Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council’s delay in making a decision about whether to award medical priority on its housing register for Mr Y and whether he needed an extra bedroom for a carer. The Council has agreed to make a payment to remedy the frustration and uncertainty caused. We will not investigate the complaint about the decision reached because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify this and Mr Y had a review right, which it was reasonable for him to use.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of Mr Y’s request for medical priority on its housing register. She also complained the Council had not met Mr Y’s overnight care needs because he will only accept care from relatives and it has not agreed rehousing so she can live with him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X said she told the Council’s adult social care team in June 2022 that Mr Y needed overnight care. In April 2023 the Council’s housing team became involved as she said Mr Y needed rehousing, so he had an extra bedroom to enable her to live with him to meet his overnight care needs.
9. Ms X complained to us in January 2025.
10. We would not usually investigate complaints about events more than 12 months before the complaint to us unless there are good reasons to do so. I have decided to consider the period from November 2023 when the Council appointed an occupational therapist to carry out an assessment of Mr X’s housing needs with a view to considering the request for rehousing. There is no indication the Council accepted Mr Y had overnight care needs or any housing needs prior to that and therefore there is unlikely to be any significant injustice due to any delay by the Council between June 2022 and October 2023 that would justify detailed investigation.

What happened

11. An occupational therapist (OT) was allocated to consider Mr Y’s housing needs in November 2023. The OT decided an assessment of Mr Y’s adult social care (ASC) needs was needed to inform their housing needs assessment. Following home visits in January, February and April 2024, the ASC needs assessment was completed in June 2024. The assessment did not identify Mr Y had any overnight care needs.
12. Having considered the ASC assessment, other Council records and Ms X’s views, the OT finalised the housing needs assessment in July 2024. The report said Mr X’s current housing met his needs and set out the reasons for deciding there were no overnight care needs that required an extra bedroom for a carer. The report said Mr Y’s needs were likely to increase, which meant he may need his own room in future, but in the short-term there was space in his room for Ms X to have a separate bed to ease the travelling burden for her, although it noted the reasons Ms X did not think that would work for her.
13. In August 2024, Mr Y had a heart attack. The Council contacted Ms X to offer a review of his care and support needs, in case they had increased, but Ms X declined this.
14. In early September, Ms X made a formal complaint. She said Mr Y’s overnight care needs were not being met and she had not had a decision from the Council about rehousing. The Council arrange a comprehensive review of Mr Y’s care needs. The social worker did not identify any overnight care needs and said no changes were needed to Mr Y’s care and support plan.
15. Later in September 2024, having considered the OT’s housing needs report, the Council decided Mr Y did not meet the threshold for medical priority and did not qualify for an extra bedroom for a carer. Its decision explained its reasons in detail, including that Mr Y:
• was not housebound and could access his current property;
• had access to a toilet and adapted shower;
• had his own bedroom; and
• was safe in his property.
16. The decision letter explained Mr Y could ask for a review of the decision if he disagreed with it. The Council said it did not receive a review request.
17. Ms X made a further complaint in mid-October. She told us the Council did not respond. In that complaint she said she was unhappy with the OT housing needs assessment, which she said was inaccurate, and asked the Council to carry out a fresh assessment.
18. The Council responded to various aspects raised in emails during October and sent a stage 1 complaint response in November 2024. It explained the OT report was delayed as the OT needed to work in collaboration with the social worker completing the ASC needs assessment. It accepted a lack of communication with Ms X, for which it apologised. Its response said Ms X could ask it to consider the complaint further at stage 2 of the complaints process if she was unhappy with the outcome, but it told us it did not receive a request to do so.
19. In its response to our enquiries, the Council accepted a delay in completing the review started in September 2024 as it was not signed off by a manager and issued to the family. Given the delay, it arranged a fresh review visit in April 2025, but this still did not identify overnight care needs for Mr Y.

My assessment

20. Ms X complained the Council failed to meet Mr Y’s overnight care needs. The social worker reviewing his care needs in June and September 2024 did not identify overnight care needs. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the assessments were carried out to justify us investigating this complaint further.
21. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision is correct. Unless there was 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.
22. The Council considered all the information provided to support the request for medical priority and an extra bedroom, including the care and support assessment, the OT’s housing needs assessment, and its allocations scheme. It explained its reasons for deciding the criteria were not met. There is insufficient fault in its decision making to justify further investigation. In any case, Mr Y had the right to ask for a review of the decision if he disagreed with it and it was reasonable for him to exercise that right.
23. That said, if we investigated further, even taking into account the need for various assessments, it is likely we would find fault with the Council for its delay in making a decision about medical priority and an extra bedroom. Although Mr Y’s housing register application remained unchanged, the delay caused frustration and uncertainty for Ms X and Mr Y, and Ms X was put to some avoidable time and trouble pursuing the Council for a decision, which is an injustice to them.
24. We asked the Council to remedy the injustice caused and it has agreed to pay Ms X £100 and Mr Y £150 as a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused within one month of the date of this decision.
25. Since we are satisfied the Council is taking appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused, we will not investigate further.

Back to top

Final decision

26. The Council has agreed to make an appropriate payment to Ms X and Mr Y to remedy the injustice caused by its delay in making a decision about whether he qualified for medical priority on its housing register and an extra bedroom for a carer. We will not investigate the complaint about the decision itself as there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process and Mr Y had a review right, which it was reasonable for him to exercise.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman