Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s administrative handling of her housing application. We found the Council at fault with failing to reinstate her application when it said it would, delays with a medical assessment, and not offering her a right of review of the outcome. This caused distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, pay her a symbolic payment to recognise her injustice, and take action to prevent recurrence of fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has made administrative errors with her housing register account, ignored evidence she provided about members of her household, and delays with a medical assessment. This has caused significant frustration and uncertainty, along with concerns on how it impacted on her bidding account.

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. 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

4. I discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered her views.
5. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. 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

Relevant administrative background

The Council’s allocations policy

7. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme for allocating social housing called Find your Home. It places applicants into bands based on their level of priority. The Bands are Band 1: Emergency Priority, Band 2: High Priority, Band 3: Medium Priority and Band 4: Low Priority. Applicants who are overcrowded by one bedroom are placed in Band 4.
8. Under the section “Medical assessments”, the Council’s policy says it will normally take up to six weeks to obtain a medical assessment.
9. The Council’s policy says if the applicant disagrees with a decision the Council makes on their housing application, they can ask for a review within 21 days of the decision. It says the request should be in writing and it would aim to review the decision within 56 days of receiving the request.

Background

10. Miss X is a Council tenant. She lives in two-bedroom flat with her partner and children. Miss X moved in over a decade ago. Miss X has been on the housing register since 2016 with a three-bedroom need.
11. She made a previous complaint to the Ombudsman about the Council’s administration of her housing register application. We upheld this in 2024 and decided its fault had caused her significant uncertainty.

What happened – summary of key relevant events for this complaint

12. In April 2024, Miss X completed a change of circumstances form about her household’s needs. She wanted additional priority on medical grounds.
13. The Council responded to say an officer would review the information and carry out an assessment. Miss X said the email said it could take up to eight weeks. The Council said it told her it could take up to 26 weeks.
14. The same day, the Council told her there was a mismatch between the names of her household and those listed as occupants on her tenancy. It asked her to add her partner and attached a form for her to complete the change.
15. Miss X said her partner had been named on the tenancy for several years and was already on her application. She did not understand why he needed to be added again, and her bidding account was in both their names. She wanted to know if this error had an impact on her bidding account. Miss X sent a photo of a physical copy of her tenancy agreement. Her children at the time and her partner’s name were handwritten under “occupancy details”.
16. Miss X made a formal complaint. In late June 2024, the Council responded. It did not uphold her complaint. It had changed her application to “pending” and asked her to complete the change of occupant form so it could validate her partner on her application.
17. In mid-August 2024, the Council responded at Stage Two after Miss X escalated her complaint. It confirmed it located a copy of her tenancy agreement, and her partner was not recorded on this. It provided a scan of it; it was identical to Miss X’s photo, but her partner’s name was not written under her children’s. As Miss X sent the required form, it had now added her partner and her application was live. It said the addition of her partner did not impact on her priority award and bedroom need. She was still on Band 4 as she required an additional bedroom for her family.
18. Miss X then complained to us. I asked Miss X what type of accommodation she would likely bid on. She said she is seeking a house as she wants a garden for her children’s needs; she would not be looking for flat accommodation.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

19. In response to my enquiries, the Council said medical assessments are now likely to take up to 12 months. It stated this on website. The Council completed Miss X’s medical assessment in February 2025, and it decided not to award additional priority.
20. The Council said it should have made Miss X’s application “live” in August 2024. It since found it did not do this due to human error. It corrected this in February 2025.
21. The Council sent me a list of housing offers it made to applicants for three-bedroom properties since April 2024, including the property type, the priority band and the effective date of the successful applicant.

Analysis

Miss X’s household and tenancy agreement

22. After the Council received Miss X’s change of circumstances form, it promptly told her of the mismatch of names. It explained what it needed from her to change it on her application, and why. While Miss X’s photo shows her partner’s name on her copy of the tenancy agreement, I have also seen the copy the Council has, which supported its view. I do not find fault with the Council for acting on its evidence on this point.
23. Miss X questioned how this had happened as she said her partner has always been on her application. She had previously been affected by administrative fault with the Council’s handling of her housing application and understandably this raised further concerns for her. But I do not consider it necessary or proportionate to interrogate the discrepancies with the tenancy agreement or if, and whether, her partner was on her application and bidding account historically. In my view, there was no significant injustice (in terms of her housing application) with this as the recent addition of her partner did not have a material impact on, or affect, her priority banding and bedroom need.

Delays making Miss X’s application live

24. However, the Council failed to reinstate her application when it said it would in August 2024. This is fault. This meant she could not place bids for a further six months.
25. The Council has offered a handful of properties to applicants in Band 4 priority with a list date later than Miss X’s since April 2024. These were all flats. So, it is unlikely Miss X would have placed bids on these had she been able to. On balance, I cannot say she missed out on a suitable property when her application remained “pending”. The injustice from this fault is limited to additional distress and frustration for Miss X.

Medical assessment delay and right of review

26. The Council’s allocations policy says medical assessments normally take up to six weeks. Miss X sent hers in April 2024 and accordingly, it should have completed it by June 2024. It did not until February 2025, an eight-month delay. This is fault.
27. I recognise the high demand on resources which is impacting on the Council’s ability to deliver the service it should. The Council has tried to manage expectations by communicating extended waiting times, but proposed timeframes of 12 months is excessive.
28. The outcome of Miss X’s medical assessment did not change her priority banding, but this delay caused her avoidable distress and frustration. She waited notably longer than she should have for the decision.
29. In addition, the Council did not provide information to Miss X on next steps if she disagreed with it. This is fault. This is not in line with its policy and denied her right to ask for a review of the decision.
30. In response to a recommendation from an earlier separate complaint to us in 2024, the Council shared it had amended its letter template notifying applicants of decisions about their application. This included a paragraph about how to request a review. But I note it did not use this in Miss X’s outcome letter in 2025. I have made a recommendation to strengthen this going forward.

Back to top

Action

31. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions:
32. Within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused by the fault identified (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology) and pay Miss X a symbolic payment of £150 to recognise the distress and frustration with the delays experienced.
33. It should also:
• Write to Miss X within a month and offer to carry out a review of the medical assessment decision it made and invite her to provide further evidence if she wishes. If Miss X pursues this, it should make and communicate its decision to her in writing and within eight weeks.
34. Within three months of the final decision:
• The Council should provide us with information about the number of medical assessments which are currently outstanding and the average waiting time for a decision since April 2024;
• It should draw up an action plan, with targets and steps to reduce and clear the backlog of medical assessments. It should send this action plan to us; and
• It should send written reminders to relevant staff to ensure that when making an initial decision on an applicant’s housing application, they use the relevant letter template including the paragraph about how to request a review.
35. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

36. I find fault causing injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman