Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed reviewing its decision on her housing register application. When it did the review, Miss X complained it failed to consider the relevant medical evidence when deciding her priority award. She also complained the Council prevented her from bidding on adapted properties, despite needing one due to her disabilities. The Council significantly delayed reviewing its decision which was fault. The Council then carried out the review and there was no fault in how it reached its decision. It also did not prevent Miss X from bidding on adapted properties. The Council has agreed to provide evidence that it has paid the £200 it offered Miss X in its stage two response to remedy the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the delay in carrying out the review.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council delayed reviewing its decision on her housing register application. When it did the review, Miss X complained it failed to consider her disabilities and the relevant medical evidence when deciding which priority band to award her. She also complained the Council restricted her to bidding on unadapted properties, despite needing an adapted property for her disabilities.
2. Miss X said this meant she and her family had remained longer than necessary in unsatisfactory housing and caused them distress, frustration and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’.
4. 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)
5. 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

6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended). Some of Miss X’s complaint is late as she says she has been dealing with the Council about seeking social housing since 2021. She complained to us in November 2024, so the complaint about events before November 2023 is late. It was reasonable for Miss X to complain to us earlier about matters prior to this date and so I have not investigated them here.
7. The main issue Miss X complained about started in January 2024 when she asked the Council to review its decision not to give her housing register application more priority on medical grounds. I will be investigating from this point.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Miss X and the Council are given an opportunity to comment on a draft decision. All comments are considered before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

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))
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))

The Council’s allocations policy

12. The Council’s Housing Register works on four different bands that determine how it will deal with a person’s application and any restrictions on the type of social properties they can apply for.
13. Those placed in Band C will have a specific housing need and they can bid for properties which are appropriate for their specific needs. The criteria for Band C includes (but is not limited to):
• Someone in the household has a medical condition that would be alleviated by a move to alternative accommodation, the need is urgent but the accommodation is not a threat to significantly exacerbating the condition, and a change of housing would make a substantial improvement in the quality of life of the affected person.
14. Those placed in Band B will have demonstrated they have a significant housing need. The criteria for Band B includes (but is not limited to):
• Someone in the household has a significant medical need. The applicant will need to demonstrate that their housing conditions are causing or exacerbating the medical condition, that the current property cannot be improved or adapted to meet their needs at a reasonable cost, and that rehousing is likely to significantly improve their condition.
15. In some circumstances the Council may allocate the applicant an additional room if they (or someone in their household) would normally be expected to share a bedroom but cannot do so because of a medical condition.
16. An assessment as to whether an additional bedroom is appropriate is carried out by the Council’s Medical Assessment Team and the appropriate designated officer will approve any award. This will not mean that their application attracts a higher priority, but they will be able to bid for properties which would otherwise be considered too large for their household’s needs.

Review procedures

17. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
18. 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

19. Miss X currently lives in an adapted two-bedroom property with her two children. Miss X and her child, Y, have disabilities. Miss X applied to join the housing register as she said her home was unsuitable for her and her child, Y’s, medical needs.
20. In January 2024, the Council sent Miss X a letter agreeing to add her to its housing register. It awarded her Band C and said she required a three bedroom property, as Y had a medical need for their own bedroom. The recommendation for rehousing was a ground floor or first floor property. The letter told Miss X if she disagreed she could appeal within one calendar month which she did, a week later.
21. In the appeal, Miss X said the Council should award them Band B due to the household’s medical needs and severe health challenges. Miss X cited her own physical health conditions impacting mobility and Y’s neurodevelopmental condition. Miss X said the Council adapted her current property with a wet room and other specialist equipment. Therefore, potential properties would need to have similar adapted facilities for it to be deemed suitable. However, she said there were not any suitable, adapted properties on the bidding system which put her at a disadvantage when bidding.
22. In June 2024, Miss X complained to the Council after contacting it numerous times about the delay in considering her appeal. She complained that:
• It had been six months and she still had not received the Council’s review decision on her banding and medical priority.
• When bidding she found she had been restricted to bidding on unadapted properties, despite needing an adapted property for her disabilities.
23. In July 2024, the Council sent its stage one complaint response but it did not address the key points of the complaint. Miss X then escalated her complaint to stage two.
24. The Council issued its stage two complaint response in October 2024. The Council said it received Miss X’s appeal into the Council’s appeal mailbox in January 2024 but due to an administrative error this was lost until September 2024. The Council apologised for the delay, offered Miss X £200, said it would remind staff to deal with review requests promptly and promised the Council would complete Miss X's review in the next two weeks. The Council still did not do the review, so Miss X complained to us.
25. In December 2024, the Council wrote to Miss X to confirm the outcome of the appeal. The Council upheld its original decision for the following reasons:
• Miss X has health conditions which affect her mobility but medical evidence shows Miss X requires no urgent intervention and treatment. The Council had adapted Miss X’s property to meet her needs and there are no accessibility issues internally or externally at the property.
• There is no evidence Y has a severe behavioural disorder of note necessitating specialist interventions or medication. There are no other current or relevant medical conditions.
• Miss X and Y do not meet the criteria for the Council to award a significant medical need. The household have not demonstrated their housing conditions are causing or exacerbating the medical condition. They have also not demonstrated the current property cannot be improved or adapted to meet their needs at a reasonable cost.
• Miss X’s household meet the qualifying criteria in its allocations policy for Band C.
26. The Council told us Miss X has no restrictions placed on her bidding with regards to adapted or unadapted properties and can bid on either type of accommodation.

My findings

Delays with the review

27. Miss X asked for a review of her housing register band and medical priority in January 2024. The Council should have completed a review of the decision within eight weeks of Miss X’s request. This was due at the latest by early March. However, the Council did not complete this until December 2024 which was a nine month delay. This was fault which caused Miss X distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council apologised for the delay, offered Miss X £200 and said it would remind staff to deal with review requests promptly. This was an appropriate remedy to recognise the injustice caused to Miss X.

Review decision

28. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes a council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the Council made.
29. The Council completed the review in December 2024 upholding its original decision. The review decision letter took account of information from Miss X, the relevant medical evidence, the Council's housing allocations policy and gave reasons for the Council's view. It was for the Council to decide what weight to give the evidence it saw, and we cannot substitute our view for that of the Council. The Council made its decision in line with its allocations policy and determined Miss X met the qualifying criteria to be placed into Band C. Whilst I appreciate Miss X may disagree with its decision, there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision so I cannot question it.

Restrictions on bidding

30. Miss X said she is restricted to bidding on unadapted properties because of the Council’s decision, despite needing an adapted property for her disabilities. The Council has confirmed when a property with adaptations is advertised, the system does not prevent bidders, in this case, Miss X, from placing a bid. The lack of three-bedroom adapted properties showing to Miss X is likely due to a shortage in the areas Miss X is searching. The Council was not at fault for the lack of three-bedroom adapted properties for Miss X to place a bid on.

Back to top

Recommendations

31. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following action:
• Provide evidence that it has paid the £200 to Miss X that it offered as a remedy in its stage two response for the distress, frustrating and uncertainty caused.
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. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman