The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of his banding on the housing register. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by doing another banding review. We will not investigate the complaint about Mr X’s temporary accommodation because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council: left him and his child in unsuitable temporary accommodation where they have been subject to abuse near their home; and wrongly decided not to increase his priority band on the housing register despite him and his child being at risk of abuse.
Mr X said as a result, they have lived for too long in unsuitable accommodation and have been caused frustration and distress.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X and his child live in temporary accommodation. They are awaiting long term housing and have been awarded Band 2A on the Council’s housing register.
In 2025 an incident occurred near their address which made them fear for their safety. Due to the incident and other concerns including nearby noise and anti-social behaviour, Mr X asked the Council to review his banding on the housing register. He submitted a medical form to the Council and asked it to award them Band 1A, the Council’s band for applicants who have an emergency need to move. Within this form, he set out medical reasons his family should be moved as well as his fears for their safety following the incident of abuse near their home.
The Council carried out its review into the family’s banding on 10 September 2025 and said their award should remain at Band 2A because “the health advisor to the Council has made no medical recommendations”. However the Council agreed due to the incidents, Mr X may need a move to alternative temporary accommodation and offered his family: a move to a hotel; or a move to a self-contained private rented property in a neighbouring borough.
Mr X said those two options were not suitable as the hotel would be too disruptive to his child’s schooling and the private rented accommodation was too far from their support network. Mr X said in any case, he had now become too unwell to relocate to alternative accommodation at that time. The Council withdrew the offers on this basis. The Council made another offer of temporary accommodation in a neighbouring borough a few months later but Mr X said he was still too unwell to relocate at that time.
There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions regarding Mr X’s temporary accommodation that would justify further investigation. The Council offered Mr X alternative temporary accommodation which, if accepted, would have removed the risks posed at their current property. However in any case, Mr X then became too unwell to move. There is not enough evidence of fault regarding Mr X’s temporary accommodation and so in line with our powers set out in paragraph three, we will not investigate this part of the complaint further.
Regarding the Council’s decision on Mr X’s priority banding, if we investigated this, it is likely we would find fault causing injustice. This is because in the Council’s 10 September 2025 review decision, the Council repeated the medical assessor’s advice without coming to its own decision in line with its allocations policy. It also did not show that it considered any risk of harm posed to the household, only their medical reasons for seeking a move.
We asked the Council to consider remedying the injustice early by carrying out this review again, this time clearly explaining the reasons for its decision and showing that it has engaged with both the risk of harm Mr X raised and their medical needs. The Council has agreed to do this.
Agreed action
Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to: Carry out another review of Mr X’s banding on the housing register, showing that it has considered the household’s risk of harm as well as their medical needs and come to its own decision in line with its allocations policy about what band they should be in.
Final decision
We have upheld the part of Mr X’s complaint about his banding review because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify further investigation into the complaint about Mr X’s temporary accommodation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman