Summary: The Council was at fault for not following its direct offer process properly in relation to Mr X’s housing register application and for its poor communication and complaint handling. There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Mr X’s request for a higher medical priority on his housing application and in its decision to refuse a further medical assessment. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X to acknowledge the frustration and raised expectations he was caused by its faults.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
1. withdrew direct offers of housing made in 2024 and provided inconsistent reasons for doing so;
2. did not properly consider medical evidence he provided in the stage two review of his housing application in May 2023;
3. refused to carry out a further formal medical reassessment in February 2024;
4. delayed assessing his application for ground floor properties in 2025; and,
5. provided poor in its communication and complaint handling.
2. Mr X said as a result, his mental and physical health deteriorated, and his family’s safety and well-being suffered as well.

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. 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)
5. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. 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)
7. Mr X complained to us about 1b) above in early 2024 under a separate case. We decided that the Council needed to consider his complaint first. Mr X complained to us within 12 months of becoming aware of this matter therefore I have considered his complaint from May 2023.
8. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
9. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint at 1d) above regarding his request for a medical assessment for ground floor properties. This is a new complaint. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Council about this matter first to allow it an opportunity to investigate and respond. Mr X can then register a new complaint with us if he is dissatisfied with the Council’s response.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered evidence he provided.
11. I considered evidence provided by the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law

13. 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))
14. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

Council’s housing allocations scheme

15. The Council has a points-based allocation scheme which gives applicants points according to their housing needs and additional needs they or other members of their household have.
16. The Council’s policy states: To be assessed as eligible for housing and health related needs points, applicants must demonstrate that:

• their medical condition is being caused or made worse by their housing conditions, and
• their current property cannot be improved or adapted to meet their needs at a reasonable cost, and
• rehousing will significantly improve their condition.

17. Applicants will be awarded housing and health related points for each person in their household who meets the thresholds in their medical assessment.
18. Category one: Applicants 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.
19. To be eligible for points due to “urgent” housing and health related needs, applicants need to show they, for example:

• are housebound due to their housing conditions,
• have substantial care needs that meet the Council’s criteria and the care is not provided by adult social care, such as neuro-psychiatric illness,
• require the permanent use of substantial medical equipment at home,
• are a full-time wheelchair user requiring wheelchair adapted housing.

20. Category two: Applicants 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.
21. To be eligible for points due to housing and health related needs which means that it would be desirable for applicants to move, applicants need to show they, for example:

• have a severe and enduring mental illness where a move would substantially improve their wellbeing.
• have significant back or knee problems and have difficulty carrying children or shopping upstairs.
• have bilateral arthritis of the hips and knees and applicants use mobility equipment.
• have schizophrenia or bipolar affective disorder.

22. The Council’s medical assessment officer is responsible for assessing applicants’ housing and health related needs. In some circumstances the Council may use another medical professional in place of the medial assessment officer.
23. After an initial assessment, any further formal medical assessments will only be carried out where applicants have provided evidence of a significant change in their medical condition.

What happened

24. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
25. Mr X lives with his family in a two-bed property. He has mental and physical health conditions and members of his family have health issues.
26. In May 2023 the Council issued a stage two review decision of Mr X’s housing register application and said:

• It received advice from an external medical adviser and also discussed Mr X’s case with the permanent medical adviser, based on which it agreed that Mr X could bid on three bed properties without providing any further evidence.
• It had already agreed that Mr X’s older child had a need to move on medical/disability grounds and therefore awarded 150 medical points. It also awarded a further 150 points because Mr X had a need to move on medical/disability grounds as well. Mr X also had “urgent” priority on account of both violence and disrepair.
• Mr X was not in agreement with the Council’s assessment of his and his child’s health previously. The Council explained that in order to be awarded “full points” for medical priority, it had to consider if Mr X and/or his child had an “urgent” need to move on medical grounds.
• It considered evidence Mr X provided including a self-completed medical assessment form, GP letter and a letter from the traumatic stress clinic. It found no evidence to support that Mr X or his child needed to move “urgently” due to medical reasons as per the criteria outlined in its housing allocations policy.
• There was no evidence that Mr X was housebound.
• There was no evidence which suggested that both Mr X and his child had required ongoing treatment for any respiratory health conditions. Mr X’s older child’s health issues were related to the issue of damp and mould for which Mr X had substantial priority through disrepair points.
• There was no clinical evidence provided regarding the health of other family members.
• Mr X, like other applicants was not disqualified from bidding on ground floor properties but those applicants who could not manage any stairs/were wheelchair users had priority ahead of those who could. There was evidence that Mr X experienced pain but no evidence that he could not manage stairs at all.
• Mr X had 1790 points and there were not many applicants with higher points. The Council said it had been possible for Mr X to move by bidding on two bed properties for some time and it was still possible for him to move by bidding on three bed properties.

27. Mr X provided further medical evidence to the Council. In February 2024 it refused to carry out a further medical assessment. The Council said:

• the medical evidence Mr X provided in relation to this request was considered by an independent medical adviser. It decided the new evidence did not amount to a substantial change in Mr X’s family’s medical conditions since its last review in May 2023 to require a further medical assessment.
• there was no clinical evidence provided regarding Mr X’s other family members and there was no significant change since its previous consideration of his older child’s health.
• Mr X was not bidding on many properties and he was likely to have been successful in securing properties if he had bid on them.

28. In November 2024 Mr X complained to the Council and asked for clarity on his assessed housing needs. He complained:

• the Council withdrew a formal offer he received for a property (Property A) after viewing it earlier in the month. Mr X said this was the management’s decision due to his assessed housing needs (assessed for a three-bed property on the first floor or higher with a lift) and property A was a four-bed property. He added that he later became aware that the offer was also withdrawn due to the length of time it would take for the repair work to be completed in this property.
• the Council had made and withdrawn two offers earlier in the year as well and had provided inconsistent reasons for withdrawing them.

29. In late November 2024 the Council issued its stage one complaint response. In it, the Council said:

• Mr X’s assessed housing need was for a “three-bed flat on the first floor with or without lift access”.
• Mr X was being assisted by its housing officer since February 2024 to “expedite his rehousing through direct offers” to enable him to move from his current two-bed property due to an urgent need for essential repairs in this property and harassment concerns.
• the housing officer identified property A as a potential option, arranged a viewing and told Mr X that further checks were necessary to determine its suitability.
• further investigation revealed that property A was a four-bed property which Mr X was not eligible for, therefore this option could not be pursued. The housing officer communicated this to Mr X and suggested that he update his rehousing application to request reassessment for a ground floor property.
• it would continue to search for suitable housing for him.

30. In early February 2025 the Council issued its stage two complaint response. This agreed with its stage one investigation and added that its housing officer was looking for suitable housing for a direct offer and that Mr X’s assessed need was for a “third-floor property (maximum) with a lift.” It also apologised for the inconvenience Mr X had experienced and advised him to contact its allocations team and provide further information if he wished to be assessed for a ground floor property.
31. Mr X complained to us in February 2025. He remained unhappy with the Council’s investigation and lack of clear communication.

The Council’s response to our enquiries

32. The Council, in response to our enquiries said Mr X has been assessed as needing a three-bed property and as of August 2025 he had 2110 points in total. It had agreed to make Mr X a direct offer in March 2022 when it was identified that essential repairs to his current home would take over 12 weeks to complete.
33. The Council said Mr X viewed two properties - a property in March 2024 (unsuitable) and property A (which Mr X wanted to accept) in November 2024. However, these properties were not formally offered to him as a “direct offer”.
34. The Council said its housing officer had not followed the correct direct offer process by seeking authorisation from the designated officer first before arranging property viewings. If they had, the designated officer would not have approved property A for Mr X because property A was a ground floor, four-bed property. It said Mr X was entitled to a three-bed property, and he had not been assessed by the Council’s occupational therapist as needing ground floor accommodation.
35. The Council added that when it became clear that it had not followed the correct process, it told Mr X immediately and produced new clear guidance to avoid repeating the same error.
36. The Council also provided an advert of property A which showed that the property was listed as a four-bed, ground floor property. It also sent us Mr X’s bidding history which showed Mr X had bid on two properties between February 2024 and February 2025. It said, as of May 2025, 99 properties were let to bidders with less points than Mr X. It added that Mr X was offered ten properties through the Council’s choice-based lettings scheme and he had refused all of them.

Findings

Medical assessments

37. The Ombudsman’s role is to look at the way councils make decisions in accordance with the relevant law, guidance and its own policies. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
38. The Council’s published scheme outlines the eligibility criteria for applicants to receive “urgent” medical points as seen in paragraph 19 of this decision statement. The Council assessed the evidence Mr X provided against these criteria and decided Mr X and other members of his household did not have mental and physical health conditions that required them to move “urgently”. It also clearly explained why Mr X and his child did not meet the criteria for urgent medical priority as noted in paragraph 26 of this decision statement. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.
39. In 2024 the Council referred the further medical evidence Mr X provided to an independent medical advisor. It decided that this evidence did not show a significant change in Mr X’s family’s medical conditions since its previous medical assessment in 2023 to warrant a reassessment. So it refused to undertake a further medical assessment. The Council’s refusal was in line with its published policy and was not fault.

Direct offers

40. The Council did not make any formal direct offers of properties to Mr X but did arrange for Mr X to view two properties outside of its allocations scheme. It accepted that in doing so it did not follow its process properly – it should not have arranged viewings of any properties including property A without prior authorisation or without considering Mr X’s assessed housing need. This was fault. Mr X wanted to accept property A but this property was a four-bed property and so was not in line with his assessed housing need. So it would not have been selected for Mr X if the Council had followed its process correctly. Mr X has therefore not missed out on property A but the fault did cause Mr X frustration and raised his expectations.
41. The Council has provided us with a copy of the guidance it produced following Mr X’s complaint setting out the agreed process for making direct offers. The Council’s actions should prevent recurrence of the same issue therefore I have not considered it necessary to recommend a service improvement.

Communication and complaint handling

42. The Council failed to address Mr X’s complaint properly or communicate clearly. Its choice of wording in its complaint responses regarding Mr X’s assessed housing needs was unclear and confusing. This was fault which caused Mr X avoidable frustration.
43. We recently made service improvement recommendations to the Council regarding its complaint handling on separate complaints. Therefore I have not repeated these on Mr X’s complaint as we will continue to monitor them through our case work.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. Within one month of this decision the Council will:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the avoidable frustration caused by its faults. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making this apology.
2. Pay Mr X £200 in recognition of the avoidable frustration and raised expectations caused by its failure to follow its direct offer process properly and by its poor communication.
45. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

46. I found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed to the recommended action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman