Summary: The Council considered all the information available to it and awarded Mr X a housing priority in line with its allocations policy. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to award him a higher housing priority due to his medical needs and overcrowding. He says he needs an extra bedroom for his overnight carer and access to a bath. He says his carers are reluctant to provide overnight care and he is unable to wash properly. He wants the Council to increase his housing priority and allocate him a two bedroomed property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr X and the Council have 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

6. 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))
7. 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))

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

The Council’s allocations scheme

9. The Council’s allocations policy sets out that it will usually allocate one-bedroom properties to single applicants.
10. To prioritise applications the Council places applicants (and existing tenants seeking a transfer) into the following priority bands:
• Band 1 – People who the Council needs to move. This includes people who have a disability whose home cannot be adapted to meet their needs.
• Band 2 – People with urgent needs, such as people who are severely overcrowded (lacking two bedrooms or more), unintentionally homeless or have an urgent medical or disability need.
• Band 3 – People with more than one need. For example, a moderate medical need and who need an additional bedroom.
• Band 4 – People with one need such as a moderate medical need.
• Band 5 – People with no needs or a current property that is adequate for their needs.
11. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

What happened

12. Mr X applied for a housing transfer from his one-bedroom Council property in September 2024. On the application Mr X said he needed an additional bedroom for his overnight carers. He also highlighted issues with parking near the property.
13. Mr X supplied the Council with information from a community psychiatrist. It said Mr X needed ongoing close monitoring of his mental health and assistance with his physical health. It said this was currently provided by Mr X’s father and aunt who stayed overnight in his current property, sleeping in the living room. They asked for Mr X to be placed in band one of the Council’s priority bands.
14. The Council wrote to Mr X in October 2024 and accepted his housing application. It said it had placed him in band five as he had a property that currently met his needs. It said it was still assessing his health needs and would be in touch within 18 weeks with an outcome.
15. An occupational therapist (OT) from the Council carried out a health assessment of Mr X and visited his property in November 2024. It considered the supporting information provided by Mr X’s community psychiatrist and noted Mr X’s father and aunt were sleeping in his living room when providing overnight care. The Council queried whether overnight carers should be awake through the night. Mr X explained he had a routine where he would wake his father or aunt if he required support with his mental health or medication.
16. The Council decided Mr X was adequately housed and in the correct banding. It noted he could physically access and live in the property. It said it could not give Mr X priority for two-bedroom properties as Mr X was a single applicant and his carers had properties of their own. It said Mr X could bid on two-bedroom properties, but it would not prioritise him for such a property. It offered to refer Mr X for a social care assessment and attempted to provide him with a shower chair to assist him in the shower. Mr X refused both.
17. A representative of Mr X asked the Council to review its decision in early December 2024. The Council attempted to speak to Mr X to get more information about the role of his carers but was unsuccessful. The Council responded to the review request in January 2025. It said Mr X’s carers were not living with him so did not require an additional bedroom. It maintained its decision that Mr X was in the correct priority band. It said parking was not a housing issue, but suggested Mr X be dropped off closer to the property when using a vehicle.
18. The representative complained to the Council in February 2025. They said Mr X needed a bathing assessment and the property was having a severe impact on Mr X’s mental health. They said the parking suggestion was not practical.
19. In its response the Council said its OT considered a shower chair the best way of supporting Mr X’s bathing. It said Mr X had previously refused a further assessment of his carers and not given consent for his representative to seek one on his behalf. It said now it would carry out a further assessment to see what additional support it could provide. The Council maintained a move to a two-bedroom property was unlikely in the foreseeable future. The Council also shared details of a private property ownership scheme for people with disabilities.
20. The Council attempted to arrange a bathing assessment in June 2025. Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage two of its complaint procedure. He said the shower chair was not suitable and he was unhappy at the offer of a bathing assessment. In its response the Council said the chair was recommended by its OT and it would be beneficial for Mr X to discuss it further with its OT. It said Mr X and his representative had intimated he would welcome a bathing assessment and it had made clear a bathing assessment would not improve the likelihood of a two-bedroom property. It said it had tried to speak to Mr X’s carers as part of his review request but had been unsuccessful. It said it should have extended the review timescale to consider the views of his carers. It said it would revisit Mr X’s appeal in consultation with his carers. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.
21. The Council continued to attempt to rebook a bathing assessment for Mr X and attempted to book a further assessment of his housing needs to inform the new appeal. In response to our enquiries the Council said Mr X had so far not engaged with its efforts.

My findings

22. When Mr X applied to transfer property the Council accepted his application and assessed his housing needs in line with its allocations policy. It considered all the information and decided Mr X’s current property met his needs. When it received Mr X’s review request it attempted to gain more information about Mr X’s carers and has since made further attempts following Mr X’s complaint. The Council has consistently reviewed the information available to it against its allocations policy when deciding Mr X’s housing priority.
23. 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 the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a person disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
24. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding what priority to award Mr X. There was no fault in how it took the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
25. Mr X continues to say his property does not meet his needs and he needs overnight care. Alongside considering Mr X’s housing priority the Council has offered an assessment of his care and bathing needs. The evidence shows Mr X has so far refused these offers. The Council was not at fault. It is open to Mr X to allow the Council to assess his eligible care needs and put any identified support in place.

Back to top

Decision

26. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman