Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision that she and her family were not eligible to join its housing register. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making, but we do find fault in the Council’s communication and in delays when making its decisions. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s decision that she and her family are not eligible to join its housing register.
2. She says this has affected her mental health.

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. 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

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

Housing allocations

7. 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))

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

8. The Council’s housing allocations scheme describes how the Council assesses applications for housing, prioritises each application and decides which applicant will be offered a council or housing association home.
9. Applicants who qualify to join the housing register are placed in Bands 1 to 3, with Band 1 being the highest priority. Applicants who are assessed as having no housing need are not eligible to join the register.
10. Applicants can request a review if they disagree with a decision about their housing application. The Council aims to complete reviews within 28 days.

Overcrowding

11. The Council uses the ‘bedroom standard’ to decide whether a household is overcrowded.
12. For the purposes of this complaint, households overcrowded by one bedroom do not qualify to join the housing register.

Health-related housing assessments

13. The Council’s medical assessment does not determine how severe a condition or disability is. Instead, it considers how the applicant’s current accommodation affects the health or wellbeing of the household and whether alternative housing would improve this.
14. Depending on the information provided, the Council may request further evidence or seek advice from its Medical Advisor or health professionals such as an Occupational Therapist, GP or Consultant. The Housing Allocation Manager makes the final decision. Factors such as overcrowding, floor level and room size will also be considered.
15. The assessment focuses on how the accommodation impacts daily living, access to services and participation in the community. It recommends the level of medical priority and, where appropriate, the type of property needed (for example, wheelchair-adapted or ground-floor accommodation).
16. For the purposes of this complaint, medical priority is awarded only where the applicant’s current accommodation moderately or severely affects their health.
17. Applicants may request a review if they disagree with the decision on their medical application. The Council aims to complete the review within 28 days.

What happened

18. Miss X applied to join the Council’s housing register in 2022 because she wished to move to a larger property with one extra bedroom.
19. In 2023, she provided further information about her family’s additional needs and the impact their current living situation was having on them, in support of her application.
20. In April 2024, an Occupational Therapist assessed the family. The assessment concluded the family would benefit from having access to a garden, which they already had, and that all property types were suitable for their needs.
21. In May 2024, Miss X contacted the Council to request an update on her application.
22. In November 2024, she again contacted the Council for an update and was advised the service was experiencing a significant backlog.
23. Later that month, the Council completed its assessment and wrote to Miss X with the outcome. The letter listed the information considered and explained the Council had identified only a low demonstratable link between the family’s health needs and their current accommodation. It decided their housing situation did not moderately or severely affect their condition and therefore they did not qualify to join the housing register under health-related priority.
24. In December 2024, Miss X requested a review of the decision.
25. In March 2025, she chased the outcome of the outstanding review request.
26. In April 2025, Miss X contacted the Council again for an update and later submitted additional information for consideration as part of the review. Miss X also contacted her MP, who raised the matter with the Council. The Council confirmed a full review was underway.
27. In May 2025, Miss X made a formal complaint to the Council about delays in determining her application and the review, and about poor communication.
28. Later that month, the Council issued its review decision, which upheld the original decision. The Council apologised for the delay and explained it was working with reduced resources and implementing a new housing system, which had affected processing times.
29. The Council also issued its complaint response. It explained that housing register reviews fall outside the complaints procedure but again apologised for the time taken to complete the review.

My findings

The housing application decision

30. 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, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
31. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed Miss X’s housing application. The Council considered the information she submitted, the Occupational Therapist’s assessment, and relevant factors under its allocations scheme. It was entitled to decide the family did not meet the criteria to join the housing register based on health-related need or overcrowding.
32. The Council’s decision letter explained the information reviewed and set out its reasoning. The decision was made in line with the published scheme.

The review decision

33. The Council completed a review when Miss X asked for one and upheld the original decision. The review outcome letter shows the Council reconsidered the evidence. There is no fault in the Council's review.

Delay

34. The Council has recognised the delay in processing Miss X’s housing application, taking two years to assess it. This delay was fault and caused Miss X avoidable distress and uncertainty.
35. The Council has also recognised the further delay in processing Miss X’s request for a review. It took the Council around five months to issue a decision, despite a published timescale of 28 days. This was fault.
36. The Council explained the delay was due to reduced staffing resources and the implementation of a new housing system. While service pressures can explain delay, they do not remove the responsibility to provide services within reasonable timescales. The delay caused Miss X further distress and uncertainty.

Communication

37. Miss X contacted the Council several times for updates. The information she received was limited and did not provide clear timescales. The Council’s poor communication was fault and contributed to her frustration.

Back to top

Action

38. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Miss X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology; and
• pay Miss X £300 to recognise the uncertainty and avoidable distress caused by its poor communication, and the delay in assessing Miss X’s housing application and review.
39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

40. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman