Summary: Miss D complains the Council incorrectly assessed her housing need. I have not found evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) says the Council delayed awarding her Band A housing priority. She also says the Council unfairly restricted many Band B properties for applicants with a physical disability meaning she lost out on bids because her child has a disability not requiring an adapted property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

3. I have exercised discretion to look back to events from August 2023 (when Miss D applied to the housing register) through to February 2025 (when the Council awarded Band A priority) because Miss D regularly pursued her case with the Council.
4. My investigation looks at how the Council handled Miss D’s requests for housing priority. If Miss D is dissatisfied about other actions by the Council, such as the handling of any homelessness application/ assistance, she would need to make a separate complaint to the council about those issues.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

2023

6. In August 2023 Miss D applied to join the Council’s housing register. She supplied documents and medical evidence about her child. On 19 September the Council referred Miss D’s medical evidence to its Medical Advisor to assess. On 21 September the Medical Advisor told the Council the evidence did not meet the threshold for additional priority and there was insufficient evidence of how the housing impacted on the medical conditions. On 26 September the Council wrote to Miss D. It awarded her Band C housing priority.
7. On 29 October Miss D sent the Council a hospital letter about her child and their diagnosis of autism. She sent in additional information on 29 November. On 1 December the Council referred the case back to its Medical Advisor. On 4 December the Medical Advisor noted the advocacy reports submitted all relied on information about the housing situation that had been provided by Miss D. There was still insufficient evidence to verify how the housing impacted on medical conditions. They would review after the Council carried out a home visit. The Council subsequently arranged a home visit which was postponed until February 2024 at Miss D’s request.

2024

8. On 29 February 2024 the Council carried out a home visit to Miss D. Officers noted disrepair and other issues with the property. On 6 March the Council received an email from a Social Worker, dealing with Miss D’s child, in support of a housing move. On 15 March the Council asked the Medical Advisor to assess the evidence. On 18 March the Medical Advisor noted the findings of the home visit. Disrepair was for the landlord to resolve rather than relocation. There was insufficient evidence to recommend a high level Band. On 22 March The Council wrote to Miss D about the reassessment of medical priority. It had considered information from the home visit and advice from the Medical Advisor. It also confirmed it had considered recent and older evidence provided by Miss D. It was not awarding a higher Band on medical grounds because the evidence provided failed to link the household’s medical circumstances with their current housing.
9. On 25 April Miss D requested a review of the decision. On 13 May the Council contacted the Social Worker dealing with the family and they provided information on 15 May. On 28 May the Council wrote to Miss D. It had reviewed the case. It said the medical evidence might not meet the threshold to award Band B for medical priority, but it had considered Miss D’s medical concerns and that she received disability benefits and, as a whole, it met the criteria for welfare banding at Band B. The Council would backdate the award to 6 March 2024 when it received information from the Social Worker.
10. In October Miss D sent the Council photos about the disrepair at her home along with a medical letter about her child. She wanted a ground floor property because of her child’s needs. The Council sent the request to its Medical Advisor on 17 October. The Medical Advisor noted the same day that Miss D was in the correct Band. On 22 October Miss D complained the Council had failed to take account of her household’s needs. At the end of October the Council received additional medical evidence from Miss D. On 4 November the Council issued a complaint response to Miss D. It said a review into banding was underway and did not find evidence that she had received a poor level of service.
11. On 22 November the Medical Advisor told the Council all the evidence had been considered, and Miss B was correctly in Band B. The household’s medical/ welfare circumstances did not meet the level of Band A.

2025

12. In January Miss D sent the Council a letter from the Social Worker and a letter from her GP about the condition of the property. On 14 February the Council referred the case to the Medical Advisor who noted there was no new medical information to review. Between 22 and 25 February Miss D sent the Council further medical information about her child. The Council decided to refer the case back to the Medical Advisor. On 28 February the Medical Advisor noted there had been an assessment of further information on the case. They said that “given the latest details and updates” it was reasonable to place Miss D in Band A. The Council notified Miss D on 6 March that she had been moved into Band A.

What should have happened

The Housing register

13. A person seeking social housing can apply to join the Council’s housing register. They should supply medical and welfare evidence if they are requesting additional priority on those grounds. The Council will assess the application in line with its Allocations Policy.

Housing priority Bands

14. A housing register application is assessed using the Banding Scheme. This aims to ensure some priority is awarded to all applicants who are entitled to reasonable preference, in accordance with section 167(2) of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002) and includes people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds, including grounds relating to disability.
15. Under the Allocations Policy the Council will assess an applicants’ needs against the Banding Scheme criteria and their application will be placed in a Band (Band A being the highest priority). Each applicant will be given an ‘effective date’, this is the date their application was at when the Council received all the supporting documentation. If they are subsequently placed into Band A or B their effective date will start on the date that they move into that Band.
16. Band A is for applicants with an urgent need including those assessed as having urgent medical and/or welfare grounds. For example, households who cannot occupy their current accommodation because of a medical problem or disability, and the property cannot be adapted. Band B is for high priority applicants including those with a high medical or welfare need to move where these issues are directly linked to their current housing and would be alleviated by alternative accommodation. Band C is awarded to applicants with medium priority including applicants occupying private rental accommodation. No priority will be given where rehousing is unlikely to improve the applicant’s health or where the accommodation itself is not affecting the illness or health condition.

Medical assessment

17. As referred to above, if applicants have a medical, welfare, social or health condition which significantly impacts on their housing need and/or means that a specific property type is needed, they must submit relevant medical or welfare information which clearly links their medical circumstances with their current housing conditions or requirements. The Council needs evidence of a detrimental impact on their health, welfare or medical condition as a result of their current housing situation.
18. In the first instance this information will be assessed by a member of the Housing Register Team who will decide if there are grounds for the applicant to be prioritised on a medical basis. The Council may decide to seek further advice on the applicant’s condition and how this affects their housing circumstances from the Council’s Medical Advisor. An applicant will only be assessed as having a medical priority if they or a member of their household have a medical need to be re-housed. For example, a medical problem that is directly and significantly affected by the applicant’s current housing circumstances and would be relieved by re-housing.
19. Where an applicant submits additional information within six months of a referral to the Council’s Medical Advisor, the Council will consider whether the applicant’s medical circumstances have changed significantly from the last assessment before seeking further advice from its Medical Advisor. Applicants will not be referred if the Council assesses that there is no significant change.

Allocations and adapted properties

20. The Council can directly allocate adapted properties to the most appropriate applicant. Any adapted properties not directly allocated are advertised for bidding via the choice based lettings system where applicants bid for properties.
21. In 2024-25 the Council advertised 30 Band B properties. 10 were adapted and 20 were not adapted.

Reviews

22. An applicant can request a review of any decision made regarding their application for housing. The review will consider the Council’s allocation scheme, any legal requirements and all relevant information. The Council will reach a decision within eight weeks and will notify the applicant if there has been a delay in issuing the decision.

Was there fault by the Council

23. Miss D says the Council delayed increasing her housing Band. The evidence shows me the Council acted in line with its procedures when assessing her requests for higher priority based on medical and welfare needs. 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. In this case I am satisfied the Council adhered to the correct process. Each time it received a request from Miss D to review the housing priority it considered any new information provided to see if this warranted a change in Banding. It also explained its decisions to Miss D from 2023 through to 2025. Whilst I understand that Miss D may disagree with the Council’s decisions on her housing priority there is no evidence of fault because the Council followed the correct process.
24. Miss D also refers to the Council unfairly restricting properties for people with physical disabilities. The Council has the right to restrict properties for specific groups, for example level access homes or adapted properties being ringfenced for people with an assessed medical need. I appreciate this is frustrating for Miss D because it reduced the pool of housing available to bid on, however it is a decision the Council has the option to take, and it is set out in its Allocations Policy. There is no fault in this matter.

Back to top

Decision

25. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman