Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing register and homelessness application since 2022. The Council agreed it was at fault for its failure to enable her to bid for properties under its general priority band. We found this did not cause her a significant injustice. We have not investigated other part of Miss X’s complaint as these were late, carried appeal rights to court, or have previously been considered by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complained about the Council’s handling of her housing situation since 2022. She said it:
• offered an unsuitable temporary accommodation she did not bid for, and its main housing duty should not have ended in 2022. She also said its officer was discriminatory towards her;
• incorrectly cancelled her housing register application in October 2022 when it should have remained valid; and
• it had wrongly suspended her on its housing register for longer than set out in is Allocations scheme as this was still in place in January 2024.
2. Miss X said, as a result, she is concerned that she may have missed opportunities to bid on properties to improve her housing situation.

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 Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)

6. The law says we normally cannot 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)

7. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have investigated Miss X’s complaint about her inability to bid on properties on the Council’s housing register under, or for longer than set out in, the Council’s Allocations scheme.
9. I have not investigated Miss X’s complaints regarding:
• the Council’s handling of her homelessness application in 2022 and provision of temporary accommodation; and
• the Council’s handling of her housing application and banding in 2022.
10. This is because we have previously considered a complaint from Miss X regarding the same matters, it is late, and the Council’s decision was subject to a review which carried appeal rights to court.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Miss X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council’s allocations scheme

13. The Council’s policy says it will end homelessness assistance to a homeless applicant where they have refused an offer of suitable Council or Housing Association accommodation This includes households with a reasonable preference who refuse an offer of either private sector or social housing under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1985 made under s189B (2) of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017.
14. If a homeless applicant refuses suitable housing, whether offered directly or following a successful bid, the Council has ‘discharged its homelessness duty’ to that applicant. This means that the homeless duty has been brought to an end by the offer of suitable accommodation.
15. If the applicant is living in temporary accommodation provided by the Council, then they will lose that accommodation and will not receive further assistance.
16. The policy set out how it prioritises applicants based on individual circumstances in priority bands. Band C is no priority and may be housed in date order from the date their application was registered.

The Equality Act 2010

17. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
18. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
19. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act are:
• age;
• disability;
• gender reassignment;
• marriage and civil partnership;
• pregnancy and maternity;
• race;
• religion or belief;
• sex; and
• sexual orientation.
20. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
21. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.

What happened

22. In 2022 the Council accepted it owed Miss X a homelessness duty. She was also on its housing register, which was initially under a Band C priority and subsequently increased to a Band B1 due to her homelessness.
23. The Council offered Miss X a property in late 2022. She said she had not bid for the property, refused it, and disputed it was suitable. The Council did not uphold her complaint. She was subsequently suspended on the Council’s housing register.
24. Miss X asked the Council for a review of its decision. It provided a detailed response but found it had acted appropriately, and the property offered was suitable for her.
25. In January 2024 Miss X asked the Council to join its housing register again. She was told she needed to make a new application, which she did.
26. Miss X complained again to the Council in January 2024. Her complaint included the matters which had been considered in her initial complaint and the review. However, she also said:
• the Council’s suspension should only have been for 12 months in line with its Allocations scheme;
• she had made a new housing application but disagreed with the Council’s decision around the start date. She said this should be backdated to November 2021. She also said she should be on Band B1 priority; and
• she believed she had been treated less favourably due to protected characteristics. She said this was due to the Council’s decisions and its officer’s dismissive, patronising and rude approach.
27. Shortly after, the Council reopened Miss X’s housing register application which enabled her to bid under Band C. It backdated her application registration date to November 2021.
28. In response to Miss X’s complaint the Council again responded to her concerns regarding its 2022 decisions and its officers handling at the time. It did not uphold her complaint and explained she had exercised her review rights. It explained it would not reactivate her homelessness priority as she was not considered homeless at the time. It explained it had reactivated her recent housing application with a Band C priority, and it would consider her medical evidence.
29. Miss X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and felt not all of her concerns had been responded to. She again argued her points around why its 2022 decisions were wrong. She said she wanted her housing register priority of Band B1 backdated to November 2021.
30. The Council considered Miss X’s new homelessness application in 2024 and found it owed her a relief duty. This meant her housing register priority was again increased to Band B1 due to homelessness with a start date from Spring 2024.
31. In its final complaint response, the Council did not uphold her complaint regarding her previous homelessness application and provided a detailed response. It partly upheld her complaint regarding its handling of her housing register application. It said it had correctly cancelled her priority banding following her suspension, but she should have remained on Band C since then. However, it would not backdate her current Band B1 priority as she was not under a homelessness duty until Spring 2024 when it accepted its relief duty.
32. In Summer 2024 Miss X raised a new complaint with the Council. She said she had been treated differently to others in the Council’s 2022 decision. This was because a relative had been in similar circumstances to her and bid for a property. However, when the relative told the Council she would not attend the viewing, it accepted this and she was not suspended.
33. In response the Council said it will not consider Miss X’s complaint about matters in 2022. It acknowledged she felt she had been treated differently to her relative and provided some reasons, but could not comment further on individual cases due to data rights.
34. Miss X asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint. She also said the Council has recently reconsidered matters relating to her bedroom entitlement which she believes means the property offered to her in late 2022 was unsuitable.

Analysis and findings

Miss C’s right to bid under Band C

35. The Council accepted Miss X should have remained able to bid under her Band C priority following its decisions in late 2022 until Spring 2024 when it increased her priority to Band B1. However, as her application was suspended, she was unable to do so.
36. I agree this error was fault. However, I have considered whether this caused or was likely to have caused Miss X an injustice.
37. The Council’s shares information around its housing allocations on its website. This shows the properties which have been offered to applicants each week, including the priority band and registration start date of the anonymised applicants.
38. Based on Miss X’s Band C priority and the start date she should have been able to bid under, the information shows its is highly unlikely she would have been successful with any bids for a property. This is largely due to the high number of applicants on the Council’s housing register with earlier registration dates and more priority than Miss X.
39. I therefore found the Council’s fault did not cause Miss X a significant injustice.
40. I will not consider Miss X’s concerns she should have been able to bid under priority Band B1 as this relates to the review decision which carried appeal rights, and we have previously reached a view on this matter.

Miss C’s concerns of different treatment to others

41. The Council is entitled to reach its view on individual applications and suspensions based on the circumstances relevant for each case. It explained its reasons why Miss X’s case and her relative’s case was different but could not go into more detail as this would be a breach of data rights.
42. While I acknowledge Miss X believes she has been treated differently to her relative, I am not satisfied there is evidence the Council failed to have regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010 or its Public Sector Equality Duty.

Miss C’s bedroom entitlement

43. I cannot consider Miss X’s concerns about the Council’s recent decision around her bedroom entitlement and her view this meant the property offered in late 2022 was unsuitable for her. This is because this relates to:
• the review decision which was made in 2023 which carried appeal rights to court, and we have previously considered it was reasonable for her to have exercised such right;
• a decision made by the Council recently which may be based on new circumstances or evidence which was not available when it initially made its decision; and
• it was not part of her original complaints to the Council.

Back to top

Decision

44. I have completed my investigation with a finding of some limited fault by the Council, but this did not cause Miss X a significant injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman