Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to consider her medical issues properly when awarding priority on the housing register and delayed considering her stage two review. The Council failed to properly consider Miss B’s circumstances and evidence when making a decision on medical priority and delayed carrying out the reviews. That means Miss B is left with some frustration and distress that the Council has not assessed her application properly and is left with some uncertainty. An apology and payment to Miss B, agreement to carry out a further review and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss B, complained the Council:
• failed to take into account her medical issues when awarding priority on its housing register; and
• delayed considering her request for a stage two review.
2. Miss B says the Council’s actions mean she has experienced significant distress, a deterioration in her and her son’s health and loss of normal family life.

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 an injustice, 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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Miss B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
6. Miss B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s housing allocation scheme 2018

7. The Council has a points based allocation scheme which gives points according to housing needs and any additional needs the applicant or other members of their household have.
8. Applications for medical priority are assessed by the Council’s medical assessment officer (or other authorised medical professional) to determine eligibility for health and housing related points.
9. To be assessed as eligible for housing and health related needs points, an applicant must demonstrate:
• their medical condition is being caused or made worse by their housing conditions, and
• the current property cannot be improved or adapted to meet needs at a reasonable cost, and
• rehousing is likely to significantly improve the applicant’s condition.
10. Housing and health related points are awarded for each person in the household who meets the thresholds in their medical assessment.
11. An applicant will be eligible for 500 points if their medical condition and housing circumstances are having a serious impact on their health and wellbeing and they are in urgent need of rehousing.
12. An applicant will be eligible for 150 points if their medical condition and housing circumstances are having a serious impact on their health and wellbeing and rehousing would be necessary.

What happened

13. Miss B lives in a one-bedroom property with her son. Miss B has various health conditions and her son is autistic. In Miss B’s current accommodation she has 16 steps to access her flat and a further 31 steps within the flat. Miss B says because of her medical conditions she struggles to manage the stairs. Miss B also says the accommodation is impacting on her and her son’s mental health because she has to share a bedroom with her son when a carer stays overnight.
14. Miss B applied to join the Council’s housing register in April 2024 and completed a health and disability questionnaire in June 2024. The Council’s medical adviser considered the questionnaire and did not award any medical points.
15. Miss B asked the Council to review that decision in July 2024. The Council completed the review in October 2024 and confirmed the decision not to award medical points. Miss B asked the Council to complete a second stage review in October 2024. The Council responded to that in March 2025 and again did not award medical points.

Analysis

16. Miss B says the Council failed to properly consider her medical issues when making a decision on her application for medical priority and delayed dealing with her stage two review request.
17. The Council accepts it delayed dealing with Miss B's request for a review of her priority. The Council took three months to respond to the stage one review request and five months to respond to the stage two review request. Those delays are fault.
18. I have some concerns with how the Council considered Miss B's representations about the impact her property is having on her medical conditions and those of her son. First, when the Council initially wrote to Miss B to tell her the outcome of the medical assessment it did not explain the reasons for its decision. That is fault.
19. I am also concerned when the Council carried out the stage one and stage two reviews it did not consider all the representations Miss B made or all the supporting information Miss B provided. In particular, I am concerned there is no evidence the Council considered the following matters when deciding not to award medical priority as the assessment of those matters is not referred to in the Council's decisions:
• difficulty accessing the bathroom on the second floor/deep bath;
• falls and her psoriatic arthritis and osteoarthritis affecting her mobility and ability to use the stairs;
• the impact of her health difficulties on her son's mental health and autism traits, particularly as she has fallen repeatedly;
• the impact on her son's mental health/anxiety/autism traits from having no space to calm down and having to share a room, which were supported by a letter from the school;
• the impact on her health conditions of not getting enough rest because of her son's sleeping difficulties when they have to share a room;
• officer observations of her mobility.
20. For the impact on Miss B's son, I recognise the Council has awarded 50 points to reflect overcrowding as the household lacks one-bedroom. However, Miss B also provided evidence of the impact on her son's mental health and anxiety because of living in a property which is too small and having to share a bedroom when a carer has to stay. I would therefore have expected the Council to consider whether medical priority should be awarded on those grounds and I have seen no evidence it did so. Failure to do that is fault, as is failure to consider the other points listed above when deciding whether to award medical priority.
21. Miss B raised concerns about the Council relying on incorrect information when reviewing her case and about it applying an unreasonably high bar. The Council accepts when responding to her stage one review request it recorded the number of steps in the property incorrectly. The Council also referred in the stage two response to medication Miss B does not take. While that is fault, I do not consider it likely those issues affected the outcome of the Council's assessment. That is because I am satisfied the stage two review corrected the number of steps and there is no evidence the medication Miss B was taking influenced the Council's decision.
22. For the unreasonably high bar, Miss B is referring to comments in the decision letter following the second stage review. In that letter the Council referred to Miss B not having a condition that 'completely precludes' the use of stairs at her own pace. I understand Miss B's concern given the Council refers to whether her conditions completely preclude her from using stairs. As Miss B has pointed out, that is not a requirement for the Council to award medical priority.
23. I consider it likely the Council was referring to its view Miss B could use some stairs at her own pace. However, the implication is Miss B can use the 31 stairs at her own pace and I cannot see how the Council has established that. Miss B has said her psoriatic arthritis and osteoarthritis prevents her safely accessing the stairs and said she could only manage five stairs. Miss B also provided evidence from the youth early help case manager who said she had observed Miss B's difficulties getting around her home and, in particular, up and down stairs. That officer noted this had contributed to Miss B withdrawing and isolating. Miss B had also raised concerns about the safety of her using the stairs given there is only a handrail present for part of them. I have seen no evidence the Council considered those points when deciding not to award medical priority. That is fault.
24. it is not my role though to say whether the Council should have awarded medical priority. That is a matter for the Council to decide. As I am not satisfied the Council properly considered the evidence Miss B provided though I recommended the Council apologise, pay Miss B £150 and arrange a further review. The Council has agreed to my recommendations. The Council will also ask Miss B to provide any updated medical information she wants it to take into account. I further recommended the Council remind officers dealing with housing reviews of the need to ensure they give proper scrutiny to supporting evidence and explain the reasons for their decisions. The Council has agreed to that recommendation.

Back to top

Action

25. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Miss B for the distress she experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• pay Miss B £150;
• carry out the stage two review again after asking Miss B whether she has any further evidence she wants the Council to take into account. following that review the Council should write to Miss B to tell her about its decision and to explain its reasoning; and
• send a reminder to officers who deal with housing reviews to ensure they give proper scrutiny to supporting evidence and explain the reasons for their decisions.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman