Summary: We have found the Council at fault for failing to consider new medical information in relation to Mrs X’s housing register application. This delayed Mrs X being able to bid on properties and caused her avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, backdate Mrs X’s priority, make a distress payment and provide information about properties Mrs X potentially missed out on.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about how the Council handled her housing register application. She said the Council did not properly consider her son’s medical needs or how the overcrowding made his health worse. This resulted in a low priority banding

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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

What I have and have not investigated

4. Mrs X and her family joined the housing register in 2021. A medical advisor assessed their application several times as the family submitted new medical information during 2021, 2022 and 2023.
5. Mrs X brought her complaint to us in December 2024; I have therefore only investigated matters which occurred up to 12 months before this date.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs 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

Law and guidance

The published scheme

8. 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

9. 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

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.

Review procedures

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.

What happened

Background

14. Mrs X’s family joined the housing register in 2021. The Council awarded the family low medical priority which attracted 50 points. The allocation scheme stated that applicants are unable to bid on properties when they have less than 100 points.
15. Over the next 3 years, the family submitted new medical information, and the Council completed three health and wellbeing assessments and a review request. The family’s priority remained low (50 points).

Mrs X pregnant

16. In January 2024, Mrs X informed the Council that she was pregnant and submitted further medical information. The medical officer maintained the low medical priority. Mrs X requested a review of the Council’s decision, but it remained unchanged.

Baby Y’s illness

17. In July 2024, Mrs X’s son (Y) was born. Shortly afterwards, he was admitted into hospital with breathing difficulties. The hospital wrote to the Council explaining that Y had respiratory failure and was awaiting a diagnosis of lung disease. The hospital requested that the family be rehoused urgently.

Medical assessment and review of Y

18. The medical officer assessed this new information. In September, they concluded that Y’s illness was not due to his living conditions. The medical officer said Y’s health problems were being managed by oxygen therapy in the home that had been inspected by medical staff. The health and wellbeing priority remained unchanged.
19. Mrs X requested a review of the decision. The Council upheld its decision.
20. Mrs X complained. In the Council’s response, it confirmed that the medical assessment was completed inline with the housing allocations scheme, as was the review process.
21. It told Mrs X that if she received further medical information, the Council would reassess the family’s priority.

Further medical information

22. In December, the Council received a further letter from the hospital. The hospital confirmed Y had been diagnosed with lung disease and went on to explain the impact that the family’s living conditions were having on Y:
• the oxygen equipment takes up space in the small one-bedroom flat,
• the family struggled to carry Y and his oxygen equipment up to the first floor flat,
• the cramped living arrangements and shared sleeping space meant that Y was more likely to catch infectious illnesses from his family.
23. The hospital said that although it recognised the living conditions were not life-threatening to Y, it made things difficult and placed him at higher risk of getting an infection.
24. Mrs X asked the Council to review this latest information. The Council said there was no new information in the latest letter from the hospital and that new information about the oxygen equipment was not enough to trigger a new medical assessment.

Mrs X complained to Ombudsman

25. In February 2025, the Council passed Mrs X’s application for a medical assessment. The medical officer concluded that the family’s property was unsuitable due to overcrowding. They also raised concerns about the oxygen equipment and the risk of infectious illnesses to Y.
26. The medical advisor stated that Y needed his own bedroom with space for medical equipment, and the family needed a ground floor property if un-lifted or any floor, if lifted.
27. Based on the information from the medical advisor, the Council amended Mrs X’s application. The family’s health and wellbeing priority increased to medium (150 points), and because they needed an extra bedroom, they were assessed as lacking two bedrooms (150 points). This totalled 300 points which meant the family were able to bid on properties on the register.

My findings

Initial medical assessments and reviews

28. From the evidence I have seen, the Council followed correct procedure when it passed Mrs X’s application and medical information to a medical advisor on the first two occasions in 2024. It then based its health and wellbeing priority decisions on the medical officer’s assessments. I cannot find fault with the Council’s decision if it was reached correctly. I have seen no evidence to suggest there was any fault in the decision-making process.

Further medical information (December 2024)

29. In the Council’s response to Mrs X’s complaint, in December 2024, it said if further medical information came forward, specifically a letter from the hospital, it would reassess the family’s priority.
30. In December, the hospital wrote a letter. When Mrs X submitted this to the Council, the Council said there was no new information and would not pass the application and information through for a medical reassessment.
31. I have found fault with the Council actions. The Council had not considered the hospital’s December letter. This confirmed Y’s diagnosis whereas the August letter said that Y was undergoing investigation. Furthermore, the letter specifically explains how the living arrangements could worsen Y’s condition.
32. Over the following months, when Mrs X pursued the Council, it refused to reassess the family’s application.

Medical assessment (February)

33. When the Ombudsman contacted the Council to make enquiries, it passed Mrs X’s application through for a medical assessment. There is no evidence that Mrs X had submitted any further medical information at this stage to trigger this assessment.
34. This medical assessment considered the December hospital letter. The assessment resulted in the family’s priority being increased and meant they could bid on properties on the housing register. This was confirmed in March 2025.
35. Had the Council passed though the new medical information in December, the decision would have been made in January. The Council has agreed to backdate the family’s medium priority to January 2025 and make a distress payment of £500.
36. It is unclear from the information available whether the family missed out on bidding on any properties between January and March. The Council has agreed to provide a list of 3-bedroom properties which were available between January and March 2025, indicating the priority level/date of the winning bidder. If this information shows the family missed out on any properties, the Council has agreed to pay Mrs X an additional distress payment of £500 in recognition of the missed opportunity.

Back to top

Agreed action

37. Within 4 weeks of my decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mrs X for failing to consider new medical information in December 2024.
2. Backdate Mrs X’s housing register application priority to January 2025.
3. Pay Mrs X £500 in recognition of the distress caused by the Council’s refusal to reassess the new medical information.
4. Provide a list of the 3-bedroom properties available between January and March 2025, indicating the priority date/level of the winning bidders.
38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have found fault with the Council for failing to consider new medical information in relation to Mrs X’s housing register application. This delayed the family being able to bid on properties and caused them avoidable distress.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman