Summary: Miss Y complained on behalf of Miss X that the Council delayed completing a Housing and Health Needs Assessment and failed to address all aspects of her complaint. We do not find fault in the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing needs. However, we do find fault in the Council’s complaint handling, specifically a significant delay in issuing its stage two response, which caused Miss Y uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss Y.

The complaint

1. Miss Y submitted a complaint on behalf of Miss X regarding the way Miss X has been treated by the Council. In particular, she alleges the Council delayed the completion of a Housing and Health Needs Assessment and left Miss X in unsuitable accommodation.
2. She also complains the Council failed to address all aspects of her complaint.
3. Miss Y says these issues have had a negative impact on Miss X’s health.
4. Miss Y wants a new housing officer to be assigned to the case, for the Housing and Health Needs Assessment be completed, and Miss X be provided with two-bedroom accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Miss Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

Homeless

9. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)

The published allocations scheme

10. 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))

Reasonable preference

11. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

Decisions and review rights

12. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:

• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.

13. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))

Review procedures

14. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:

• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

What happened

15. Below is a summary of key events relevant to Miss Y’s complaint.
16. Miss X is a secure tenant of a one-bedroom council property (Property A). In 2020, following concerns about a neighbour, she moved to alternative one-bedroom accommodation (Property B), while retaining her tenancy at Property A.
17. Between 2020 and 2022, Miss X requested a move to a two-bedroom property. The Council considered medical evidence but decided she did not qualify for an additional bedroom. This decision was upheld on review in 2022.
18. In early 2024, Miss X had built up rent arrears on Property A. The Council asked her to choose between remaining at Property B, returning to Property A, or accepting another one-bedroom property. She declined these options.
19. In July, Miss X left Property B, due to disrepair, and did not return to Property A. The Council placed her in hotel accommodation.
20. In November, Miss X made a homelessness application. The Council decided it had no reason to believe she was homeless because she still held a tenancy at Property A. Her solicitor requested a review and stated Miss X required a two-bedroom property, referring to medical evidence previously considered by the Council.
21. In December, Miss X’s solicitor indicated further evidence would be submitted regarding her bedroom need.
22. The Council offered Miss X several alternative one-bedroom properties, which she declined. It maintained that Property A was suitable and encouraged her to return, offering support to do so.
23. In January 2025, Miss X was again placed in hotel accommodation, arranged by adult social care. Around this time, Miss Y complained on her behalf, raising concerns about unsuitable accommodation, risks to Miss X’s health, and requesting immediate rehousing and care needs assessment.
24. In February, the Council issued its stage one complaint response. It confirmed Miss X had support from a social worker and an advocate, and that a care needs assessment would be carried out. It also shared that Miss X had been provided with temporary accommodation.
25. Miss Y escalated the complaint, stating the response had not addressed her concerns. She requested a new housing officer, completion of an assessment, and a two-bedroom property.
26. A care needs assessment was carried out between February and March 2025. This identified a need for daytime support but did not identify a need for overnight care. A care package was put in place.
27. In July, Miss X’s solicitor submitted further medical evidence. It said Miss X’s needs had increased and she required overnight care and an additional bedroom.
28. In August the Council’s reviewed the new medical evidence and completed a further housing and health assessment. It concluded there was no medical need for a two-bedroom property.
29. Later that month, the Council issued its final response to the complaint. It acknowledged and apologised that the stage one response had been handled by adult social care without any input from the housing service, despite the issues raised in the complaint. It also advised that any review of the suitability of Miss X’s property would need to be requested separately, outside of the complaints process.
30. Since then, the Council has continued to review Miss X’s circumstances, made further offers of accommodation, and maintained its position that she does not require a two-bedroom property.

My findings

31. This is a complex case involving multiple services over an extended period. I have focused my investigation on the specific issues raised in the complaint: the alleged delay in completing a housing and health needs assessment and the handling of Miss Y’s complaint.

Housing and Health Needs Assessment / bedroom need

32. Miss Y says the Council delayed completing a Housing and Health Needs Assessment and failed to properly consider Miss X’s need for a two-bedroom property.
33. The evidence shows the Council had previously assessed Miss X’s bedroom need and decided she did not qualify for a two-bedroom property. When similar information was raised again in late 2024 and early 2025, it repeated earlier evidence.
34. It was not until July 2025 that new medical evidence was submitted by Miss X’s solicitor indicating a potential change in Miss X’s needs. The Council then arranged for this to be reviewed and completed an assessment in August 2025.
35. I am satisfied the Council considered the new evidence without undue delay once it was provided. There is no evidence of avoidable delay in carrying out this assessment.
36. The Council decided there was no medical need for a two-bedroom property. This is a decision it is entitled to make. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and cannot question the merits of that decision where the Council has followed a proper process.
37. I therefore find no fault in the Council’s handling of the assessment or its decision on Miss X’s bedroom need.

Complaint handling

38. Miss Y initially approached the Ombudsman before the Council had completed its complaints process.
39. The Council’s stage one response did not address all aspects of the complaint, in particular the housing-related issues. The Council later acknowledged this and apologised in its stage two response. Given that the relevant issues were being actively considered outside of the complaints process, I am satisfied this did not cause a significant injustice.
40. However, there was a significant delay in the Council issuing its stage two response. Its procedure sets a timescale of 25 working days, but it took 136 working days to respond. This was fault. This delay caused Miss Y avoidable uncertainty.

Back to top

Action

41. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss Y in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology.
42. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

43. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman