Summary: The Council delayed registering Mr X’s housing application and delayed reviewing his medical priority. This was fault. The Council was not at fault for how it decided Mr X’s housing priority. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X for the uncertainty and frustration caused by the delay.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in processing his housing application and its decision not to award him a higher medical priority. He says this caused him distress. He wants the Council to award him a higher medical priority and compensate him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

7. 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))
8. 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))

9. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
10. 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.

The Council’s allocations scheme

11. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.
12. The Council considers applications to join the scheme and awards successful applicants a Band between one (highest priority) and four (lowest priority). The scheme uses rehousing bands to give reasonable preference to those as set out above.
13. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band three to applicants with a moderate medical priority where the Council decides their medical condition is made worse by their current living conditions, or where a move to more satisfactory accommodation is likely to result in an improvement to their health.
14. The Council’s policy states it intends to process applications to join the scheme within 28 days. In some circumstances it will backdate the award date to the date of application.
15. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

What happened

16. Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register on 20 February 2024. In the medical section of his application, he gave details of the medical reasons he felt he needed to move to another property. In July 2024 Mr X complained to the Council. He said he had not received any updates on his application.
17. Later in July the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at stage one of its complaint process. It said the delay was because of an increase in demand for social housing. It said it had now registered Mr X’s application but needed further information so Mr X could begin bidding for properties. It said it had referred his application for medical priority to its independent medical advisers. It apologised for the delay registering his application. Mr X submitted the required documents the same day and the Council activated his application.
18. In August 2024 the Council wrote to Mr X with the outcome of its medical assessment. It decided Mr X did not have a medical need to move. It said while it appreciated his current accommodation was not ideal, the evidence did not support a change of accommodation on medical grounds. It said Mr X could send in further information or ask for a review of the decision. Mr X immediately responded to the Council asking it to reconsider its decision.
19. A few days later Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaint process. He said the Council had failed to give its reasons for refusing his medical priority. The Council spoke to Mr X in September 2024. At the same time, he sent in more information about the impact of his current property on his mental health. This included supporting evidence from people who knew and worked with Mr X. The Council sent the new information to be assessed by its medical advisers.
20. The Council responded to Mr X’s stage two complaint in October 2024. It apologised for its delay responding to Mr X but did not uphold his complaint. It said it had explained the reasons for the delay in its stage one response and properly assessed Mr X’s medical priority since. A few days later the Council wrote to Mr X with the outcome of its new medical assessment. This was based on the new information he provided in September 2024. It again decided Mr X did not have a medical need to move. Mr X asked for a review on 1 November 2024 and later complained to the Ombudsman.
21. Mr X sent in more supporting information later in November 2024. The Council again sent it for a new medical assessment. At the end of November Mr X told the Council he was at risk of homelessness. In December 2024 the Council accepted a homelessness prevention duty to Mr X. It also completed its assessment of his new information and again decided he did not need to move on medical grounds.
22. In January 2025 the Council’s records show it logged Mr X’s review request. On 8 January 2025 the Council completed its review and awarded Mr X band three priority. It said it had considered the new information from Mr X and he had a moderate medical need to move to another property.
23. Mr X sent the Council more information in 2025. The Council decided his award of band three was suitable. In response to our enquiries the Council accepted it had delayed carrying out Mr X’s review. It said the January 2025 review outcome was based on information Mr X supplied in September 2024 and so backdated his band three award to 1 October 2024. This was to reflect when the review should have taken place. It said Mr X’s first review would not have led to a change in banding. It confirmed Mr X had not missed out on any properties because of the delay in awarding him band three.
24. The Council also gave details of changes it had made to its processes. This included ensuring its medical advisors referred to specific documents when setting out their decision reasons and were clearer what information they had considered and the reasons for their decisions in outcome letters.

My findings

25. Mr X applied to join the housing register in February 2024. The Council did not process his application until July 2024. Allowing for the Council’s 28-day processing time this was a delay of four months. This was fault and caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty over the outcome of his housing application.
26. When the Council registered Mr X’s application it referred his request for medical priority to its independent medical advisers. The advisers reviewed Mr X’s application and recommended refusal. The Council considered Mr X’s medical evidence, the medical adviser’s recommendation and its own allocations policy and decided to refuse the application. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make. There is no evidence of fault in how it took the decision, and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong. The Council was not at fault.
27. Mr X immediately asked the Council to reconsider its decision, but the Council did not carry out a review. This was fault and caused Mr X a further period of frustration and uncertainty. Mr X supplied new information in September 2024 and again asked for a review of the Council’s refusal. The Council accepts it delayed carrying out this review until January 2025. This was fault resulting in a delay to Mr X being awarded band three priority.
28. The Council has now backdated Mr X’s priority to 1 October 2024 and confirmed he did not miss out on any properties because of the delay. While there was earlier delay in registering Mr X’s application, the Council’s decision to award Mr X band three priority was based on the extra information he supplied in September 2024. I therefore do not consider Mr X should have been awarded band three priority any earlier. I am satisfied with Council’s remedy.
29. Mr X says he should have emergency medical priority, band two. While the Council delayed in registering Mr X’s application, and carrying out his review, there is no evidence of fault in how the Council eventually considered Mr X’s medical priority. I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
30. We identified similar failings by this Council in a decision we issued in December 2024. The Council has since explained the steps it is taking to resolve the delays in registering housing applications. It has also set out the changes it is making to its medical assessment processes. Because the Council is already taking suitable steps, I have not repeated those service improvement recommendations. We will continue to monitor the Council’s progress through our casework.

Back to top

Action

31. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the uncertainty and frustration caused by the delay identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology.
2. Pay Mr X £300 to recognise the uncertainty and frustration caused by the delay identified.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

33. I find fault causing injustice, which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman