Ealing Council wrongfully removed a resident from the housing register after mishandling his homelessness application.

The man, referred to as Mr X in the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman report, raised concerns that Ealing Council had mishandled his housing application, failed to correctly assess his medical priority, and improperly processed a subsequent homelessness application and review request.

The Ombudsman found the council at fault for failing to apply the correct exemption criteria to Mr X's application, an error that directly led to his removal from the borough's housing register. The Ombudsman noted that this procedural error caused the applicant significant distress, frustration, and ongoing uncertainty over his living arrangements.

In May 2024, Mr X applied to join the council's housing register and was accepted with a 'band two' medical priority. Shortly after, the council found him private rented accommodation under the housing duty it had to provide for him.

At the beginning of September 2024, the council wrote to Mr X to explain that he was no longer owed a housing duty because he had accepted private rented accommodation. Mr X contacted Ealing Council in the same month as he was forced to move out of his private rented property because he could not afford the rent and, as such, was homeless – the council determined that he was eligible for support.

The council completed an assessment of Mr X's medical needs and determined the evidence he had provided "did not show he had specific medical needs which were of particular significance compared to an ordinary person."

This meant that Mr X was considered not to have priority for housing or to need interim accommodation provided by the council.

In December, a review of this decision concluded that Mr X did not have eligible medical needs and was no longer eligible to remain on the housing register, as he did not have five years of continuous address history within the borough after his move into private accommodation.

Mr X requested a review of the decision the following day, but did not receive a response until March 2026. In the review, the council upheld its initial position. As the private property was secured out of the borough by Ealing Council, Mr X should have been exempt from the five-year rule – he wasn't.

This was a fault as the council was supposed to apply an exemption. The watchdog said: "On the balance of probabilities, had the council correctly considered this exemption criteria, the council would not have removed Mr X from the register."

Despite being eligible for band two priority in his initial housing application in May 2024, the council's second medical assessment deemed no need at all. According to the findings, "It is not clear why there is a difference in the outcome of these assessments as Mr X's medical needs did not change during this time."

As the second assessment was completed in response to the council failing to correctly apply the exemption criteria, the Ombudsman was unable to rule on which medical assessment was correct. However, the report reads "This is a fault which causes Mr X uncertainty, distress and frustration.

An Ealing Council spokesperson said: 'We are sorry for the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused in this case and accept the Ombudsman's findings.

"The Council will take the necessary steps in response to the decision. This includes considering the reinstatement of the resident's housing register application and reviewing the resident's circumstances in line with the Ombudsman's findings.

"We will also contact the resident directly regarding the Ombudsman's recommendations, including the apology and remedy identified in the decision."

The council was also forced to make a symbolic payment of £500 in recognition of the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused.