Summary: Ms X complained that the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with her housing register application and awarded her medical priority banding causing distress and uncertainty. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered awarding Ms X medical banding. But it delayed carrying out a review of the medical assessment causing distress and uncertainty to Ms X, so we have recommended a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has wrongly assessed her medical needs and those of her eldest daughter. And the Council delayed in responding to her initial complaint.
2. Ms X says this has caused distress to her and her family and wants the Council to offer her suitable permanent housing with three bedrooms or a higher priority banding. Ms X says the Council’s actions have impacted onto her youngest daughter as she shares a bedroom with her older sister who has been diagnosed with ASD causing sleep problems. Ms X says her older daughter needs her own bedroom, and this has been supported by medical professionals.

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. 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 Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms X and the Council 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))

The Council’s housing allocations policy

8. In 2024 the Council housing allocations policy had four housing bands with Band A being the highest priority and Band D the lowest. The applicants allocated band B includes homeless applicants owed a full housing duty.
9. The Council assessed the size of home each applicant requires, according to their household size and composition and any other social considerations. This is the allowed property size.

Council’s medical priority bands

10. Applicants can also apply to move on medical or welfare grounds. When the Council receives a request for a medical assessment of an applicant’s needs it sends it to the Housing Medical Advisor (HMA) to assess. The Council will consider the HMA’s response and allocate any medical priority as a result. This can be in the following bands:
• Band A- Emergency medical need. This will be life threatening illness or disability. And the housing circumstances are affecting their health very severely.
• Band B- Urgent medical need. This will be a serious illness or disability, and the present living conditions are affecting their health to a marked degree and a move is recommended to improve the health of the individual.
• Band C- less urgent medical need. This will be an illness or disability of a moderate nature which is affected adversely by their living conditions and a move is recommended to improve the health of the individual.
• Band D no medical need. This will be an illness or disability where rehousing might improve the quality of life of a person but where the living conditions are not considered significantly detrimental to their health or functional ability.
11. Applicants have a right to request a review of a decision taken on their allocated banding.
12. The Council comments its housing allocations policy has now changed, and it no longer has a Band D.

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 in this case

14. What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not include all the information I have reviewed during my investigation.
15. The Council accepted a homeless duty towards Ms X in 2014. It has provided her with temporary accommodation since that date and allocated her Band C1 priority for her housing register application. In May 2023 the Council offered Ms X a two bedroomed ground floor flat which she moved into. Ms X has two children with the older child being diagnosed with ASD. The Council reclassified all its homeless cases in 2024 and allocated Ms X Band B housing priority as a result.
16. In 2024 Ms X complained the Council had failed to properly consider her daughter’s medical needs.
17. The Council carried out a medical assessment for Ms X and her daughter. It noted Ms X’s medical conditions, her daughter’s ASD, possible diagnosis of ADHD and the property they lived in was overcrowded. Ms X had also provided letters of support from medical and educational professionals. The Council allocated both Ms X and her daughter medical priority Band C less urgent medical need.
18. In May 2024 Ms X’s solicitors requested a review of the medical assessment. The solicitors noted Ms X had not been given a higher band despite the medical information recently provided. Ms X’s solicitors said Ms X had been in temporary accommodation since 2014, had to move frequently which exacerbated her daughter’s challenging behaviour and she needed her own bedroom.
19. Ms X’s solicitors contacted the Council again in June and August 2024 chasing a response to the review and sending new medical evidence about Ms X’s daughter and needs.
20. The Council responded to the review request in September 2024. It apologised for the delay in responding and confirmed the information taken into account including Ms X’s medical forms and information about her daughter. The review noted Ms X and her daughter had been awarded Band C less urgent medical need as their medical priority. The review did not consider any evidence to indicate the adverse effect of Ms X’s current accommodation and so upheld the band they had been awarded. It did not consider a third bedroom (so a room for each child) was medically necessary and they could share a bedroom.
21. Ms X remained unhappy with the outcome, time taken to deal with her complaint and in September 2024 escalated her complaint to Stage 2 of the Council’s complaint procedure.
22. The Council responded in October 2024 and apologised for her dissatisfaction with a Council service. It noted the delay in carrying out the review of the medical assessment. But did not consider it had disadvantaged her in any way or impacted on her ability to bid for properties as the outcome remained the same as the original assessment in April 2024.

My assessment

23. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. I do not consider there has been fault in this case.
24. This is because the documents provided show the Council assessed Ms X’s application for medical priority according to its Allocations Policy in place at the time and medical assessments. Ms X was able to apply for medical priority and submit supporting information. Ms X was also able to ask for a review of the decision. The Council sent Ms X’s application to the HMA to assess and based on the outcome awarded Ms X medical priority according to its banding scheme.
25. The Council’s assessment of Ms X’s medical banding has been supported by an officer on review. This included the additional information Ms X provided about her daughter’s health. I am aware Ms X does not agree but the decision to award medical priority Band C is a decision the Council is entitled to make. As there is no evidence of fault there are no grounds for us to question the merits of the Council’s decision.
26. However, the Council’s review of Ms X’s medical assessment took from May to September 2024. The Council should have completed the assessment review within the eight weeks set by statutory guidance (by the end of July 2024). The Council did not complete the review until September 2024, which is fault, causing distress and uncertainty for Ms X.

Back to top

Action

27. The Council should therefore remedying the injustice caused to Ms X by taking the following actions within one month of the date of my final decision
• Apologise to Miss X for the delay in line with our 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 I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Ms X £100 for the distress and uncertainty caused.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

29. I find fault causing injustice to Ms X. I have recommended actions by the Council to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman