Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not complete a housing review properly, causing avoidable distress. The Council is not at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complains the Council failed to deal with a review of housing allocation needs properly because it didn’t consider all the medical evidence in support of her review and its review was delayed.
2. Miss X says she and her family have had to live in unsuitable accommodation since November 2024 and have suffered avoidable distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s Allocations Policy

8. The allowed property size is normally calculated as follows:
• One bedroom for an applicant and their partner, or a single parent
• One bedroom for any adult in the household aged over 21 who is not disregarded
• One bedroom for two children or adults of the same sex aged under 21
• One bedroom for two children of different sexes aged under 10
• One bedroom for any child or adult under 21 who cannot be paired in the above way
• Where children can be paired in different ways, the way that produces the smallest allowed property size will be used.
9. An exception to the above rules can be made where the Medical Adviser recommends increasing the allowed property size on medical grounds, which may specifically relate to the needs of a child in the household.
10. When assessing a need to move on medical or welfare grounds, the Council’s Medical Adviser will take into account all relevant circumstances.
11. Applicants dissatisfied with a decision that has been made, may request a review of that decision by an officer of the Council who was not involved in the original decision, and who is senior to the officer who made the original decision.
12. Requests for a review must be made within 21 days of the date the decision was notified to the applicant, and should include the applicant’s reasons for believing the decision made was wrong.
13. The applicant will be informed in writing of the decision made at the review, and the grounds for it.

What happened?

14. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
15. Miss X lived in a one bedroom property with external stairs. The Council assessed Miss X’s household’s medical needs in February 2024. She was assessed as being able to bid for Band B (Urgent medical need), Cat 3 (level access ground floor) properties.
16. The Council completed a suitability assessment and made an offer to Miss X of a 2 bedroom property.
17. In October 2024 Miss X asked the Council to provide her with a 3 bedroom property and provided information to the Council about her children’s medical needs in support of this.
18. The Council wrote to Miss X in November 2024 with the outcome of its medical assessment, that she should retain Band B and an additional bedroom was not medically essential.
19. In January 2025 Miss X asked the Council to review its decision.
20. The Council responded to Miss X in April 2025, upholding its original decision.
21. Miss X complained to the Council. The Council did not uphold Miss X’s complaint.

Analysis

22. The Council says, “The council considered the applicant’s son’s medical circumstances by scrutiny of the medical information and reports provided to it by the applicant, which were processed by the council’s housing medical team.”
23. I have seen the rationale and recommendation from the Council’s medical advisor from 2024. This states:

“the award of an extra bedroom is dependent on a child being unable to share a room

other options as suggested in this case would allow the applicant’s child to share a room

nocturnal medical treatments can be delivered in other rooms

and as such the threshold for an extra bedroom is not met

This advice is based on standard medical advice on managing the medical conditions relevant to this case: in particular that nebulised therapy can be given in any room with access to an electrical supply (indeed this is common practice to avoid disturbance to other children at night), and that children might benefit from some independent space if sharing a room at his young age.”

24. The Council made a decision on the merits of the evidence available to it. This decision was in accordance with its allocations policy.
25. The Council completed a review of its decision, after Miss X requested this. The review was carried out by a more senior officer who was not involved in the original decision. The Council made a decision on the merits of the evidence available to it, which included all the information provided by Miss X.
26. Miss X does not agree with the decision made by the Council, however the Council is entitled to reach the decision it did. This is not fault by the Council.

Back to top

Decision

27. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman