Summary: Ms D complains the Council failed to assess her medical and welfare needs for her housing register account. I have found fault by the Council because it failed to document what evidence had been considered during its reviews and Ms D was caused avoidable delays. The Council has apologised and offered to pay Ms D redress and to carry out a new review.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council failed to assess her family’s medical and welfare needs in line with procedures for her housing register application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, 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 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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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. I have considered events from April 2024 (when Ms D submitted evidence to the Council) through to 12 August 2025 when the Council issued its final stage complaint response. I have included a background section; those matters are not subject to investigation and included only to give a full picture of relevant events. My investigation considers how the Council dealt with Ms D’s requests for additional housing priority. Ms D’s complaints about the management of her social housing tenancy, including her rent account can be pursued with the Council and then with the Housing Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background

9. In September 2023 Ms D applied to join the Council’s housing register. In her application she referred to the medical needs of her family, and she had been experiencing issues with a neighbour. She lived with two children of opposite sex under 10 years of age.
10. In November she completed a medical questionnaire for the Council and reiterated about medical conditions for her and her child. She also said there was an ongoing neighbour dispute. The Council carried out a health and housing assessment and concluded no medical points should be awarded to Ms D. At that time the Council also considered Ms D was not overcrowded, she was entitled to a two bedroom home which was the size of the property she occupied. In December Ms D requested the Council carry out a review of its decision.
11. In January 2024 Ms D reported noise issues with her neighbour to the Council and pursued a formal complaint about it. The Council said the allegations were unfounded and set out how to report anti-social behaviour (ASB) and noise. Also in January Ms D’s child turned 10 years old meaning the family’s bedroom entitlement changed to three bedrooms. The Council issued a stage one review decision on 14 March. It detailed the issues Ms D had previously referred to. It had not found evidence of a severe medical adverse effect caused by the current housing and the primary issue faced by the family was overcrowding. The housing register application had 50 points for overcrowding, 30 transfer points but no medical points. At the end of March Ms D asked the Council to carry out a second stage review of the points decision regarding medical need.

Events I have investigated

2024

12. On 25 April Ms D submitted medical evidence to the Council including a mental health service letter about her child. She wanted the Council to award her 500 medical points. She also said the impact of ASB with her neighbour was impacting on the health of her family. On 14 May Ms D chased up the Council about her review request. The Council replied to Ms D the same day that it had high volumes of review cases and apologised for the delay. On 17 June the Council emailed Ms D confirming it had her second stage review request which was in the process of being assigned to an Officer. On 1 July Ms D chased up the Council again, it responded with apologies for the delay allocating the case, there was a backlog. Ms D continued to contact the Council for an update, on 21 August an Officer told her the case was in a queue.
13. On 12 September the Council’s independent Medical Advisor assessed the evidence provided by Ms D. They noted Ms D had referred to issues with a neighbour which were not primarily a medical matter. They had assessed the evidence and did not find a basis to award any medical priority. On 28 October Ms D told the Council she had received threats of violence from a third party (not a neighbour) and the Police were involved. She was advised to send in evidence to the Neighbourhood Housing Officer to be considered for additional housing priority. On the same day the Neighbourhood Housing Officer contacted the Community Safety Officer to see if there was a Police report for the incident. The Council says this was chased up three times. On 10 and 12 November Ms D emailed the Council asking what had happened with her March request for a second stage review.
14. On 14 November the Council issued its second stage review decision. It apologised for the delay responding. It said this was due to internal changes and a high volume of review requests. It detailed the allocations policy criteria for awarding medical points and explained why the Council agreed with previous assessments that no medical points should be awarded. It acknowledged Ms D and her child had medical conditions, but they did not meet the threshold to be awarded health and housing points. Ms D says the Council sent her another copy of the decision letter which did not include text about an ‘acute medical condition’. Ms D replied to the Council the same day, she said the review had failed to take account of the deterioration in her child’s condition and referred to incorrect medications for the family. On 18 December the Council issued a Member’s response to Ms D after she had queried the second stage review. It advised the decision had been issued prematurely because the Officer had not followed up on possible ASB issues. The decision had been withdrawn so ASB could be discussed with the Neighbourhood Housing Officer. Ms D had up to 2 January 2025 to submit additional evidence. On 22 December Ms D told the Council that she needed longer to submit medical evidence for the reopened review.

2025

15. On 29 March 2025 Ms D emailed the Council that she was still gathering medical evidence which should be ready shortly. The Council told her to contact the Verification Team if she had a change of circumstances. On 4 April the Council received a response to their October 2024 enquiry to the Police. A Community Safety Team Officer spoke to Ms D to ask if she needed support. Ms D said she did not want to disturb matters as there had been no issues that year and she did not want her case referred to the violence support teams in the Council.
16. Ms D complained to the Ombudsman in May, we asked the Council to provide a response under its complaint procedures. The Council lodged a complaint on 27 May. In June Ms D sent the Council a letter from medical professionals supporting her request to be moved. She also supplied GP letters and other medical documents. On 12 and 16 June Ms D emailed the Council for an update on her complaint.
17. On 24 June the Council issued its complaint response to Ms D. It confirmed it had previously considered the medical evidence she had provided including the mental health service letter and detailed the evidence it had seen. It explained the family were eligible for a three bedroom property since January 2024. That meant the family were classed as overcrowded, as set out in the March 2024 decision. It accepted there had been delay issuing the review decisions up to November 2024 and apologised. The Council offered Ms D £150 redress. It said there had not been any further delay in the case. It also stated the 2024 medical assessment and review had not listed what documents were considered although it was evident from the contents of both the mental health service letter had been taken into account. The Council had agreed to another review. Ms D had also supplied communications with the Council’s Member Support Team which showed they thought the person carrying out the review in November 2024 ‘should have made an enquiry about the neighbour issues and on this basis the review should be reopened’. The Council asked Ms D to supply any further evidence and Ms D stated in March she did not have any further evidence. The Council advised her to pursue the ASB issues through a change of circumstances form which she had not submitted so far. The Council said it was clear Ms D had asked for a review about medical points and she could provide any evidence of harassment to her Neighbourhood Housing Officer.
18. On 3 July Ms D asked the Council to escalate her complaint, she wanted to be awarded 500 medical points or provided with a three bedroom property. The Council issued its final stage complaint response on 12 August. It said the Medical Advisor in September 2024 had not recommended medical points be awarded, because of that the “reviewing officer [dealing with the review] had no discretion to consider a decision outside of this external conclusion”. The Council increased its redress offer for the delay to £220.

What should have happened

Health and housing points

19. Under the Council’s Allocations Policy it uses a health and housing points system to assess a housing register applicant’s medical/ welfare needs and housing priority.
20. Where an applicant tells the Council they have a medical issue affected by their housing the Council will ask the applicant to complete a health and disability questionnaire to detail the nature of the condition, how it is impacted by their housing, whether adaptations to a property are possible and for the applicant to provide supporting documents from medical professionals. There is no duty on the Council to contact medical professionals for evidence, the onus is on the applicant to provide the relevant documentation. The Council then assesses the evidence from the applicant. It will only award housing points for medical need where it is satisfied there is evidence the accommodation is causing the medical condition/ worsening a long-term condition/ a property cannot be reasonably adapted and the condition is likely to significantly improve if the applicant is rehoused. The Council can seek advice from a Medical Advisor. The Medical Advisor will review the evidence supplied by the applicant and provide an opinion on whether the medical condition meets the medical priority threshold. The decision on whether any housing priority/ points are awarded lies with the Council.
21. The Council can decide, after assessing an applicant’s case, to either:
• Award 500 points (category 1) where it is satisfied there is evidence of a serious impact on health and remaining in the property would pose a significant risk to the applicant; or
• Award 150 points (category 2) where there is evidence an applicant’s health is impacted by the accommodation and rehousing would improve the condition; or
• No points are awarded because the evidence does not meet the criteria.

Overcrowding and bedroom entitlement

22. Where an applicant says they are overcrowded the Council assesses the number of rooms an applicant has that can be used as bedrooms (this may include a living area for example) and comparing this to the size of the household. The ‘bedroom standard’ in the Allocations Policy allows a bedroom for the adult applicant and partner plus a bedroom for any two additional people of the opposite sex aged nine and under. The Council will award 50 points to applicants who have sole use of the same number of rooms which could be used as bedrooms as their assessed need. 100 points is awarded to an applicant who has one room that can be used as a bedroom less than their assessed need. 250 points is awarded to applicants with two or more rooms less than their assessed need. An applicant is notified of the decision and informed of their right to request a review if they are dissatisfied. A second stage review should be dealt with within 25 days.

Violence and harassment priority

23. Where an applicant experiences ASB/ threats of violence they should report this to the Neighbourhood Housing Officer who will assess and decide what investigation is required. Where evidence of ‘verified, serious, persistent and targeted’ ASB is identified by the Neighbourhood Housing Officer they will notify the Lettings Manager in the Allocations Team who can then assess if the applicant should be awarded housing priority under the violence and harassment priority (as set out in the Allocations Policy). The Council will take into consideration the seriousness and frequency of incidents, whether the risk is location based and whether it can be managed through tenancy enforcement/ Police action. The Council will also assess if rehousing is a necessary and proportionate response.

Was there fault by the Council

24. Ms D feels the Council has failed to correctly assess her medical need for rehousing. The Medical Adviser assessed evidence provided by Ms D in September 2024 and a Council Officer also considered the information in November. In both instances there was no detail about what documents had been considered as part of the assessment. As good practice I would expect the Council to list the evidence it had considered in reaching its view, this allows an applicant some assurance about their evidence having been assessed. I consider there to be fault by the Council because the November decision did not specify what evidence had been considered. Furthermore, the wording used in the 12 August 2025 final stage complaint response was wrong in respect of medical need assessments. The Council stated it had no discretion over a decision on medical priority once advice was received from the Medical Advisor. That is wrong, the Council should always make the decision about an applicant’s housing priority and advice/ recommendations from the Medical Advisor should be considered but are not definitive. I put this point to the Council, and it accepted the wording was ‘not accurate’ and did not correctly reflect the Council’s policy to consider advice from a Medical Advisor but for Officers to reach their own assessment of a case. I consider these issues mean that Ms D would understandably be uncertain about the handling of the medical assessments.
25. The Council agreed to carry out a new second stage review at the end of December 2024. Ms D failed to send in new medical evidence until June 2025 but after that date I cannot see the Council carried out the review despite recognising it had promised to do so in the June complaint response. A new review is necessary to ensure all the medical evidence submitted by Ms D is assessed and shown to be taken into account. The Council has already accepted in its responses to Ms D that it delayed dealing with her review request. The second stage review was requested in December 2023, and a response should have been issued within the 25 day target. Instead Ms D had to wait until November 2024 for a decision. That was a delay of around 10 months. The Council has already apologised and paid Ms D redress.
26. Ms D also says the Council failed to consider her for housing priority under its violence and harassment policy. The evidence shows that in early 2024 Ms D pursued reports about noise caused by a neighbour with the Council. The Council did not find any supporting evidence of an issue. I am not looking at that because it falls outside the timeframe of this investigation. However the Council did not subsequently have any verified evidence of Ms D being subject to ASB by her neighbour. In October Ms D told the Council about threats of violence from a third party. She did not provide corroborating evidence to the Council. It sought to obtain information from the Police which it did not receive until April 2025. At that point the Council spoke to Ms D, and she stated there had been no further issues. The Council will only assess if an applicant should receive additional housing points for violence and harassment where it has evidence of a verified, serious and persistent ASB. In this case the Council did not have evidence which met that threshold throughout 2024 and 2025. I do not see there is fault in this matter by the Council.
27. Ms D feels she should have a higher level of overcrowding points. I have not seen any evidence of fault by the Council. It has assessed that Ms D is in a two bedroom property with access to a space that can be used as a third bedroom. Given the composition of the household this would mean the Council was acting in line with procedures when it awarded Ms D 50 points for overcrowding. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, and that applies to this part of the complaint.

Did the fault cause an injustice

28. The faults I have identified meant Ms D was left uncertain about whether her medical evidence had been assessed by the Council. She also has been subject to delays by the Council.

Back to top

Action

29. The Council has agreed to carry out the review promised in June 2025. It has confirmed it will contact Ms D for evidence. The review decision should detail the evidence assessed by the Council. The Council should confirm to Ms D when a review decision is likely to be produced.
30. The Council has also offered to pay Ms D a further £150 for the additional delay in her case. I consider that to be a reasonable remedy.
31. In respect of service improvements the Council has already undertaken to amend procedures for staff so that when it reopens a review it is logged and confirmed in writing.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the redress payment and has started the review process within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Decision

33. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman