Summary: There was fault in the way the Council considered Mrs X’s request for urgent priority on her housing register application. The Council already reconsidered Mrs X’s application during our investigation. It will apologise to Mrs X for the frustration and uncertainty she was caused by its fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s consideration of her housing register application. More specifically she complained it did not consider the medical evidence properly to award her the correct priority.
2. Mrs X said as a result, her family remain in unsuitable accommodation that is detrimental to their health and wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. 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. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X on her complaint.
6. I considered the Council’s response to our enquiries as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs 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 and guidance

8. 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))
9. 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 policy before 1 May 2025

10. The Council used a points-based allocations scheme before 1 May 2025 to prioritise applicants on the housing register.
11. The Council’s policy stated that applicants assessed as having an urgent need to move because of disability, medical or welfare grounds would be awarded 100 points. Usually an award of these points would be made to people who:

• live in housing which cannot be adapted for their needs and cannot reasonably access other housing options and, due to the lack of an adapted home, cannot access basic facilities such as a toilet, or
• are living in conditions which pose an imminent, unavoidable risk of serious physical or mental harm and for whom other housing options are not reasonably available.

12. The Council introduced a new housing allocations scheme in May 2025 which places applicants into one of four bandings, A to D, with A being the highest priority.

What happened

13. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
14. Mrs X lived in a two-bed high rise flat with her partner and young children who have disabilities.
15. In September 2024 Mrs X applied to join the housing register. She stated that her current accommodation was dangerous and unsuitable for her children’s needs. The Council referred Mrs X’s application to its specialist assessment team to consider the health and welfare needs of her family.
16. In November 2024 the Council completed its assessment of Mrs X’s housing application. It said evidence supported the need to move Mrs X to a larger accommodation to help manage the complex needs of her children. It decided to award additional points to reflect:

• the impact of her current accommodation on her family’s health and wellbeing with a specific recommendation for a suitable three-bed property.
• that there was more than one member of Mrs X’s household that had a welfare/medical need to move.

17. Mrs X was unhappy and requested a review of the Council’s decision. She provided evidence from multiple professionals including letters from different hospitals and support services for children with special educational needs.
18. In January 2025 Mrs X case was reviewed by a panel. Panel notes showed that the panel agreed not to award urgent points because Mrs X’s application was new, her points total was currently low, and urgent points would not enable a move to a three-bed accommodation. It recommended a “like to like” move to a two bed, ground floor flat while keeping the waiting time for the larger, three-bed accommodation. For two-bedroom properties, it noted that Mrs X would need to bid on Council properties only as housing associations would not accept overcrowding.
19. In early February 2025 the Council issued a stage one complaint response and said her application for urgent points had been declined by the panel. It said:

• “as her housing register application was new, the award of 100 urgent medical points would not enable a move to a three-bed accommodation in the near future.” Therefore, consideration had been given to alternative options that would improve current circumstances and remove risks/challenges posed by living in a high rise.
• it recommended a “like to like” move to a two-bed ground floor flat while Mrs X kept the qualifying date for a three-bed accommodation. This would allow Mrs X to move quickly to another two-bed accommodation and remove the issues “posed by communal lifts, danger of windows in a high-rise block and internal stairs.”
• if Mrs X moved via this option to a two-bed ground floor property, she would need to submit a new application to move to a larger accommodation in the future. She would also lose her earlier priority date and would require a new medical assessment.
• Mrs X should only bid on accommodation owned by the Council as housing associations would not allow overcrowding.

20. Mrs X was unhappy with the Council’s decision and escalated her concerns. She told the Council she did not have enough points to secure a two-bed ground floor flat.
21. In late February 2025 the Council issued a stage two complaint response. It said it found no fault in the Council’s original investigation. It said:

• the information Mrs X had provided demonstrated that her children had additional needs and were being impacted by their current accommodation. The Council awarded additional medical/welfare points for this.
• there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mrs X met the criteria for urgent points.
• Its offer of the opportunity to move into alternative two-bed accommodation would remove the risk of being in high-rise accommodation.

22. In early March 2025 the Council received further evidence from Mrs X. It decided this information was similar to that she provided previously. It sent a “no change” letter to Mrs X. It noted that Mrs X was bidding on three bed properties and that she needed to utilise the like for like option for a two-bed property.
23. Mrs X complained to us soon after. She complained that the Council had not properly considered the evidence she had provided in its assessment of her housing application.
24. The Council’s notes of 23 April 2025 showed that:

• Mrs X had bid on two and three bed properties. The Council noted that offers on two-bed ground floor properties went to applicants with points higher than 272. Mrs X had 158 points.
• It decided to put forward the latest evidence Mrs X provided as a request for review of its previous decision.

25. On 28 April 2025, in response to our initial enquiries, the Council said:

• Mrs X had 158 on her housing application.
• the average number of points a three-bed property had been let for in the past 12 months was 275 points.
• Mrs X’s application was in band B (in line with its new allocations policy) due to fulfilling two categories in band C including occupying insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing conditions and the medical/welfare need for alternative accommodation.

26. On 29 April 2025 Mrs X’s case was discussed by a panel. The Council notes showed it considered recent evidence from a support service that Mrs X’s current property was unsuitable. The Council said Mrs X’s application met the urgent criteria “based on the wording from the newest letter” but there was no guarantee this would give her access to larger housing soon.
27. The Council wrote to Mrs X to inform her of this decision. It said:

• urgent priority had been awarded and that this would place her in band A in line with the new banding system.
• awarding 100 urgent points previously would not have put her in a position to secure a three-bed accommodation.
• Mrs X could still bid on a two-bed ground floor property but she would need to reapply for a large property if she moved this way.

28. On 1 May 2025 the Council changed its housing allocations scheme from points to the banding system.
29. In response to our further enquiries, the Council said:

• After considering new evidence from Mrs X she was placed in the highest band it could award (band A). Mrs X had not bid on any properties since being placed in band A.
• Urgent priority could be awarded when there were no other housing options available. The option of moving to a ground floor flat was initially given to remove the risk around lifts, windows and stairs.
• Mrs X needed a three-bed accommodation but an award of 100 urgent points would not have secured this sized accommodation under its previous points-based allocations policy.

Findings

30. The Council’s previous published allocations policy stated that urgent points could be awarded to applicants who lived in conditions which posed an imminent, unavoidable risk of serious physical or mental harm and for whom other housing options are not reasonably available.
31. Evidence showed that the Council’s communication of its decision to refuse urgent points was confusing – its stage two complaint response said Mrs X did not meet the threshold for urgent points while its stage one response said the Council considered an alternative option instead of urgent points. This was fault. If the Council considered Mrs X had an urgent need to move it should have awarded her the points regardless of her current points total.
32. The Council provided Mrs X with an alternative housing option of bidding on two-bed ground floor flats instead of awarding 100 urgent points as urgent points “would not enable move to a three-bed accommodation in the near future”. It explained that this alternative option would remove the immediate risk of a high-rise accommodation and help Mrs X move quickly. The Council was not at fault for proposing this as an option. But this suggested the Council considered Ms X had an urgent need to move.
33. Where we find fault has caused injustice we look to put someone back in the position they would have been if not for the fault. As there was fault in the way the Council reached the decision not to award 100 urgent points, we would normally have asked the Council to reassess her request for priority. However, the Council has already reassessed Mrs X’s request in the light of new information she provided and its new banding scheme. It awarded her the highest priority. The Council’s action was an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused.
34. Evidence provided by the Council showed that successful bids for two-bed ground floor flats between February and March 2025 went to applicants with at least 272 points (Mrs X had 158 points). Evidence also showed three-bed properties had been let to applicants with an average of 275 points over the past 12 months. So even if the Council had awarded an additional 100 points in January 2025 it is unlikely Mrs X would have successfully bid on a property. However, the Council’s failure to properly consider and record whether to award her urgent points is likely to have caused her some uncertainty and frustration.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. Within one month of this decision the Council will apologise to Mrs X for the avoidable frustration and uncertainty she was caused by its fault. 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 the apology.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman