Summary: Miss X complained about delays in how the Council assessed her priority for social housing. There was fault in how the Council took too long to assess Miss X’s medical priority and review its decision and in how it communicated with Miss X. The Council agreed to apologise, pay Miss X a financial remedy, and produce an action plan to address its backlog of overdue reviews.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about how the Council decided on her priority for social housing in 2023 and 2024. She says the Council:
• took too long to decide her request for medical priority;
• failed to send her a written decision about this;
• has not given her points she is entitled to for the length of time she has been on the waiting list;
• has still not completed the second stage review she asked for in May 2024; and
• communicated poorly with her throughout that time.
2. As a result, Miss X says she does not have the right priority, could not properly prepare her request for stage two review, could not bid on properties for around six months and was caused significant avoidable frustration and uncertainty.

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. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
5. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered:
• the information Miss X provided and discussed the complaint with her;
• the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided; and
• relevant law, guidance and Council policies.
8. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

9. 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))
10. 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.

11. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
12. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
13. 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.

Council’s allocations scheme

14. The Council operates a points-based allocation scheme. It awards applicants different amount of points, based on their circumstances. This includes points for living in an overcrowded property, needing to move for medical reasons and other circumstances.
15. The Council’s allocation scheme says it aims to consider applications for medical priority within 21 working days. This it says this might take longer if there are delays in providing the Council with the necessary evidence. The Council’s policy also says it puts applications on hold while assessing medical priority, which prevents applicants from bidding. (Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme 2018, paragraph 4.6.6)
16. The Council also gives applicants additional five percent of their existing points each year they have been on the register, to recognise the time they have been waiting. (Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme 2018, paragraph 4.12.1)
17. The Council has a two-stage review process for housing allocation applications, including medical priority:
• Stage 1 – a review by the officer who made the decision within 14 days.
• Stage 2 – a review by a more senior officer within 56 days. (Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme 2018, paragraphs 9.2.4 – 9.2.5)

Council’s complaints procedure

18. The Council has a two-stage complaints procedure:
• Stage 1 – a response from the service involved within 10 working days. This can be extended by the Council by a further 10 working in exceptional cases.
• Stage 2 – a response from the Council’s complaints team within 20 working days.

What happened

19. Miss X applied to the Council’s housing register several years ago and was given points for living in overcrowded property.
20. The Council says Miss X updated sent it a medical information form in late 2022, requesting medical priority. The Council sought medical advice about Miss X’s case in late February 2023 which led to it refusing her request for medical priority at the beginning of March.
21. Miss X asked the Council to review its decision in mid-March 2023. The Council asked Miss X to complete an updated medical questionnaire in May 2023, and says she returned this to the Council in early June 2023.
22. The Council said it sought further medical advice in October 2023. However, it did not tell Miss X about its decision until February 2024. This was despite MissX chasing the Council for an update several times between June 2023 and February 2024.
23. When the Council told Miss X in February 2024 it had not changed its decision, it did not provide her with its reasons for refusing her medical priority.
24. Miss X complained to the Council about the delays with the review and asked the Council to send her its reasons so she could respond to these in her stage 2 review request.
25. However, despite upholding her complaint, the Council still did not send Miss X its reasons for its decision. In the meantime, Miss X asked the Council for a stage 2 review with the information she had, including new medical evidence, in May 2024.
26. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman in June 2024 about the Council’s continuing failure to provide her with reasons for its decision.
27. The Council sent Miss X its written reasons for refusing her stage 1 review in September 2024, although its letter was dated late July 2024. In response, Miss X added further information to her stage 2 review request.
28. The Council sent Miss X its stage two review decision in December 2024.

My findings

29. I am satisfied there were significant delays and other fault in how the Council assessed Miss X’s medical priority, and how it responded to both her review requests and her complaint.

Delays with the first decision

30. After Miss X provided the medical information form in late 2022, the Council treated this as a request for medical priority. It should have made its decision within 21 working days, or around four weeks. However, it did not seek medical advice until February 2023 or make its decision until March 2023, around two months late. That delay was fault.

Delays with the stage one review

31. After Miss X asked for a stage one review in mid-March 2023, the Council should have made a decision within two weeks. However, it only asked Miss X for a new medical form in May 2023 and did not ask for further medical advice or make a decision until October 2023. Allowing the time Miss X took to provide the further medical form and the 14 days the Council should have taken, there was a delay of around six months.
32. When the Council made its decision in October 2023, it did not tell Miss X about this until February 2024. That was a further delay of around four months.
33. The Council then failed to provide Miss X with a written decision, or its reasons until September 2024. That was a further delay of six months.

Delays with the stage two review

34. I am satisfied the evidence shows Miss X asked the Council for a stage two review in early May 2024. The Council referred to this in its second response to Miss X’s complaint in mid-May 2024. However, the Council did not make a final decision until December 2024. The Council said this was due to Miss X sending more information in October 2024. Although Miss X sent the Council further information for her review several months after she asked for the review, I am satisfied this was due to the delays in the Council sending her its reasons for its stage one review.
35. Once the Council received Miss X’s further information, it then made the stage two review decision in around the 56 days it should have done. I have taken the delays before October 2024 into account above.

Impact of the delays

36. There were total delays of around 16 months in how the Council assessed Miss X’s medical priority and reviewed its decisions. I am satisfied that delay caused Miss X significant and prolonged distress, frustration and worry.
37. The Council’s delay in providing Miss X with its reasons for its decision also delayed Miss X’s ability to prepare her request for a stage two review. However, I note that Miss X was able to provide the Council with more reasons tor disputing the stage one review decision. Therefore, although there was a delay, I do not consider that delay otherwise impacted Miss X’s stage two review request.
38. Miss X said that the Council suspended her ability to bid on properties between late 2022 and October 2023. In its response to my enquiries, the Council said it does not suspend bidding while assessing medical priority. However, this conflicts with the Council’s allocation scheme, which says it does.
39. I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Miss X was not able to bid on properties for much of 2023, while the Council was assessing her medical priority. However, given Miss X’s priority and that the Council has not awarded Miss X medical priority points, I consider it unlikely Miss X would have been successful if she had been able to bid on properties during that time.

Waiting time points

40. I am satisfied the Council has awarded the points it should have done, in line with its allocation scheme, for the time Miss X has been on the Council’s housing register.

Communication with Miss X

41. The Council’s communication with Miss X during her request for medical assessment and the review process was very poor. I am satisfied Miss X chased the Council several times during the period of the delays and that the Council failed to respond to Miss X. That was fault with added to Miss X’s frustration.

Complaint handling

42. The Council responded to Miss X’s stage one complaint 16 working days after she complained. This was more than the 10 working days the Council aims to respond within, but less than the 20 working days it says it might take in exceptional cases. I do not consider Miss X’s case was exceptional, and the Council did not tell Miss X about the delay, as its policy says it should. I consider those failures to be fault.
43. The Council also failed, in its response to Miss X’s complaint, to address her main concern which was written reasons for its decision. The Council took no steps at that stage to arrange to provide Miss X with those reasons. The Council’s failure to address Miss X’s main concern fault which added to Miss X’s frustration.
44. The Council responded to Miss X’s stage two complaint 38 days after she asked to escalate her complaint. This was outside the times set out in the Council’s policy and I am satisfied this was fault.
45. The Council also told Miss X, in that response, that it believed it had provided its written reasons for its stage one review decision. However, it had still not done so and did not for several months. The Council’s failure to again address the main point of Miss X’s complaint was fault.
46. The Council offered Miss X £110 to recognise the distress and frustration caused by the delays in assessing her eligibility and responding to her request for a stage one review. I consider the amount the Council offered was inadequate, given the length of the delays and the poor communication with Miss X.

Others affected

47. In its response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed it still has several hundred reviews which are overdue. We noted similar backlogs in decisions we made in early 2024 and the Council has provided no evidence of significant progress in that time.

Back to top

Agreed action

48. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:
• apologise to Miss X for the avoidable frustration and worry caused by the delays in assessing her medical priority, its poor communication with her and the poor response to her complaints; and
• pay Miss X £450 to recognise that distress.
49. Within three months of my final decision the Council will:
• produce a specific action plan for addressing the backlog of medical priority assessments and reviews. This should set out time-limited targets for how the Council will reduce the backlogs and include arrangements for the plan to be monitored by a suitably senior council officer;
• share my findings about the Council’s complaints handling with staff responsible for responding to housing complaints and remind them they:
1. should address the key points raised by complainants; and
2. where they find further action by the Council is necessary, ensure these actions are effective and are implemented.
50. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

51. I have completed my investigation. There was fault in how the Council took too long to assess Miss X’s medical priority and review its decision and in how it communicated with Miss X. The Council agreed to apologise, pay Miss X a financial remedy, and produce an action plan to address the backlog of overdue reviews.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman