Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not fully consider her concerns about the safety of her accommodation in relation to her daughter’s health and care needs. She complained the Council failed to rehouse her family despite her concerns about the risk of harm to her daughter. Miss X says the Council’s actions caused her severe emotional distress and negatively impacted her daughter’s wellbeing. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to make service improvements and provide Miss X with an apology and a financial remedy.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council did not fully consider her concerns about the safety of her accommodation in relation to her daughter’s health and care needs. She complained the Council failed to rehouse her family despite her concerns about the risk of harm to her daughter at her then current home. Miss X says the Council’s actions caused her severe emotional distress and negatively impacted her daughter’s wellbeing. She would like the Council to rehouse her family in a suitable property which is safe for her daughter and review its processes to ensure other families do not have the same experience.
2. Miss X also complained about delays by the Council in carrying out a home visit in 2022, delays in awarding significant medical need and a failure to respond to her correspondence between 2020 and 2022.

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 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. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. 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. I have investigated the complaint referred to in paragraph one for the period April 2024 (12 months prior to Miss X bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman) to April 2025. I have not investigated events prior to April 2024, or the complaints referred to in paragraph two because these complaints are late.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

9. 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))
10. 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))

The Council’s allocations scheme

11. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.
12. The Council’s housing register works on four different bands, (bands A, B, C and D). These bands determine how the Council will deal with housing applications, with Band A representing the highest priority need.

Principles of good administrative practice

13. In 2018 the Ombudsman published a guidance document (updated in January 2025), setting out the standards we expect from bodies in jurisdiction “Principles of Good Administrative Practice”. This includes:
• Stating the criteria for decision making and giving reasons for decisions
• Keeping proper and appropriate records
• Explaining clearly the rationale for decisions and recording them

What happened

14. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
15. Miss X lives with her partner and daughter, Y, who has a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Miss X says Y can experience meltdowns and hyper behaviour as a result of her ASD.
16. Miss X and her family lived in a one-bedroom flat located several floors above ground level.
17. In 2022, Miss X asked the Council to rehouse her family because she considered her accommodation was unsafe for Y. She said this was due to the lack of space within the flat which meant Y had no safe area in which to recover from meltdowns. Miss X also said the location of the flat (situated several floors above ground level) posed a significant risk of injury or fatality for Y. She said this was because Y’s repetitive behaviours meant she climbed up onto the windows to try to open them. Miss X said this behaviour, together with the flat’s access to a communal balcony posed a significant fall risk for Y.
18. Following an application from Miss X, the Council placed her in band C on the housing register with medical need priority.
19. The Council reviewed Miss X’s housing application in 2023 and awarded significant medical priority with effect from December 2022. The Council also placed Miss X in band B.

Miss X’s complaint

20. On 5 December 2024, Miss X complained to the Council. She said her accommodation was not suitable for Y’s needs due to the severe risk of her falling from the windows or the communal balcony. Miss X said the risk had increased as Y grew bigger and stronger, and the stress this caused had significantly impacted Miss X’s mental health. Miss X queried her average position in the bidding queue and said this seemed too high given her band B medical priority. Miss X also complained about delays by the Council in carrying out a home visit in 2022, delays in awarding significant medical need and a failure to respond to her correspondence between 2020 and 2022. Miss X said she had reported a change of circumstances during this period which the Council had not acted on.
21. The Council responded on 11 December 2024 and told Miss X it had escalated her rehousing application to the relevant department. The Council confirmed Miss X’s priority of band B and said she could continue to bid on two-bedroom properties. The Council provided details of estimated waiting times to secure a two-bedroom property and said it faced an unprecedented demand for social housing and temporary accommodation.
22. Miss X escalated her complaint; she said she considered the Council had not provided appropriate support or acknowledgement of her concerns.
23. In early January 2025, the Council revised Miss X’s effective band date on the housing register. Miss X’s priority band remained at band B, but the Council amended the significant medical priority date to January 2022.
24. On 22 January 2025, the Council provided its stage two complaint response. Regarding Miss X’s position in the bidding process, the Council said this may drop as other people with earlier effective band dates submit their bids. It said it was unable to find any service failure regarding Miss X’s bidding position, but it apologised for its failure to respond to her query. With regard to the communal balcony, the Council said it had raised Miss X’s concerns with the appropriate manager. The Council also apologised for initially providing an incorrect effective band date and offered Miss X a financial remedy regarding this matter.
25. Miss X replied, acknowledging the Council’s comments that it would review the matter of the communal balcony. She said however, that Y remained at risk as a result of living in the flat. Miss X declined the financial remedy and said the Council’s response did not fully address her concerns.
26. In mid-February 2025, Miss X received a new occupational therapist’s (OT) home safety assessment. The assessment referred to new and ongoing concerns about Y living in the flat and said the limited space restricted Y’s ability to explore active play. It said Y could present harming behaviours and recorded that Y had previously removed one of the window restrictors in the flat. The OT assessment recorded a risk of self-harm or to others because of negative behaviours, as well as a risk of Y jumping from the balcony.
27. At about the same time, Miss X obtained a letter from Y’s school which supported her request for rehousing. The letter referred to some of Y’s challenging behaviours and said the restricted size of the property meant Y did not have an appropriate safe space at home. It also referred to the communal balcony which it said was unsafe for Y.
28. The Council emailed Miss X on 24 February 2025. It said the issues regarding the balcony needed to be reviewed by an OT to determine the correct measures to meet Y’s needs. The Council said it had therefore contacted the OT manager who had advised that Miss X should direct her inquiry to the local specialist outpatients’ service for children with disabilities and additional needs.
29. On 4 March 2025, Miss X emailed the Council and provided copies of the OT home safety assessment and the letter from the school. Miss X asked the Council to review her concerns as an exceptional case, taking into account the new evidence from the OT and Y’s school. Miss X asked the Council to consider placing her in band A on the housing register and to be considered for emergency housing.
30. The Council replied on 4 April 2025. It referred to its previous email of 24 February 2025 and said it was unable to investigate this aspect of Miss X’s complaint any further.
31. Miss X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

What happened next

32. In July 2025, the Council told Miss X it required further medical documents from Y’s doctor.
33. Miss X submitted a health form to the Council, who undertook a medical assessment. The Council maintained its decision to award Miss X’s application with significant medical need.
34. In late 2025, Miss X and her family accepted an offer from the Council of alternative accommodation located on the ground floor.

Analysis

35. Miss X complained the Council did not fully consider her concerns about the safety of her accommodation. The Council says it mitigated and reduced risks inside Miss X’s home by installing window restrictors. It says it also explored the installation of a safety mesh on the communal balcony.
36. I acknowledge the Council’s comments. However, I have seen no record of when or how the Council considered the use of a safety mesh and no indication that one was installed.
37. Miss X asked the Council on 4 March 2025 to consider new evidence as an exceptional case due to the risk of harm to Y. This evidence (the OT home safety assessment and the letter from Y’s school) recorded a risk of harm to Y, or to others, because of the challenging behaviours resulting from Y’s sensory needs not being met. The OT assessment also recorded a risk of Y jumping/falling from the balcony.
38. As stated in paragraph 13 of this decision statement, the Ombudsman published guidance setting out the expected standards of good administrative practice from bodies in jurisdiction. This included keeping proper and appropriate records, as well as providing a clear rationale for decisions made.
39. I have seen no records to show how the Council considered the OT home safety assessment or the letter from the school. And I have seen no evidence to demonstrate how the Council decided how this information supported Miss X’s request for band A priority, and/or whether it justified moving Miss X and her family to a ground floor property. I acknowledge however, the Council has subsequently offered ground floor accommodation, which Miss X has accepted and moved into.
40. Based on the evidence provided, there is a lack of records to demonstrate:
• how the Council considered Miss X’s request for a review and the suitability of her then accommodation based on the information provided on 4 March 2025
• how/why the Council considered the use of window restrictors was sufficient, given that Y had removed these in the past
• how/when the Council considered the use of a safety mesh for the communal balcony
41. In addition, I have seen no evidence the Council provided an explanation to Miss X of how it considered the above points during the period of this investigation.
42. The lack of records regarding the above is not in accordance with the principles of good administrative practice. This is fault causing an injustice to Miss X, namely distress and uncertainty as to whether the Council fully considered her concerns and the supporting information she provided.

The Council’s consideration of Miss X’s bidding position

43. As part of its enquiry response, the Council provided a list showing Miss X’s bidding position. However, the list is not dated, and it is therefore not possible to determine when it was produced. I have seen no evidence to show how the Council reviewed whether Miss X’s placement was correct following the concerns raised as part of her complaint.
44. However, I acknowledge the Council’s stage two complaint response says although the Council was unable to identify service failure regarding Miss X’s bidding position, it apologised for the failure to respond to Miss X’s query. The Council acknowledged the frustration this caused Miss X.
45. It is positive the Council has itself identified the failure to respond to Miss X’s query as part of its complaint investigation. Nevertheless, the failure to respond in a timely manner is fault. I agree with the Council’s comments that this fault caused avoidable frustration for Miss X.

Back to top

Action

46. To address the injustice identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:
1. Provide an apology to Miss X. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings;
2. Make a symbolic payment of £500 to Miss X in recognition of the distress, uncertainty and frustration caused by the fault identified;
3. Provide guidance to staff to ensure they respond to service users’ queries in a timely manner, and
4. Provide guidance to staff to ensure they are aware of and understand the principles of good administrative practice as published by the Ombudsman, specifically the need to keep appropriate records and to provide a clear rational for decisions.
47. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

48. I have found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above action to remedy the injustice identified and I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman