Summary: Miss X complains the Council delayed acting on and failed to properly consider her mother’s application for housing in Sheffield. She also complained the Council did not explain its decision properly. We found no fault in the way the Council processed or reached its decisions on her mother’s application. However, there was some fault in its explanation of the housing policy, for which we recommended an apology.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to properly consider her mother’s application for housing in Sheffield. She complains there was unreasonable delay in making a decision and the Council failed to consider the evidence she submitted on her mother’s behalf, did not give her mother sufficient medical priority to recognise her circumstances and did not communicate its decisions properly
2. Miss X complains that the Council’s actions placed her mother’s health in jeopardy and affected her ability to work.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 Miss X and the Council 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 the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Sheffield Council Housing Allocation Policy

7. The Council’s housing allocations policy explains how it decides what priority someone should have for re-housing in Sheffield. It is an open Housing Register. This means that any households who are eligible and qualifying can join the register regardless of the level of their housing need.
8. The Housing Register consists of 5 bands. Bands A-C are priority bands, Band D is general needs, and Band E is reduced preference.
9. Band A is awarded to applicants with the most critical housing need. The policy sets out examples which include accommodation which would be unfit for someone to return to on discharge from hospital or risk to life and limb caused by an emergency or critical safeguarding concern.
10. Band B is awarded to applicants with urgent housing needs. It sets out examples of what are likely to be considered ‘urgent needs’. These include care leavers, people with significant health concerns requiring extensive disabled facilities or where someone cannot get in or out or use its facilities without considerable difficulty. This priority would only be awarded if the person’s housing is making health conditions worse.
11. Band C may be awarded for someone whose circumstances warrant some extra consideration but their need to move is not as great as the circumstances set out for Band A or B. Section 4.16 of the housing allocation policy sets out the criteria for Welfare/Support Priority under Band C priority. This says priority will be given to people who need to move to a particular area in Sheffield where a failure to move would cause hardship to the applicant or other people. It sets out scenarios where this may apply. These include a need to move to the area ‘to be nearer to family or friends in order to give or receive a significant level of practical and/or emotional support to meet a physical or mental health need. There must be evidence that a high level of support is needed and that without that support, you or the person you are supporting, would have significant problems in your daily lives.’
12. Band D is for applicants with general needs, and no additional priority. Band E is for those with no local connection.

What Happened

13. Miss X’s mother (Ms Y) lives in another town near Sheffield. Miss X told us Ms Y had various health conditions and needed regular support from her. This was difficult as she has to use public transport and needed to travel some distance to her mother’s current home. She stated she could support her mother better if she lived nearby, in Sheffield.

The acceptance of the initial housing application

14. In late 2023 Ms Y applied to join Sheffield Council’s housing register. The Council explained that this application was cancelled when the necessary identity documents were not provided. A further application was made in March 2024 and the correct documents were not provided. Multiple documents were uploaded but key documents were missing. In July all the relevant documents were received, and the Council could process the application.

The Council’s decision on the application

15. I understand the Council spoke to Miss X about the application on 7 July and again on 13 September.
16. On 17 September the Council wrote to Ms Y to explain its decision on her application. It explained, based on her circumstances and the information provided, she had not been awarded Welfare/Support priority. The Council stated an officer had discussed Ms Y’s circumstances with Miss X and it understood she had difficulties with her mobility and eyesight. The Council noted Ms Y could do her own self-care and manage her medication, but she received help from Miss X twice per week to do online food orders and attend medical appointments. Ms Y had no formal care and support.
17. The Council sympathised with Ms Y’s situation and noted time it took for her family to visit and provide support. It acknowledged this was valuable and that a move would be beneficial. However, it determined that Ms Y had not evidenced that she met the hardship and support criteria set out for Welfare/Support Priority which would place her in Band C. The Council stated it had not identified an urgent and essential need to move to Sheffield, so her housing application would be placed in Band D, general needs.
18. In October, in response to a complaint from Miss X, the Council spoke with her partner to further understand Ms Y’s circumstances. The Council’s response noted what he told them. The Council stated section 4.16 of its allocations policy stipulated that the highest priority that someone moving to its area could receive would be Band C. To gain Band C, the criteria was that someone had a high level of support needs. Ms Y had provided evidence she had medical conditions but there was no evidence to show the level of support required. An officer suggested that if any formal care needs assessment report existed, this may help identify the level of her needs. She also suggested an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment would be beneficial as it may indicate support she could obtain from her current council and it could be submitted to Sheffield to consider her housing priority further.
19. Miss X was dissatisfied with comments made by a Councillor and she remained unhappy with the consideration of Ms Y’s application. She also commented on the quality of the letter explaining the Council’s decision. So, she complained further.
20. In response, the Council apologised for the Councillor’s comments, which were not intended to cause upset. It also responded to specific points Miss X made about why Ms Y should be given Band A, B or C priority. Its response described the points Miss X made, and responded to them explaining why it found that Ms Y did not meet the criteria in each band.
21. The Council suggested Miss X could speak to Ms Y’s local council so they could consider adaptations or rehousing if appropriate. It explained that as Ms Y did not meet the criteria it could not grant higher priority than Band D.
22. On 11 February the Council arranged for a social care officer and Occupational Therapy Manager to visit Ms Y at home to ensure the Council fully understood her circumstances.
23. At the end of February the Council wrote to explain its view again. It noted since Miss X’s original complaint, Ms Y’s council had moved her to a ground floor property so that she no longer needed to use the stairs. It explained its observations from the February visit. It noted Ms Y still had need of support in some areas. With Ms Y’s permission the council officers who visited her made a referral to her local council for them to consider what support they could provide. However, from their observations the officers found Ms Y’s property was suitable for her needs and she did not need a significant level of support to manage her day-to-day activities. The Council’s letter explained that it had not changed its view and it could not give additional medical priority for housing in Sheffield.
24. In March 2025 the Council provided a response to a request to review Ms Y’s application for additional support priority. This letter explained the medical information it had considered but it reaffirmed its decision that Ms Y did not meet the criteria for Band C. Ms Y remained in Band D as a result. The Council did apply a ‘medical acknowledgement’ to her case. Ms Y remained in Band D, but this allowed her see a wider selection of ground floor properties on the website which are not otherwise seen by people without the medical acknowledgement option ticked. It means the person concerned could bid on these ground floor properties, but it did not give them any additional priority to win them.
25. In April the Council sent its final response. It noted the outcome of the visit and confirmed its Band D decision remained the same. The Council apologised for some factual inaccuracies on the social care record which it confirmed it would update. These did not alter its decision making.
26. Miss X disagreed with the Council’s position on her mother’s needs, so she brought a complaint to the Ombudsman.

What should have happened

27. There was no fault by the Council that led to the delay of the application. On various occasions documents were uploaded to support Ms Y’s application but not all of the required documents were provided, so the validity of the application could not be established and it could not be processed.
28. When the Council received the documents it required, it processed the application. The Council explained that Ms Y’s application would be placed in Band D – general needs. The crux of the complaint is whether the Council properly considered Ms Y’s circumstances when deciding she did not qualify for medical priority.
29. At the outset, in September the Council explained its position that it had not seen evidence of a high level of support needs that met the policy criteria for Band C priority. It did not ignore that Ms Y had medical conditions and noted that she benefitted from support from Miss X, but the policy criteria required evidence that someone needed a high level of support, without which they would have significant problems in their daily lives. It judged that this level of need for support was not currently present.
30. The Council’s further complaint response in December 2024 explained the information it had taken account of. The Council empathised with Miss X and her mother’s situation but it reiterated its view that Ms Y was not in need of significant care and support and Ms Y remained in Band D. It explained, based on the evidence it had seen why it took this view and it responded specifically to explain why it disagreed with points Miss X had made that Ms Y met criteria in Bands A and B and C.
31. It is of credit to the Council that, in February 2025 officers visited Ms Y at home to ensure it thoroughly understood her needs. This is not routinely an action it would take when considering a housing priority application. The Council explained its position following the visit and again in March 2025. I note the Council remained of the view that Ms Y did not meet the criteria for Band C priority. It did make a change to note Ms Y had a disability. This did not change her priority for housing but allowed Ms Y to place bids for more ground floor accommodation.
32. Ultimately, councils need to reach a decision about the level of someone’s support needs and whether they meet the criteria in its housing policy. 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 an organisation 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 organisation made or a position it has taken. I found there was no fault in the way the Council reached its decisions in Ms Y’s case.
33. However, I found that as part of the Council’s initial response in September 2024, the Council’s explanation of its policy was flawed. It told Miss X that its allocations policy stipulated that only Sheffield residents could be granted Band A or B priority. So, the highest she could be given was Band C. This was plainly wrong. All bands were available to all applicants if they met the criteria. This caused a degree of confusion and doubt for Miss X about the council’s decisions in Ms Y’s case.
34. While this was fault by the Council, it went on to explain its decisions, and to set out why it concluded Ms Y did not meet the Band A, B or C criteria for additional welfare/support priority in December. I do not consider the flawed description used in the September letter places the council’s actual decisions in doubt.
35. I note that Ms Y remained in Band D, but since the events of the complaint she has been able to place a successful bid for housing for a move to Sheffield.
36. To recognise the inaccurate complaint response caused confusion and frustration for Miss X and Ms Y I have recommended the Council apologises to them. Although their situation was difficult, I do not consider there was fault in the Council’s decision making which caused injustice to them.

Back to top

Action

37. Within four weeks of my final decision:
38. The Council should apologise to Miss X and Ms Y for the confusion and frustration caused by the flawed description of its Band C criteria in its letter from September 2024. The apology should adhere to our guidance on making effective apologies. This can be found on our website, within our Guidance on Remedy here.
39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

40. I find fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman