The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council considered Miss X’s points allocation for her housing register application properly although it delayed referring her case to the panel and failed to properly explain the reasoning for the panel’s decision. The Council also wrongly told Miss X to remain in her property until the bailiffs arrived. That caused Miss X distress and led to her incurring costs. The Council has already offered Miss X a suitable remedy for how it dealt with her homeless application. An apology and guidance for officers is satisfactory remedy for the remaining injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, Miss X, complained the Council: failed to take into account her circumstances when awarding her points on the housing register; delayed referring the case to the exceptions panel; failed to consider the case properly at the exceptions panel; failed to explain the reasoning for the exceptions panel’s decision; wrongly told her to stay in her property until the bailiffs arrived; and failed to keep her up-to-date with what was happening.
Miss X says the Council’s actions caused her significant distress and led to her incurring costs.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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) 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) 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) 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)
What I have and have not investigated I have not investigated Miss X’s concerns about the suitability of the temporary accommodation the Council provided her with. That is because Miss X had a right to request a review of the suitability of that accommodation and then appeal to a County Court on a point of law. That part of the complaint is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
How I considered this complaint
As part of the investigation, I have: considered the complaint and Miss X's comments; made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
Miss X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Enfield housing allocation scheme Part VI of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended) sets out that a local authority must give ‘reasonable preference’ to certain categories of people who are: Homeless within the meaning of Part VII of the 1996 Act.
Owed a duty by any housing authority under section 190(2), 193(2) or 195(2) of the Housing Act 1996 or under s65 (2) or s68 (2) of The Housing Act 1985 or who are occupying accommodation secured by any housing authority under section 192(3) of the 1996 Act.
Occupying insanitary or overcrowded housing or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions.
Need to move on medical or welfare grounds (including grounds relating to a disability).
Need to move to a particular locality in the district of the housing authority where failure to meet that need would cause hardship (to themselves or to others).
The scheme lists households where the Council will make a direct offer. That includes: Households who applied as homeless after the 9th November 2012 and have been agreed at panel as having a need to stay in borough.
People with a high health and wellbeing need or an urgent need to move.
Exceptions to the scheme, and appeals against decisions made, will be decided by the emergency and exceptions panel (exceptions panel).
People who qualify for the housing register will be awarded points to measure their housing priority by their circumstances.
Given the extreme shortage of social rented housing, the immediate solution for households becoming homeless is the private rented sector.
Points are only given to those people who are (or would have been) owed the main homelessness duty under homelessness law by the Council. This means they are: eligible for housing assistance, and became homeless through no fault of their own (unintentionally homeless), and are in one of the priority-need groups.
Where a homeless household owed the main housing duty has been assessed as having a need to remain in Enfield they will receive 650 points and a direct offer.
Health and wellbeing priority will be considered where the applicant, or a member of their household, has a long-term health and wellbeing issue which is affected by their current housing. People who need to recover from the effects of violence or threats of violence, or physical, emotional or sexual abuse are considered under the wellbeing category.
If an applicant wants health and wellbeing points they need to complete a health and wellbeing self-assessment. A health and well-being assessment is based on the medical evidence provided and completed by either the Council’s medical assessment officer or an approved medical professional. The medical officer will make the final recommendation on health and wellbeing priority for housing allocation.
Applicants will be receive additional points if they meet the requirements. Additional preference points are not available to homeless applicants. This includes health and wellbeing points.
There may be exceptional circumstances giving rise to a housing need not described or anticipated by the scheme. The emergency and exceptions panel will consider these cases. The panel is chaired by the manager of the Council’s assessments and allocations team. Appeals against panel decisions will be heard by a Head of Service from within housing and regeneration who has not been previously involved.
The panel has the powers to take the following action in exceptional circumstances regarding an applicant, where the applicant’s housing needs justify this course of action: increase the points awarded to applicants; award a direct offer to an applicant.
For points allocation the scheme says: applicants who became homeless after November 2012 and are owed the main homelessness duty receive 200 points.
homeless applicants that need to stay in borough receive 650 points and a direct offer; applicants with high health and wellbeing receive 1,000 points and a direct offer; applicants with an emergency and exceptional priority requiring an urgent move or who have been referred by Enfield MARRAC as being at the highest levels of risk, who are assessed as having an exceptional reason for requiring a social or affordable rented home where no other housing solutions are available receive 1,000 points and a direct offer.
applicants with a medium health and wellbeing need receive 150 points.
When assessing and health and wellbeing the Council considers a high need to exist where: the applicant has an urgent need to move, because current living conditions: put the applicant’s life at risk if they do not move, or cause the applicant to be completely housebound and they would regain substantial independence if an alternative property were made available, including needing a wheelchair-adapted home because the applicant is a wheelchair user, or put the lives of others at risk (for instance they are unable to self-evacuate from a building in the event of a fire).
In some circumstances, applicants will also receive a high level of points if medical treatment vital to the long-term or lifelong health of the applicant is only available in Enfield.
A medium need is considered to exist where an applicant’s need to move is less urgent and not life threatening but their living conditions are unsuitable and if left unresolved, their quality of life will deteriorate. Applicants assessed as having a medium level of priority are eligible for additional points provided they meet one of the other reasonable preference criteria.
The scheme says the emergency and exceptions panel considers whether the nature of the application is so exceptional or urgent that the existing scheme should not be applied. In these circumstances the panel has the power to award points to enable a direct offer to be made.
The criteria (one or more must apply) for emergency awards are: a) likelihood of admission to residential care of a family member if re-housing is not made; b) likelihood of a child being accommodated by the local authority if re-housing is not made; c) discharge from hospital or residential care is required and is prevented by the housing situation; d) a child experiencing abuse needs to be moved away from the perpetrator; e) the applicant, or member of their household, is at serious risk of harm either to themselves or to other people in their present accommodation; f) the housing application does not fall within a single priority need group and could possibly fall into two priority needs groups.
In addition, one or more of the following conditions also must be met: a) the applicant has severe financial hardship; b) the applicant’s wellbeing is seriously affected by their housing situation; c) the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to find accommodation for him or herself.
The panel has discretion to award points outside of the above criteria in the following circumstances: a) Households under the National Witness Mobility Scheme.
b) Enfield child protection cases.
c) Households fleeing domestic violence who have been referred by Enfield MARRAC as being at the highest levels of risk.
d) Homeless households that need to remain in Enfield.
Homelessness code of guidance (code of guidance) With certain exceptions, a person who has been occupying accommodation as a tenant and who has received a valid notice to quit, or notice that the landlord is seeking possession of the accommodation, would have the right to remain in occupation until a warrant for possession was executed (following the granting of an order for possession by the court). The exceptions are tenants with resident landlords and certain other tenants who do not benefit from the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. (Paragraph 6.24 of the code of guidance) Housing authorities should note that the fact that a tenant has a right to remain in occupation does not necessarily mean that they are not homeless. In assessing whether an applicant is homeless in cases where they are a tenant who has a right to remain in occupation pending execution of a warrant for possession, the housing authority will also need to consider whether it would be reasonable for them to continue to occupy the accommodation in the circumstances (section 175(3) of the 1996 Act). (Paragraph 6.25 of the code of guidance) The Secretary of State considers that it is unlikely to be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy beyond the date on which the court has ordered them to leave the property and give possession to the landlord. (Paragraph 6.48 of the code of guidance) Housing authorities should not consider it reasonable for an applicant to remain in occupation up until the point at which a court issues a warrant or writ to enforce an order for possession. (Paragraph 6.49 of the code of guidance) Background – housing register application Miss X was registered on the Council's housing register with 150 points for a medium health and well-being award. Miss X has children with special educational needs and health issues. Miss X was registered as able to bid on three bedroom properties.
Miss X contacted the Council in May 2025 to find out if she was entitled to further points now the Council had accepted a relief duty to her for her homeless application. The Council told Miss X she currently had 150 points. The Council said if it were to record her on the housing register as threatened with homelessness at the relief stage she would only get 50 points as health and well-being points were not available to applicants awarded points for homelessness.
The Council referred Miss X’s case to now medical which completed an assessment on 3 June. The medical assessor recommended Miss X remain with medium health priority, taking into account the cumulative neurodivergent medical conditions the family had, noting a higher medical award could not be awarded as there was no threat to life in the current property or a need for wheelchair adapted properties.
Miss X asked the Council to review that decision. The Council explained it needed to await the outcome of the homeless application. As the Council accepted the main duty to Miss X in August 2025 it referred Miss X’s case to the exceptions panel. The exceptions panel considered the case in September but referred it back to the housing department. That is because by that point Miss X had moved into temporary accommodation and therefore her circumstances had changed.
The Council passed the case back to its medical adviser who recommended no additional priority but recommended: maximum second floor lifted or un-lifted; three bedroom property; reasonable proximity to outdoor space; self-contained property; safety latches on windows/doors; to remain commutable to current schooling; there was no evidence to preclude the allocation of private rented accommodation.
In September 2025 the Council said it would refer Miss X’s case to the exceptions panel. The exceptions panel considered the case on 6 November and decided not to award additional priority. The Council told Miss X about that decision and Miss X appealed.
The Council referred the case to the medical adviser again in December. The medical adviser recommended no change to the level of priority. The medical adviser recommended any type of ground floor accommodation with no blow air heating due to asthma. The Council also agreed Miss X needed an additional bedroom.
The Council’s officer responded to Miss X’s appeal against the exception panel’s decision in January 2026. That letter referred to Miss X’s history of domestic abuse, that there had been issues at her temporary accommodation and that she believed social housing was necessary so she could have safety measures fitted as well as to reflect the medical concerns for her children. The letter explained the Council considered most households that apply for housing could put forward the same request for a stable home and almost all households would see a significant benefit from receiving stable social housing. The Council noted the evidence Miss X provided but said her supporting letters broadly mirrored supporting statements and letters for other cases. The Council therefore said it considered the level of points awarded was in line with its allocations scheme and Miss X’s circumstances were not exceptional.
Background – homeless application Miss X approached the Council as homeless in 2025 and the Council took a homeless application. The Council found Miss X eligible and in priority need as she had dependent children who had medical needs.
Miss X contacted the Council on 13 May as she had received a possession order.
Miss X contacted the Council again on 22 July to tell it her case had been passed to the court bailiff. The officer Miss X spoke to told her to send any new notices.
The Council completed a suitability assessment in August 2025 and offered Miss X temporary accommodation, which she moved into. Miss X later put in a review request as she was concerned about the suitability of the property. However, Miss X later withdrew that review request as she did not want a move to alternative temporary accommodation.
When considering a complaint the Council accepted it could have provided Miss X with accommodation earlier. The Council apologised and agreed to pay the £460 court costs Miss X had incurred and an extra £200 to reflect her distress.
Analysis Miss X says the Council failed to award her enough points on its housing register to reflect her family’s circumstances. The Council’s housing allocation scheme is clear a homeless applicant cannot receive any additional points. In Miss X’s case that meant the Council awarded 200 homeless points.
For Miss X’s medical circumstances, there are situations in which Miss X could achieve a higher number of points. However, for that to happen the Council would need to have accepted Miss X’s circumstances warranted high priority.
In Miss X’s case I am satisfied the Council referred her to its medical adviser on several occasions. Each time the medical adviser recommended medium priority, which the Council agreed with. Having considered the reports from now medical I am satisfied those set out the information taken into account which includes the medical evidence for Miss X’s family as well as her history of domestic abuse. I therefore could not say the Council failed to take those matters into account in awarding medium medical priority.
In those circumstances Miss X would only qualify for 150 points, which is less than the number of points she gets for being homeless. I appreciate Miss X strongly disagrees with the Council’s assessment of her medical priority. However, as I am satisfied the Council has taken into account Miss X’s supporting evidence and family circumstances I am satisfied it has reached a decision it is entitled to reach. It is therefore not a decision I can comment on.
Miss X says the Council told her and her MP it would consider awarding 1,000 medical/safeguarding housing points once it accepted the main duty. Miss X says the Council failed to do that.
I am satisfied Miss X would only receive 1,000 points if the Council considered her to have an emergency or exceptional priority. I am satisfied the Council’s exceptions panel considered the case on 6 November 2025 and decided not to award exceptional priority. I am therefore satisfied the Council did consider whether awarding 1,000 points was appropriate.
It is not for me to decide how many points Miss X should receive. Instead, my role is to decide whether the Council has reached its decision properly. Miss X says the Council failed to consider her circumstances which included having children with various health conditions and the fact she is a victim of domestic abuse. I am satisfied the Council’s exceptions panel considered those points because they are listed in its consideration.
I am also satisfied the exceptions panel went through each of the emergency and exceptions panel criteria before deciding Miss X did not qualify. In recording its decision I am satisfied the panel noted it did not consider Miss X was at serious risk of harm given she had been placed out of borough and it had no confirmation of any threat.
I am also satisfied the Council considered the recommendation from the multi agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) given that recommendation was reproduced in full by the panel that considered Miss X’s case in November 2025. I am satisfied the panel did not consider that information provided enough evidence of high risk to warrant additional priority. I cannot criticise the Council for that given the referral from MARAC recommended Miss X be moved to alternative housing as soon as practicable and the Council had moved her to temporary accommodation by that point.
I do note though that when considering whether Miss X met the criteria for an emergency award, which I set out in paragraphs 28 and 29, the exceptions panel stated section f of the first part did not apply to Miss X. That relates to an applicant that potentially qualifies in two priority need groups. I do not consider that conclusion accurate given Miss X has received medium medical priority to move which suggests she falls into the homeless category as well as the health and welfare category. However, I accept that even if Miss X qualified under that category she would need to also qualify under a, b or c under the conditions that must be met. I am satisfied, based on the Council’s assessment, Miss X does not fall into any of those three categories. Consequently, I cannot criticise the decision not to award her 1,000 points or a direct offer.
I am concerned though when the Council wrote to Miss X to tell her the outcome of the panel it did not explain why the panel had decided she was not an exceptional case. That is fault. I consider an apology satisfactory remedy for that given I am satisfied the notes from the meeting show the panel properly considered Miss X’s case.
I am also satisfied the Council properly considered Miss X’s request for a review of the panel’s decision. I am satisfied when responding to that review the Council explained it had taken into account Miss X’s medical evidence and the representations she put forward. The Council explained it did not consider the circumstances Miss X had put forward were exceptional and that many other housing register applicants made similar representations. In those circumstances, although I appreciate Miss X strongly disagrees with the decision reached, I have found no evidence of fault in how the decision was reached. So, I cannot comment on it.
Miss X says the Council failed to take into account that it had decided private rented accommodation was unaffordable for her and unsuitable due to her children’s disabilities, educational needs and safeguarding concerns. I have found no evidence the Council accepted private rented accommodation was not suitable for Miss X. It is clear from the Council’s documentation it considers Miss X can afford private rented accommodation. The Council’s medical adviser also stated there was no evidence to preclude allocation of privately rented property. I therefore have no grounds to criticise the Council.
I appreciate Miss X says she needs settled accommodation because she cannot make the necessary security changes in temporary or private accommodation. I am satisfied those are points Miss X put to the Council when she asked for a review of the panel’s decision not to award exceptional priority. I am satisfied the Council took those points into account given they are referenced in its decision letter in January 2026. I therefore could not say the Council failed to take those matters into account. Nor do I consider it likely the Council would conclude security measures, such as internal cameras and CCTV, are not possible in either temporary accommodation or private rented accommodation.
Miss X says the Council failed to consider awarding 650 points or a direct offer on the basis she needs to remain in the borough. I appreciate Miss X believes she needs to remain in Enfield. However, it is clear from the documentary evidence the Council does not agree.
When considering Miss X’s circumstances the Council recorded that a placement within 75 minutes of her children’s schools, medical and support network was appropriate. On that basis the Council placed Miss X outside the borough. That is in line with the medical recommendation in October 2025 that Miss X needed to be placed somewhere which was commutable to her children’s schooling. As I am satisfied the Council does not consider Miss X has a need to be placed in borough but instead only needs to be within a commutable distance to her children’s schools, I cannot criticise it for not awarding additional points.
Miss X says the Council failed to consider, when awarding her points, that she cares for her mother who lives in Enfield. I am satisfied when completing the suitability form for the Council Miss X declared she provided care for both her mother and grandmother and gave those addresses. I am also satisfied Miss X told the Council she did not receive carer’s allowance and that she drove and had access to a car. However, under the Council’s allocation scheme, there is no provision for additional points for somebody who provides care to somebody else. The issue here relates more to whether Miss X needs to remain in the borough, which I cover earlier in this statement.
I understand though Miss X is concerned about being placed out of borough in temporary accommodation, away from her caring responsibilities. I have made clear I cannot comment on the suitability of the current property Miss X occupies. That is because Miss X had a right of review if she had concerns about the suitability of the property. I therefore cannot comment on whether the property is suitable on the basis Miss X provides care to her mother and grandmother.
Miss X says she provided the Council with further supporting information in February 2026 and it failed to act. I am satisfied the Council considered the information Miss X provided in February 2026 as the Council wrote to Miss X in May 2026 to explain the outcome of its medical assessment. The Council delayed completing that assessment though, which is fault. The decision not to award further medical priority at that point falls outside the scope of my investigation as it is a decision reached after I made enquiries of the Council.
Miss X says the Council delayed referring her case to the exceptions panel. I am satisfied Miss X asked the Council to refer her case to the panel in August 2025. I am satisfied the Council acted on that by arranging for the panel to consider Miss X’s case on 4 September 2025. I cannot criticise the panel for rejecting the application at that point though on the basis Miss X had moved into temporary accommodation as that was a change in circumstance.
I am satisfied though the Council said at the end of September it would prepare the case to possibly present it at the exceptions panel on 7 October. However, Miss X’s application did not go to the panel until 6 November. That delay is fault. As I am satisfied the November 2025 panel properly considered the case I consider an apology a satisfactory remedy for this part of the complaint.
Miss X says the Council wrongly told her to stay in her property until the bailiffs arrived. I set out in paragraphs 31-34 what the code of guidance says about this. The code of guidance is clear the Council should consider whether it is reasonable for a homeless applicant to remain living in their property once they have received a notice. The code of guidance is also clear councils should not consider it reasonable for a homeless applicant to remain in occupation up until the court issues a warrant. I have seen no evidence the Council considered those points. Telling Miss X to remain in her property until the bailiffs arrived is therefore fault.
I am satisfied the Council has apologised for that, paid the legal costs Miss X incurred and offered her £200 to reflect her distress. I consider that a suitable personal remedy and in line with what the Ombudsman would normally recommend. I therefore invite the Council to repeat that offer to Miss X. I also recommended though the Council provide guidance to officers dealing with homeless applications around what the code of guidance says about homeless applicants remaining in their accommodation when they have received a valid notice to leave. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.
Miss X says her case officer has not made any contact with her since November 2025. Miss X therefore says she does not know about any action the Council has taken on her case.
The Council says Miss X’s case officer was on sick leave between January and March 2026. That would explain why there was no contact from that specific officer. I note though Miss X remained in contact with the Council through other departments and I have not seen any evidence of failure to respond to her contacts. I therefore have no grounds to criticise the Council.
Action
Within one month of my decision the Council should: apologise to Miss X for the distress she experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet; provide guidance to officers dealing with homeless applications about what the code of guidance says in relation to applicants remaining in occupation of the property when they have received a valid notice to leave.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
I find fault causing injustice. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman