Summary: Miss X complained how the Council handled her housing application. She says it failed to take proper account of her partner’s medical information and his circumstances. We find the Council was at fault for its failure to ask Miss X for clarification when it received contradictory information about the gender of her children. This caused Miss X frustration and upset. The Council apologised to Miss X, activated her housing application and backdated her registration date. This is sufficient to remedy her injustice. We do not recommend anything further.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained how the Council handled her housing application. She says it failed to take proper account of her partner’s medical information and his circumstances.
2. Miss X says the Council’s faults have caused distress and upset. She wants the Council to move her to a higher banding on its housing register.

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. 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)
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

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

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. 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))

10. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

11. The scheme says applicants that are overcrowded by one bedroom will be placed in Band C.
12. The Council awards medical priority to applicants in specific circumstances. This includes if there is evidence their current property cannot be improved and/or adapted to meet their needs.

What happened

13. Miss X lives in a two-bedroom social housing flat with her children and partner (Mr X). She applied to join the Council’s housing register in July 2024.
14. Mr X completed a medical assessment form for the application. He said the family needed to live in a three-bedroom house with a garden so he could have his own room and not disturb his children and Miss X. He also provided medical information from his GP. The GP said Mr X could not sleep properly due to inadequate space. He was sleeping on the sofa, and this was making his back pain worse.
15. The Council wrote to Miss X in August. It said she did not qualify to join the housing register because she did not have a housing need.
16. Miss X asked the Council to review its decision in December. She said the property was unsuitable for Mr X’s health. She also provided the Council with an occupational therapy (OT) assessment to support her application. The occupational therapist said Mr X struggles with his back, but he could manage the property with some minor grab rails. The therapist said they had recommended some minor rails and equipment, but Mr X and Miss X had declined this. The therapist also said it was fine for Mr X to use the lounge as his bedroom.
17. The Council completed its review in March 2025 and upheld its initial decision that Miss X did not qualify to join the housing register. It said it had reviewed the OT report. This confirmed the property was suitable. It could not award an extra bedroom as it had not received evidence of a requirement for an extra bedroom on medical grounds. It also said children of the same gender can share a bedroom up to the age of 20.
18. Miss X complained to the Council about its decision. She reiterated Mr X’s poor health. She also said her two children are not the same gender.
19. The Council responded to the complaint in April. It noted Miss X’s comments about Mr X’s poor health. However, the OT report said that although the property was cramped, it was suitable. The report also stated Mr X refused aids and adaptations. The Council said when Miss X submitted her application the information she provided was that she has two daughters. It had now reviewed the application and realised her children are different genders. It apologised for the distress caused. It said it had now activated her application and put her in Band C on the housing register due to overcrowding.

Back to top

Analysis

20. Miss X referred to her children as “Miss” in the application form. However, in the relationship section of the form, she mentioned daughter and son. This was contradictory information, and so the Council should have contacted her to ask for clarification. Its failure to do so was fault. This caused Miss X frustration and upset.
21. After Miss X complained, the Council reviewed her application again and realised its mistake. It apologised to Miss X, activated her housing application and backdated her registration date to July 2024. I welcome this and consider it is suitable to remedy Miss X’s injustice.
22. I have checked whether the Council’s fault means Miss X missed out on securing housing sooner. I do not consider it has. While some applicants that have successful secured housing have a registration date later than Miss X, the properties are not in areas Miss X wants to live in.
23. Miss X is not happy about being in Band C. She feels Mr X’s health conditions warrant a higher priority banding on the housing register. The Council reviewed the information Miss X provided, including the OT report, and decided there was not sufficient evidence to warrant medical priority. It explained why in its review decision letter and complaint response. That was a decision it was entitled to take, even if Miss X strongly disagrees. I do not find fault.

Back to top

Decision

24. There was fault by the Council, which caused Miss X an injustice. The Council has taken suitable action to remedy that injustice. I do not recommend anything further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman