Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider supporting evidence for his rehousing application and delayed reviewing his medical priority decision. The Council’s delayed medical priority review decision is fault. It caused Mr X distress and uncertainty. On the balance of probabilities, there is no fault in how the Council or medical review panel made its decision on Mr X’s medical priority, so we cannot question the outcome. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X for the delay, make a payment to recognise the distress caused and carry out the service recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider his application for rehousing into a bungalow and the supporting evidence. Mr X says this has caused his health to worsen as he remains in unsuitable accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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.
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I have considered

9. I considered matters from June 2024, when Mr X made his rehousing application, to when Mr X complained to us in early March 2025. Mr X later referred to issues with his appeal made in March 2025. I have not investigated this because it does not fall within the scope of my investigation. The Council should have the opportunity to consider such concerns through its own complaints process first. If Mr X remains unhappy with the outcome of that process, he may then bring a new complaint to us.
10. Mr X informed us his health worsened during the course of our investigation. Mr X should inform the Council if his situation has changed. The Council should have the opportunity to consider his updated situation before we could consider any further complaint.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant guidance & legislation

Housing allocations

11. The Council’s housing allocations scheme sets out the rules or qualifying to join the housing register, how applicants are prioritised and how the Council manages the allocation of available properties.
12. According to the scheme, applicants can bid for bungalows where they are over the age sixty or with a disability whose housing need is such that they require single level ground floor accommodation (subject to an Occupational Therapist recommendation)

Decisions and review rights

13. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:

• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;

14. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
15. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

Review procedures

16. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:

• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

What happened

17. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
18. Mr X has health and mobility problems. He said he struggles with the raised shower in his property and the noise coming from his neighbour’s property as it worsens his symptoms. He made an application for rehousing in late June 2024, requesting a bungalow. The Council refused his request for medical priority. It said he was already in a ground floor property, the shower could be adapted to his needs, and the noise nuisance could be dealt with under its anti-social behaviour policy.
19. Mr X requested a review of the medical priority decision in mid-September 2024. He provided supporting medical evidence to the medical review panel. The panel decided in February 2025 to award Mr X a band 2 urgent medical priority, backdated to mid July 24 when his medical assessment was first submitted. It made recommendations for a ground floor flat with a wet room. The Council reviewed Mr X’s request for an additional preference medical priority to be awarded to his housing application in late February 2025. It upheld its decision but added recommendations to also include properties with a lift and low-level entry showers or wet rooms. Mr X disagreed with the decision and requested a review. He complained to us in March 2025.

Findings and recommendations

Assessment of medical priority

20. The Council’s housing allocations policy says bungalows are allocated to those the age sixty or with a disability whose housing need is such that they require single level ground floor accommodation (subject to an Occupational Therapist (OT) recommendation). Mr X did not meet the age requirement for a bungalow. The Council instead considered Mr X’s request for a bungalow on medical grounds.
21. The medical review panel’s decision in February 2025 increased his banding to a band 2 urgent medical priority. The Council’s review of that decision considered whether Mr X’s medical conditions made him exempt from any age restrictions placed on accommodation but decided it does not in his case. It also made extra recommendations to increase Mr X’s chances of successfully bidding on another property. The Council also advised that it does not have any detached bungalows. Mr X moving to a bungalow would therefore not guarantee the prevention of noise disturbance from neighbours.
22. On the balance of probabilities, the Council properly reviewed the supporting information and increased his banding accordingly, so we cannot question the outcome.

Delay in completing review

23. Our guidance recommends 8 weeks as reasonable for a review. The Council took just over 23 weeks to complete Mr X’s review. This is fault.
24. We recommend a payment of £200 to Mr X for the distress and uncertainty caused by the delay. We have not made any service recommendations as the Council advised it introduced steps in 2023 to manage the backlog and is due to implement a new operating model in January 2026 to further reduces delays.

Poor record keeping

25. The Council failed to provide a number of key documents during the course of our investigation, such as medical assessments and OT reports. It is reasonable to expect the Council to retain these records. We have made a service recommendation.

Back to top

Action

26. Within one month of our final decision, the Council should:
• Apologise to Mr X for the distress caused by the delay in completing his review. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings
• Pay £200 to Mr X for the distress caused by the delay in completing his review.
27. Within three months the Council should:
• Review how it retains records to ensure key documents are available when requested. It should remind relevant staff the importance of proper record keeping.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman