Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her housing application and the evidence she provided. We do not find fault with how the Council considered Miss X’s application. We find the Council at fault for delays in considering Miss X’s review request, causing uncertainty, but the Council has already acted to address this.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to properly consider her housing application and the evidence she has provided in terms of medical need and threats to life. As a result, Miss X says she has had to spend more time in unsuitable accommodation than she otherwise would have done.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. We cannot usually look into complaints about events that took place more than 12 months before they were brought to the Ombudsman. As Miss X contacted the Ombudsman in March 2025, anything that happened before March 2024 would be considered a late complaint.
7. However, I have decided to look back to when Miss X made her housing application in January 2023. The reason for this is the delay appears to be because Miss X was appealing the Council’s decisions.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Miss 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

Relevant law and policy

10. 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))
11. 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))
12. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
13. 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.
14. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.
15. The Council’s housing allocations scheme is published on its website. The Council has a banding scheme which prioritises applicants from Band 1 to Band 4. Band 1 is the highest priority and Band 4 is the lowest priority. The criteria for each band is described in the Council’s scheme.
16. Band 2 includes applicants who have priority on medical and welfare grounds and require to move urgently because of a risk to their well-being or health.
17. Band 1 includes applicants who must vacate their home within six weeks, applicants who are statutorily overcrowded, hospital discharge applicants and applicants who are being discharged from the armed forces with a serious injury. Band 1 does not have a category for people who have a medical or welfare need to move that is greater than accounted for in Band 2.
18. The Council also prioritises applicants within each band using a priority star system. The Council awards one priority star for:
• People owed a statutory homelessness duty;
• People occupying unsanitary or overcrowded housing;
• People who need to move on severe medical or welfare grounds;
• People who need to move to a particular locality where failure to meet their needs would be detrimental to their health and wellbeing;
• A working household; and
• Applicants who are undertaking voluntary contribution.
19. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.

What happened

20. I have summarised below some key events leading to Miss X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
21. In January 2023, Miss X and her mother, Ms Y, submitted a joint housing application to the Council. Miss X said she had been assaulted by a neighbour the previous year which had left her with PTSD and anxiety, and meant she felt intimidated in her home. Ms Y said she had a disability which affected her mobility and meant it was difficult to use stairs leading to and inside a property.
22. The Council referred Miss X and Ms Y’s application to its Social Welfare Panel (SWP) to consider. In April 2023 the Council wrote to Miss X to confirm the SWP had reviewed her case and it had decided to place her application in priority Band 2. The Council also applied a priority star to recognise the need to move on severe medical or welfare grounds.
23. The Council wrote to Miss X to ask for further supporting information for her application, including proof of employment and if anyone on the application was volunteering in the Council’s area.
24. Miss X provided proof she was volunteering in the local area, and the Council awarded a second priority star to recognise her voluntary contribution.
25. The Council then forwarded all the medical information it had received for Miss X and Ms Y to its medical assessor for consideration.
26. The Council wrote to Miss X in March 2024 to explain it had considered all her and Ms Y’s medical evidence. The Council explained it appreciated Miss X’s accommodation may not be ideal, but the evidence did not suggest there was a medical need to move. The Council explained this decision did not affect Miss X’s existing priority award. The Council explained Miss X could ask it to review its decision if she disagreed.
27. In March 2024 Miss X wrote to the Council to explain she disagreed with its decision and to request a review. Miss X had to chase the Council for a response to her review request.
28. In August 2024 the Council wrote to Miss X to confirm it had completed her review request and apologised for the delay in responding. The Council said it had considered all the evidence it had been provided and accepted a disability and medical conditions were in existence within the household. However, the Council said it had determined Miss X and Ms Y did not have a medical need to move due to the accommodation contributing to ill health or a threat to life. The Council explained Miss X’s priority banding and priority stars would not be affected by this decision.
29. Miss X also provided the Council with proof of employment and it awarded a third priority star to acknowledge that Miss X’s was a working household.

Analysis

30. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to consider what banding or how many priority stars an applicant should be awarded. Rather, we consider whether the Council decided on the application properly, having regard for the key factors and policies which are relevant. If we consider the Council followed processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with it.
31. When the Council received Miss X’s application it made referrals to its SWP and medical assessor and requested supporting information as it felt necessary. After considering all the information Miss X had provided, as well as advice from the SWP and medical assessors, the Council decided to place Miss X’s application in Band 2 of its allocations scheme and award three priority stars. The Council wrote to Miss X explaining how it had reached its decisions and how its reasoning fit with its allocations policy, as well as her right to request a review. I appreciate Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decisions, but it appears to have followed the right process in coming to those decisions so I do not find it at fault here.
32. I have reviewed the information Miss X submitted to the Council as part of her application, and I cannot see that anything has been overlooked or incorrectly considered. I have not seen Miss X provided anything that relates to Band 1, as defined in the Council’s allocations scheme, or additional priority stars beyond those she has already been awarded, so I do not find fault with how the Council considered her evidence.
33. Miss X has questioned the medical assessor the Council uses and has said she believes they are not impartial. However, the medical assessor appears to have considered everything Miss X provided before giving advice, and the Council’s letters to Miss X make it clear the Council itself was ultimately responsible for the decisions made rather than the medical assessor.
34. In any case, Miss X’s application was placed into Band 2 which is the highest priority the Council’s allocations scheme designates for medical and welfare priority, and she has been awarded a priority star for medical and welfare grounds. There is nothing in the definition of Band 1 to suggest Miss X’s application would be placed there if her medical evidence were viewed differently and there are no other priority stars that could be applied on medical or welfare grounds. I do not find the Council at fault here.
35. The Council has said that since it accepted Miss X’s application into Band 2 and awarded her three priority stars there have been numerous properties where Miss X would have been the successful bidder, but she has chose not to complete applications for these. Miss X has said the reason for this is she does not feel the properties fit with the needs of her household. While Miss X is entitled to decide which properties she wants to bid for, I could not find the Council at fault for delays in her being rehoused.
36. However, there were delays in the Council considering Miss X’s review request. Miss X asked the Council to review its decision in March 2024, but it did not provide her with an answer on this until August 2024. This is a considerable delay, which amounts to fault. While the Council’s decision ultimately remained unchanged, this caused uncertainty and frustration for Miss X during that time, which is injustice. The Council has already apologised to Miss X for the delay, and I find this to be a suitable action to address the injustice.

Back to top

Decision

37. I find fault causing injustice, however the Council has already acted to address this injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman