Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing register application. We will not investigate further because the Council has agreed to take appropriate steps to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision not to award medical priority on its housing register, despite her son having serious medical conditions that are adversely affected by damp and mould in the property. She also said she and her son struggle with the stairs, the doors to the balcony pose a safety risk and the property is overcrowded.
2. She said Council failings meant she and her children continued to live in unsuitable accommodation that was adversely affecting their health.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
4. We can 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. Ms X, who lives in a one bedroom flat with her children, requested medical priority in August 2024. The Council asked an independent medical adviser (IMA) to consider the medical evidence and give a view on whether Ms X met the criteria for medical priority. The IMA said there was no medical evidence to show the family needed a property without stairs, that locks should be installed to improve safety, and the damp and mould should be addressed. The Council issued a decision, which said no medical priority applied and quoted the IMA advice.
8. Ms X asked for a review. She also provided further evidence, which the Council asked the IMA to consider. The IMA said the damp and mould she reported should be addressed and that, if it could not be treated, the case should be reconsidered. They also said issues with lift breakdowns should be addressed. The Council again decided no medical priority applied in November 2024.
9. Ms X asked for a review of that decision. The Council said there was a delay in carrying out a review because it was waiting for feedback from Miss X’s landlord about minor works to address the damp and mould. It sought further advice from the IMA in November 2024 and in January 2025. The IMA noted serious concerns had been raised about the impact of damp. They suggested this was addressed urgently and that, if the damp could not be treated, the application should be resubmitted for further consideration. The Council issued a further decision refusing to award medical priority in early February 2025.
10. Ms X again asked for a review and also made a formal complaint. She said the Council was simply accepting the IMA’s view, which was not appropriate. She also said the Council had not properly considered the issues she had raised and explained why these did not merit medical priority.
11. The Council responded in February 2025. It confirmed the IMA had considered all the evidence Ms X had provided and said:
• as previously advised, it first needed to consider whether work could be done to the property to address the damp and mould reported. It had been in regular communication with the landlord about this. The landlord reported damp in the bedroom and said it would replace the door to improve air circulation but there had been some difficulty in agreeing a time to carry out the work;
• an inspection had been carried out in early February 2025 during which damp readings were taken and the only area with a positive reading was in one bedroom to the side of the window;
• whilst no medical priority was being awarded for damp at this time, an inspection would be carried out a few months after the work had been done to check whether conditions had improved;
• Ms X was short of two bedrooms and band C+ had been awarded for overcrowding, which was appropriate;
• it had asked for a lift breakdown report from the landlord, which was provided in October 2024. This recorded 8 callouts in the previous 12 months, but the lift was found to be operational on 7 of those occasions.

My assessment

12. We are not an appeal body. Unless we find fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The law says councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme.
13. The Council and the IMA has considered the evidence provided at each stage and at each decision point listed the evidence considered. It also considered an inspection report and a lift breakdown report. It was entitled to say that it was appropriate to install window locks and carry out works to address the damp reported to see if that would resolve the problem. There was a delay in carrying out the review between November 2024 and February 2025, which was due to a delay in those works being carried out but this did not cause a significant injustice because the priority was unchanged.
14. Although the Council is entitled to seek advice from an IMA, it is for the Council to make the decision about the priority to be awarded, in line with its published scheme. We would expect the Council to provide sufficient reasons in an initial decision to enable the applicant to ask for a review, but we would expect a review decision to provide more detailed reasons and to address the concerns raised in the review request.
15. If we investigated further, it is likely we would find the Council at fault for not providing sufficient reasons for its decisions prior to the response on 21 February 2025, including responding to the concerns Ms X had raised in review requests, and thereby giving the impression it simply relied on the IMA to make the decision. Although this is unlikely to have affected the decision reached in this case, it caused Ms X some uncertainty about whether the Council had properly considered the matter, which meant she was put to avoidable time and trouble pursuing the matter and this is an injustice to her.
16. We therefore asked the Council to take specific steps to remedy the injustice caused and prevent recurrence of the issue for others. It has agreed to take the following action within one month of the date of this decision:
• apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice; and
• remind relevant staff that it is for the Council to make decisions about the priority to be awarded and not its independent medical advisor, and to remind them of the importance of providing proper reasons for its decisions, particularly when the applicant has asked for a review of a decision.
17. The payment, which is in line with our guidance on remedies, reflects that Ms X would have wanted to provide some additional medical evidence in any event.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We have upheld the complaint but will not investigate further because the Council has agreed to take appropriate action to remedy the injustice and prevent recurrence of the issues that arose in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman