Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision about the appropriate banding for an applicant to its housing register, nor in its decision about the number of bedrooms he is entitled to. However, the Council was at fault because it initially imposed a restriction on the type of property the complainant could bid for, without taking the proper steps to establish this was necessary. This caused some frustration to the complainant, for which the Council has agreed to apologise.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr C.
2. Mr C complains about the Council’s handling of his application to join the housing register. Specifically, he says the Council has not given him adequate priority given his circumstances, and has wrongly limited his entitlement to one-bedroom properties, when he should be entitled to a two-bedroom property. Mr C says that, as a result, the Council has effectively forced him to remain in his current property.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr C and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. What follows is a summary of the key events relevant to this complaint. It is not intended to provide a comprehensive account of everything that happened.
7. Mr C is a council tenant, and has been living in a particular two-bedroom flat for several years. In September 2024 he reported to the Council that he was suffering anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a new neighbour, who is also a council tenant. The Council’s handling of this matter, under its duties as the neighbour’s landlord and its ASB powers, forms a separate complaint (25 029 223), which we have jointly investigated with the Housing Ombudsman Service.
8. Also in September 2024, Mr C submitted an application to join the Council’s housing register, to seek alternative accommodation.
9. The Council contacted Mr C to make enquiries about his application, but, after receiving no response, closed it in October and informed Mr C. Mr C then submitted a new application in November and the Council registered and verified his application.
10. The Council initially placed Mr C in Band D of its allocation scheme, and permitted him to bid for one-bedroom properties, but quickly moved him into Band C. The Council also placed a restriction on Mr C’s application, enabling him only to bid for properties without a communal front door.
11. After receipt of further information, the Council removed this restriction in March 2025, which meant Mr C could now bid for any one-bedroom property. Then, in July 2025, the Council moved Mr C into Band B of the allocation scheme.
12. In May Mr C had submitted a stage 1 complaint to the Council. He complained about the Council’s original decisions to place him in Bands D and C, the ‘front door’ restriction, and that he was only entitled to bid for one-bedroom properties. Mr C said he needed an additional bedroom to store equipment he needed to manage his medical condition.
13. The Council responded in June. It said it had placed Mr C in Band C in November 2024 after identifying his situation as “medium risk”. It explained it had originally imposed the ‘front door’ restriction because, in his application, Mr C had mentioned feeling threatened by youths congregating in the communal areas of the building, and because of his complaints about his neighbour’s behaviour. The Council said it believed it would help to mitigate this risk by moving Mr C to a property with its own front door. However, the Council said it removed this restriction after receiving information from an organisation supporting Mr C, indicating it was not necessary.
14. The Council then explained Mr C’s circumstances entitled him to a one-bedroom property under the allocation scheme. It said the scheme allowed applicants to bid for properties with an extra bedroom, where there was a medical requirement, and explained what supporting evidence Mr C would need to submit for it to consider granting him this entitlement.
15. Mr C then escalated his complaint to stage 2, to which the Council responded in July. It explained it had placed him in Band C upon receipt of his medical assessment in November 2024, which had indicated a need to move because of a decline in his mental health caused by his current circumstances. The Council said it had now moved Mr C into Band B because it accepted he required urgent rehousing.
16. The Council also explained it was currently reviewing the information Mr C had submitted to support his need for an additional bedroom. However, it said the information did not indicate Mr C had an overnight care need, or that he needed an additional room to complete therapeutic exercises. The Council acknowledged Mr C’s current property had two bedrooms, but explained it had allowed this because of a low demand at the time he had moved in. There was now high demand, and so the Council no longer permitted under-occupancy.
17. The Council noted Mr C had reported more recent ASB incidents, but had been unable to investigate these properly because Mr C now insisted the Council should only liaise with the police instead of directly with him. It explained it could place a person in Band A of the allocation scheme where there was an immediate and exceptional need to move, or a risk of serious harm, but it usually required the police to agree this was the case. The Council said it had received no information from the police to support placing him in Band A.
18. Mr C then referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Legislative background

19. 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))
20. The Council’s allocation scheme sets out five priority bands, into which it places each applicant. These are:

• Band A, for applicants with an immediate and exceptional need of rehousing for medical reasons, or because their home is uninhabitable due to an emergency, or because they are at serious risk of harm;
• Band B, for applicants with an urgent need for rehousing because of a disability or health condition, or because they are experiencing harassment or domestic violence (among other criteria which are not relevant here);
• Band B with additional preference, for those in the same situation but who are disabled due to their service in the armed forces, or the partner of a person who has died due to service in the armed forces, and must leave MOD accommodation for this reason;
• Band C, for applicants with a disability or health condition, and whose current property has a negative impact on this (among other criteria which are not relevant here); and
• Band D, for those with a low housing need, because they do not meet the higher criteria and are adequately housed.

21. The scheme also explains the Council relies on the Government’s published standards to decide on bedroom entitlement, with it permitting one bedroom for each:

• cohabiting couple;
• person over 16 years;
• two children under 16 years of the same sex;
• two children under 10 years regardless of sex;
• child with a disability, where there is medical evidence to support a need for their own bedroom; and
• foster child.

22. The standards also permit an additional bedroom to allow for overnight care, where this is required because a member of a household has a disability.

Back to top

Analysis

23. There are two broad elements to Mr C’s complaint – the Council’s decisions about his banding, and its decision about his bedroom entitlement. I will address each in turn.

Banding

24. I asked the Council to explain, in simple terms, the rationale behind its decisions about the appropriate banding for Mr C.
25. In response, the Council said Mr C had reported ASB between September and November 2024, with a negative impact on his mental health. Based on the information available at the time (including Mr C’s correspondence, his health form, and evidence from his GP), the Council said it had decided there was a ‘moderate’ impact on Mr C’s wellbeing, but no evidence of a risk of serious or immediate harm. For this reason, Mr C was eligible for Band C.
26. In early 2025, the Council said it received new information to show a more serious impact on Mr C’s mental health. The Council said it therefore recognised Mr C’s housing situation was having a significant effect on him, and that he had an urgent need to move, meaning he was now eligible for Band B.
27. However, despite this recognition, the Council said the evidence still does not support a move to Band A, which requires there to be an immediate risk of serious harm, requiring an emergency move.
28. The Ombudsman’s role is to review the way a council has made its decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or unduly delayed making a decision. We call this ‘administrative fault’ and, where we find it, we can consider the impact of the fault and ask the council in question to address this.
29. But we do not make operational or policy decisions on a council’s behalf, or provide a right of appeal against its decisions. If we find a council has acted without fault, then we cannot criticise it, even if the complainant feels it has made the wrong decision. We do not uphold a complaint simply because a person disagrees with something a council has done.
30. I am satisfied the Council has made its decisions properly and in accordance with its allocation scheme, and I therefore have no grounds to criticise it. I am conscious Mr C says the Council did not explain the reasons for its decisions about his banding, and that he was “just told things”. However, I have reviewed the letters the Council sent to Mr C to notify him of each decision, and these letters contain all the information we would expect them to, which includes signposting him to the published scheme (which explains, in detail, the criteria for each band) and how to request a review. There is no evidence of fault here.
31. I do note the Council appears to have made an initial decision to place Mr C in Band D. Unfortunately the information the Council has provided contains very little detail about this decision, and does not seek to explain it. However, I can see it was only for a very short period before it moved him to Band C, seemingly a matter of days; so, even if there were some fault in this decision, I do not consider the impact to be significant enough to justify further investigation.
32. I also note the Council originally imposed a restriction on Mr C’s application, limiting him to bidding on properties with their own front door, as opposed to a communal front door, such as in the block of flats he currently lives in. The Council explained it did this because of Mr C’s comments in his application and other correspondence, indicating some of the impact on his mental health was because of abuse of the communal areas of the building by non-residents. The Council also said having a property with a separate front door would reduce the risk of Mr C suffering further noise nuisance from neighbours.
33. I appreciate, to an extent, the Council’s rationale for this decision. It is true Mr C raised problems with access to the communal areas, and clearly this could not happen in a building without communal areas.
34. Equally though, it appears there would likely be a limited number of one-bedroom properties entirely behind their own front door, without forming part of some kind of communal building, making it difficult for Mr C to identify any suitable property to bid on. I also cannot make sense of the suggestion that having a property with its own front door would reduce the risk of neighbour nuisance.
35. Either way, and more importantly, it appears the Council decided to impose this restriction without making further enquiries with Mr C, to establish whether it was really necessary. It then removed the restriction after four months, after an organisation supporting Mr C confirmed he did not need it. Had the Council taken the time to discuss with Mr C himself when making its original decision, it appears likely it would never have imposed the restriction.
36. On balance, therefore, I consider this to be fault.
37. I am not persuaded this has had any substantive impact on Mr C’s situation. Although the restriction limited the number of properties Mr C could bid on when it was in place, I cannot overlook that, in December 2025, the Council wrote to Mr C highlighting he had not bid on any properties since his application was moved to Band B, and warning him his application might be closed if this continued.
38. I will not speculate why Mr C appears reluctant to bid for properties, but, given this fact, I cannot reasonably conclude he would likely have successfully bid on a property during the period November 2024 to March 2025, had it not been for the ‘front door’ restriction.
39. Rather, I consider the injustice caused to Mr C by this fault was an element of frustration. To remedy this, the Council should write a formal letter of apology to him. I make a recommendation to this effect.
40. In summary, I find no fault in the Council’s decisions about Mr C’s banding. I do find fault because the Council imposed a restriction on Mr C’s application, without verifying it was actually necessary. I cannot say this has affected his living situation, but caused him some frustration for which the Council should apologise.

Bedroom entitlement

41. I also asked the Council to explain simply why it limited Mr C’s entitlement to one-bedroom properties.
42. In response, the Council said Mr C is a single adult who does not need overnight care. Under the Government standards, this means he only is entitled only to one bedroom.
43. The Council noted Mr C uses his second bedroom to store and use exercise equipment, which is to help manage a medical condition, and also to store his work tools. However, the Council said the advice it had received from a physiotherapist was that, although the exercise equipment is beneficial to him, it is not medically essential, and that he can exercise elsewhere. The physiotherapist did not say an extra bedroom was a clinical requirement.
44. The Council also explained its policy does not entitle an applicant to an extra bedroom for storage purposes.
45. Again, therefore, I am satisfied the Council made its decision in accordance with its policy, and having given proper consideration to Mr C’s circumstances.
46. I note Mr C disputes the Council’s explanation for why he was permitted a second bedroom when he moved into the current property. He says this was not due to low demand at the time, but actually to enable him to care for an elderly relative living nearby.
47. I cannot resolve this on the evidence available to me, but it is immaterial to Mr C’s complaint. Whatever the real reason, it is evident the circumstances by which Mr C was originally permitted a second bedroom no longer apply. His current circumstances do not entitle him to a second bedroom under the allocation scheme, and so there is no fault in the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Action

48. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to write a formal letter of apology to Mr C, acknowledging its fault in applying the ‘front door’ restriction, and the frustration this caused him. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
49. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

50. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman