Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application and its delay in assessing her application for medical priority. She also complained of poor communication and complaint handling. The Council is at fault for delay in handling of Ms X’s housing application and not processing her medical evidence. It is also at fault for poor communication, complaint handling, and record keeping. This caused Ms X avoidable uncertainty and frustration, and she has spent significant spent time and trouble trying to resolve the situation. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, make a symbolic payment and carry out service improvements. It has also agreed to backdate her application for medical priority.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council has not correctly processed her housing application, which she initially submitted in December 2023. She also says the Council is yet to assess her application for medical priority, despite having provided the required evidence in January 2024.
2. Ms X believes she should be in a higher priority band and that the Council’s mishandling of her application has potentially affected her chances of securing a property that suits her son’s medical needs. She also complains of poor communication from the Council and has spent a lot of time trying to resolve the issue. She says this situation has caused her and her family significant stress, frustration, and uncertainty.

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)
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. 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

8. 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))
9. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

10. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for properties which it advertises.
11. The Council awards eligible applicants priority from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 4 (lowest priority). The Council can also award priority stars within a band to recognise medical or welfare needs, which will increase priority within each band together with the priority award date. The Council awards additional priority stars for community contribution, such as being a working household or volunteering in the community.
12. The Council awards Band 3 to eligible applicants where the household has a moderate medical requirement for a move.

What happened

13. This chronology includes an overview of key events and does not detail everything that happened.
14. Ms X currently lives in a two-bedroom property with her husband and children.
15. In December 2023, Ms X sent a housing application to the Council. She said she wanted another bedroom because of her son’s health needs.
16. At the beginning of January 2024, Ms X uploaded medical documents to support her application via the housing application portal. This evidence included a health visitor letter, a letter from her son’s school, a GP letter, and a list of her son’s medication. She also uploaded evidence to support her application for additional priority stars, which are awarded to working households and those who volunteer in the community.
17. Ms X says she received a message on the portal after she uploaded the documents advising that the Council would process applications within 28 days.
18. Ms X contacted the Council twice in February, once the 28 days had passed, to request an update on her application.
19. In late February, Ms X had still not received a response, so she submitted a stage one complaint to the Council.
20. On 19 March, the Council issued its stage one response to Ms X’s complaint. The response from the housing applications team said:

• It had now processed her application.
• There was a delay in processing her application because of a case backlog. It apologised for this.
• Although it had processed her application, it was still not active as she had not provided the medical evidence it needed to refer her application to a medical assessor to consider her medical priority.

21. The Council sent a letter to Ms X via email advising her to provide the supporting medical evidence. She reuploaded the medical evidence and responded to the housing officer to tell them she had already uploaded the documents in January. She provided screenshots that showed she had uploaded documents, along with the application reference number she received at the time of the upload.
22. Ms X did not receive a response from the Council, or any confirmation it had received her documents. She emailed the Council again at the beginning of April asking it to confirm receipt of her evidence, and to request an update on the status of her application.
23. Ms X did not receive a response from the Council, so she followed up on 15 April and again on 25 April. However, she still did not receive any reply or update from the housing applications team.
24. In June, Ms X submitted a stage two complaint to the Council for the delay in processing her application and poor communication. She also complained that although her application had now been processed, it had not awarded her medical priority or additional priority stars for community contribution and being a working household.
25. The Council formally acknowledged Ms X’s stage two complaint in July and told her it would issue a complaint response by August.
26. Ms X did not receive a complaint response so contacted the Council again for an update.
27. On 11 September, the Council sent Ms X a letter advising her to upload medical evidence to support her application for medical priority.
28. Ms X resubmitted her medical evidence three days later. She advised the Council this was the second time she had uploaded the medical evidence. Ms X also uploaded an additional letter from her son’s GP.
29. On 17 September, the Council issued its stage two complaint response. It:

• Advised Ms X it had located some of her documents and said her application was now active for bidding.
• Told Ms X it had awarded band 4 priority.
• Said it had still not received any medical evidence from Ms X and advised her to upload this so it could make a referral to its medical examiner.
• Said it had not seen evidence to suggest Ms X’s application was eligible for any additional priority stars.
• Acknowledged the delay in processing her application and said this was due to an increased volume of social housing applications.
• Offered her £200 to reflect its delay in processing her application.

30. Ms X contacted the investigating officer following the stage two response and reiterated she had already uploaded the evidence for her medical priority and community contribution priority (volunteering and working household). The officer:

• Confirmed they had seen the documents related to her volunteering on file but noted these had not been processed.
• Said they could not find enough evidence on her file to make a decision about her working household priority but acknowledged a possible issue with document upload.
• Said they had raised these issues with service managers.

31. Ms X received no further updates from the Council about her application, so complained to the Ombudsman in February 2025.
32. In July 2025, the Council located and processed Ms X’s medical evidence and awarded her medical priority. It has now awarded her band 3 priority, and acknowledged she has a moderate need to move based on her son’s health needs. It has backdated the application to September 2024, when it says it found her medical evidence.

Back to top

Analysis

Delay

33. Ms X initially submitted her housing application in December 2023 and uploaded her supporting medical evidence in January 2024. The Council processed her application in March, but did not assess her medical evidence and award her medical priority until July 2025. We typically expect councils to process applications for medical priority awards without unnecessary delay. The Council took approximately 18 months from the time Ms X first submitted her son’s medical evidence to refer it to a medical assessor for review. This is a significant delay and is fault. I have outlined a remedy and a service improvement to address this below.
34. The Council has backdated Ms X’s medical priority award to September 2024, stating this is when it found her medical evidence on file. However, Ms X says by September, she had uploaded this evidence three times. It is not clear why the Council failed to process or locate the earlier document uploads. It is also unclear why the Council has not processed her documents to support her priority stars for community contribution, even though it confirmed some were on her file.
35. Although I cannot verify what exact documents Ms X uploaded in January and March 2024, I have seen emails in which she told the Council she had already provided her medical evidence on those earlier dates. I have also seen screenshots that show Ms X reuploaded evidence on those dates. It is very unlikely that Ms X would have submitted a complaint in February had she not submitted her documents. On the balance of probabilities, it is therefore likely Ms X did initially upload her evidence in January 2024. It would therefore be reasonable for the Council to backdate her application and medical priority to January 2024. I have addressed this in paragraph 37.

Poor communication and complaint handling

36. Outside its complaint’s procedure, the Council did not respond to Ms X’s enquiries about the progress of her application. Each time the Council wrote to Ms X to ask her to upload her medical evidence, she immediately reuploaded the evidence and sought confirmation of receipt from the Council, but did not receive a response. This shows poor communication by the Council, which is fault. I have recommended a service improvement to address this below.
37. The Council accepts it also did not tell Ms X that her application was active for bidding until September 2024 in its stage two complaint response. Her application became active for bidding once it was processed in March, so it took six months for the Council to inform Ms X. This is fault, even if it is unlikely that Ms X would have placed a bid, since the properties she would have been eligible to bid on at the time would not have been suitable.
38. The Council failed to contact Ms X about her application after she spoke to the stage two investigator, and service managers were made aware that some of the documents on file had not been processed. At the time, it was clear the documents she had uploaded to support her application for a priority star for volunteering were on her account but had not been considered. Although Ms X stated that her evidence for medical and working household priority had also been uploaded, the Council made no effort to locate the files or follow up with her if it could not do so. This reflects poor communication and inadequate record keeping by the Council. I have recommended a service improvement to address this below.
39. The Council has accepted its delay in handling Ms X’s complaint. Instead of responding within the 20 working days specified in its complaint’s procedure, it took three months to issue a response. In recognition of the complaint handling delay and for Ms X’s time and trouble pursuing an application outcome, the Council offered and paid Ms X £200. I do not consider this amount proportionate to the delays Ms X experienced, but have taken this payment into account when considering the remedy I have outlined below.

Injustice

40. Had the Council assessed Ms X’s medical priority sooner, she would have been able to begin bidding for suitable properties at an earlier stage. However, given that the average waiting time for a three-bedroom Council home in the Council’s area is five years, I do not believe that the delay in processing her application and conducting her medical assessment has resulted in her missing out on an offer of accommodation.
41. The Council’s faults outlined above have, however, caused Ms X avoidable frustration, stress and inconvenience. She has also spent significant time and trouble contacting the Council since early 2024 to try and resolve the situation. I have recommended remedies to reflect this injustice below.
42. We identified similar failings by this Council in a decision we issued in December 2024. The Council has since explained the steps it is taking to resolve the delays in processing housing applications. It has also set out the changes it is making to its medical assessment processes. Because the Council is already taking suitable steps, I have not repeated those service improvement recommendations. We will continue to monitor the Council’s progress through our casework.

Back to top

Action

43. Within one month the Council should:
1. Apologise to Ms X for the injustice caused by the Council’s faults.
2. Backdate Ms X’s application with medical priority to January 2024, when she first uploaded her medical evidence.
3. Consider the evidence Ms X uploaded to support her application for priority stars for community contribution and being a member of a working household, and, if it decides she is eligible, backdate the priority award to January 2024.
4. Pay Ms X £100 to reflect the uncertainty and frustration caused by the Council’s delay in processing her application and medical evidence. This is in addition to the £200 it has already paid for the delay in processing her application.
5. Issue written reminders to reviewing officers to ensure they complete a thorough check of which documents an applicant has already provided for their housing application and remind them not to base their decisions on only the most recently submitted documents.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

45. I have now completed my investigation. I find fault causing injustice for which I recommend a remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman