impact of the current accommodation on her mental health;
• she was having to continue to live in a property where she had experienced harassment and stalking by an abusive ex-partner; and
• she needed to live near family for her support needs and in an area away from her ex-partner.

26. On 10 November the senior officer reviewing the decision spoke to Miss Y to discuss her request. The officer noted:

• Miss Y provided details about her migraines. These were debilitating and family provided support for her when they were really bad;
• She was pregnant with her baby due in 2024; and
• Miss Y’s ex-partner still drove past her property. She had had issues with him contacting her on social media and got very anxious when she saw him. The police were unable to act as there had been no actual violence since the previous year.

27. The officer explained why they considered Miss Y would not meet the medical or care and support criteria for Band B.
28. The senior officer told Miss Y by email on 19 November:

• they had reviewed all the information about her application following her band award appeal and decided the award of Band C low medical need was correct and appropriate for her current needs; and
• she had been recommended for a two-bedroom property with additional priority for ground floor and adapted properties.

29. I have not been provided with any information showing Miss Y contacted the Council at the time in response to the review decision.
30. Miss Y told the Council in February 2024 she had secured alternative housing association accommodation in order to move away from her current situation. She moved to this new accommodation in March 2024.

Miss Y’s complaint to the Council

31. In July 2024 Miss Y complained to the Council about a number of issues concerning her initial request for homelessness assistance in 2021 and her housing situation from then until 2023/2024.
32. Regarding her request for a review of her priority band in 2023, Miss Y complained about the Council’s initial decision to place her in Band D. She said:

• it should have awarded her a higher priority from the start. With the help of the support organisation the Council had later increased her priority to Band C;
• having now moved to new accommodation in March 2024, she was finally in a safe situation but dealing with the effects of the years of abuse; and
• the Council had failed in its duty to support her at the time. Had it done so, it could have significantly reduced the harm she suffered.

33. In its response to this part of Miss Y’s complaint, the Council accepted her application for increased priority could have been dealt with more urgently. It apologised for this and said it would make learning and service improvements to stop this happening again.

My decision – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

34. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
35. I looked at the way the Council carried out its reassessment of Miss Y’s housing priority in 2023.

Delay starting the re-assessment

36. The Council accepted there was some delay in starting the reassessment process in response to Miss Y and the support organisation’s initial requests.
37. This delay was fault, but I note the Council has apologised for this and confirmed it would make service improvements to stop this happening again. I consider the steps the Council has already taken were an appropriate remedy for any injustice the delay caused, and I have not asked it to take any further action.

The completion of the reassessment

38. In my view the Council properly completed the reassessment of Miss Y’s priority band in 2023. This is because:

• Miss Y and her advisers were given the opportunity to submit any additional information they wanted the Council to consider for the reassessment;
• this was considered with the other information about Miss Y’s circumstances when completing the reassessment;
• the Council notified Miss Y in writing about the outcome of the reassessment, the decision to increase her priority to Band C, and her right to request a review of this decision;
• her review request was considered in a timely way by a senior officer. The officer reviewed the information for the reassessment, the further information Miss Y provided for the review and discussed the request with Miss Y; and
• the officer explained to Miss Y why they considered she would not meet the medical or care and support criteria for Band B and confirmed this decision in writing.

39. In my view the Council completed its reassessment of Miss Y’s housing priority in line with its published allocations scheme. I have not found fault by the Council on this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Decision

40. I have not found fault by the Council in the way it completed its reassessment of Miss Y’s housing priority. I have found fault with its delay in starting the reassessment process and that it has already taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice this caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman