The investigation

The complaint

1. Ms Z, a professional representative, made a complaint on Mr X’s behalf about the Council’s handling of housing matters. She said the Council:

• delayed carrying out an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment;

• failed to properly explain why the Council would not place Mr X’s household at the top of the direct offer register for a suitable property;

• failed to inform Mr X of his right to a review of this decision;

• delayed reconsidering its decision after it was challenged;

• failed to make homeless inquiries after being informed Mr X’s property was no longer suitable to occupy;

• failed to issue complaint responses which addressed the full complaint; and

• failed to issue complaint responses within timescales set out in its polices.

2. Ms Z says this has caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty and the family’s housing needs have gone unmet for longer than necessary.

Legal and administrative background

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this report, we 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. We 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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Relevant law and guidance Housing allocations

5. 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))

6. 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))

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

8. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:

• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process;

• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;

• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;

• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

The Council’s housing allocations policy

9. The Council has a number of adapted homes suitable for people with disabilities which have been either purpose built or adapted for a previous occupant. It is important that the Council makes best use of these adapted homes, as there is a high demand for these properties, which is difficult to meet. As a result, households in which there is a person who needs an adaptation are waiting a very long time for an adapted property.

10. When a property becomes vacant, or when the Council is notified that there is an adapted property about to become available, officers will review the Housing Register and referrals from the disabilities Joint Assessment Panel, to identify everyone with the relevant level of adaptation need. The lettings officer will then allocate the adapted property on the basis of:

• highest band of reasonable preference categories;

• longest time waiting;

• medical need best suited to the property; and

• cases with a medical emergency may be placed in the highest band and override other priorities.

Homelessness

11. A person is considered legally homeless if they have accommodation but it is not reasonable for them to continue to occupy it.

12. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)

13. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. This assessment must include:

• The circumstances that have caused them to become homeless or threatened with homelessness;

• Their housing needs; and

• Their support needs.

(Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.7)

14. If councils are satisfied applicants are homeless and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. The relief duty usually lasts 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

15. If, at the end of the relief duty, a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

16. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188).

17. It is an absolute duty and the authority cannot postpone it due to a lack of available resources. It arises immediately and councils should have processes in place to find accommodation for households on the day they need it.

18. The council has to offer interim accommodation. The applicant does not have to accept it.

Disabled Facilities Grants

19. Disabled Facilities Grants are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, meets the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable.

The Council’s complaints policy

20. The policy says it will respond to a stage two complaint within 30 working days. It also says should the complaint be unclear it will ask for clarification to ensure the response provided addresses all points of concern.

How we considered this complaint

21. We have produced this report following the examination of relevant files and documents and interviews with the complainant.

22. We gave the complainant and the Council a confidential draft of this report and invited their comments. The comments received were taken into account before the report was finalised.

What we found

What happened

23. Mr X lives in a two-bedroom privately rented ground floor flat with his partner and children. One of the children, Y, who is a teenager, has extensive care needs and is unable to walk. Mr X applied to the housing register and in November 2023, the Council assessed the family as requiring a three-bedroom adapted property.

24. In February 2024, due to a change of circumstances, the Council assessed the family as requiring a four-bedroom adapted property. The Council told Mr X it would make him a direct offer on a property rather than him having to bid because he needed an adapted property.

25. In April 2024, the Council told Mr X that there were eight other households with the same priority who had been waiting longer than Mr X for a four-bedroom adapted property.

26. Y required a significant operation. In May 2024, the hospital undertaking Y’s surgery requested the Council to complete an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment to obtain more information on the family’s circumstances.

27. In late June 2024, Mr X’s representative (Ms Z) asked the Council to place Mr X’s household at the top of the direct offer register, above the other eight households. Ms Z said it should do this because:

• Y uses an electric and manual wheelchair and they could not use these in the flat nor did the family have anywhere to store them;

• there was no room for a mobile hoist and all transfers had to be done manually. A transfer is when Y needed to be moved from one place to another. This was a health and safety risk both to Y and their carers;

• Mr X manually lifted Y into the flat and into a wheelchair which was again a health and safety risk;

• Y had to share a room with their siblings and there was no room to store medical equipment;

• Y had major surgery scheduled for July. This had previously been postponed due to the unsuitability of the flat but this could not be postponed further due to Y’s health; and

• following the surgery all transfers needed to be completed by hoist to avoid injury to Y.

28. The same month the Council acknowledged the request and said it would be in contact once it had considered what options may be available.

29. In August, Ms Z chased the Council for a response. The Council responded mid-September 2024 saying it decided that it was not possible to prioritise Mr X’s household ahead of other cases which had the same level of preference. This was because other households had been waiting for an offer of accommodation for longer.

30. In November 2024, Ms Z raised a stage one complaint. She complained that the Council:

• had not done an OT assessment of the home;

• failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision not to give overriding priority as a medical emergency; and

• delayed dealing with the request and making any attempt to find Mr X a suitable property.

31. In December 2024, the Council issued a stage one response to say it had now requested an OT assessment for Y. It did not address the rest of the complaint.

32. The same month, Ms Z asked the Council to consider this at stage two and the OT report was issued. The OT report said:

• the reason for the referral was that the Council had said Y could not be moved due to the shortage of properties and therefore needed to remain in the current property;

• Y could not access the property independently in a wheelchair as front and rear access were not levelled;

• the property was not big enough to accommodate all the equipment Y needed and was overcrowded;

• Y needed their own room as they required lots of specialist equipment;

• the landlord would not authorise adaptations to the property to make it more suitable for Y; and

• the property did not meet the needs of the family and they would benefit from urgent re-housing to more suitable accommodation.

33. In May 2025, Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of the matter and complained to us.

34. The Council issued a stage two complaint response in September 2025. It said:

• the OT assessment was completed in December 2024;

• it would issue a formal decision letter on the request for overriding priority and include the correct route of appeal for the family to follow;

• it would continue to monitor available properties; and

• it offered £200 to recognise that it should have issued a formal decision with review rights earlier.

35. In September 2025, the Council issued a decision letter rejecting the request for overriding priority. The Council said:

• there were 12 other families with the same level of priority, some of which had similar or greater needs and had been waiting longer;

• the OT report recommended a property built to wheelchair standard with a level access shower which significantly narrowed the pool of suitable properties;

• privately rented accommodation could be another option where the family could apply for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to fund the necessary adaptations; and

• Mr X could request a review of the decision within 21 days.

36. Ms Z requested a review of the decision the following month.

37. Ms Z confirmed to us the family did not want to be recognised as homeless by the Council as they were already on the housing register and they did not want to go into privately rented accommodation.

The Council’s response to our enquiries

38. The Council said the delays doing an OT assessment were caused by a backlog in assessments.

39. The Council said the OT report did not conclude that it was unreasonable or impossible for the family to remain in the current home until the Council found alternative accommodation. The Council said it received Ms Z’s review request in October 2025 and sent it to the relevant team to deal with.

40. In the meantime, it said it will decide what it can do to improve the family’s living situation until they can move to a more suitable home. As part of this, the Council will determine if it is appropriate to take a homeless application.

41. However, the Council has said that if it takes a homeless approach, it is unlikely that the emergency or temporary accommodation options available would offer a better solution than the family’s current property. The Council said it can support the family to find a privately rented property that meets their needs if Mr X is willing to accept this.

42. The Council accepted the September 2024 decision did not outline Mr X’s right of review or sufficiently explain why the household did not qualify for overriding priority. It said it would like to increase its remedy from £200 to £1,200 to recognise the delay and undue distress and uncertainty caused to Mr X.

Conclusions

Delays with OT assessment

43. In May 2024, an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment was requested on Mr X’s behalf to obtain more information on the family’s circumstances. Whilst there is no statutory timescale for the Council to complete an OT assessment, we would expect the Council to do this within six to eight weeks. So the Council should have completed an OT assessment by the end of July 2024 at the latest. The Council did not do this until December 2024 which was a delay of five months and fault. This meant Y had the major operation before the Council did the OT assessment. This caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty and Y’s needs have gone unmet for longer than necessary.

Delays with the review request

44. In June 2024, Mr X’s representative (Ms Z) asked the Council to place Mr X’s household at the top of the direct offer register. We would expect the Council to respond to this within a reasonable timeframe and within eight weeks, so by mid-August at the latest. The Council did not provide a response until September 2024 which was five weeks late and fault.

45. When the Council issued its decision, it should have set out its reasons for not giving Mr X additional priority. The Council should have explained that he could request a review of its decision. It accepted it failed to do this which was fault. As a result, Mr X could not understand the Council’s reasons for refusal and he was also unable to request a review of the decision.

46. When Ms Z complained in November 2024 that the Council had failed to provide a fully reasoned decision on why it could not give overriding priority, the Council should have treated this as a review request. Had it done so, it should have issued a review decision within eight weeks, so by mid-January at the latest. The Council did not issue a decision letter with review rights until September 2025 which was eight months later. This delay was fault.

47. This caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty as the delays meant that Y already had the operation prior to Mr X getting the outcome of his request and the subsequent review.

Delays and quality of the complaint response

48. In November 2024, Ms Z made a stage one complaint about three different concerns which are outlined in paragraph 30. The Council complaints policy says it will provide a response which addresses all points of concern. The Council’s stage one complaint response only addresses one point of Ms Z’s complaint which was fault.

49. In December 2024, Ms Z asked the Council to consider the complaint at stage two. The Council’s policy states it will issue a stage two response within 30 working days. It should have provided a response by the end of January 2025 at the latest. The Council failed to issue a response until September 2025. This was a delay of eight months and fault.

50. The faults with the stage one and stage two complaint response were a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint sooner which caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty.

Failure to make homeless inquiries

51. In late June 2024, Ms Z gave the Council multiple reasons Mr X’s current property was not suitable for the family. At this point the Council should have considered whether it had reason to believe Mr X was homeless or threatened with homelessness. A person is considered legally homeless if they have accommodation but it is not reasonable for them to continue to occupy it. The threshold for making inquiries is low and Ms Z’s email informing the Council of the unsuitable housing and asking the Council to find accommodation for them meets this threshold. In addition while Y remained living in the property they did not have access to important medical equipment after major surgery. Y was at significant risk of harm, was reliant on Mr X and was denied the dignity and independence of moving around their own home safely. Therefore, the Council should have made inquiries into what housing duties it owed Mr X and his household. The Council did not do this which was fault.

52. On balance, had the Council acted without fault and made homeless inquiries in June 2024, it may have decided Mr X and his family were homeless and gone on to offer suitable interim accommodation under the relief duty. The Council has allowed the matter to drift for almost 18 months and the injustice is on-going. We cannot say the family would have taken any offer of interim accommodation as Ms Z was clear the family did not want to be recognised as homeless. However, there is uncertainty around whether Y would have had access to important medical equipment, dignity and independence in moving around after major surgery had the Council acted without fault.

Recommendations

53. The Council must consider the report and confirm within three months the action it has taken or proposes to take. The Council should consider the report at its full Council, Cabinet or other appropriately delegated committee of elected members and we will require evidence of this. (Local Government Act 1974, section 31(2), as amended)

54. In addition to the requirements set out above, within one month of the date of this report, the Council has agreed to:

• apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused by the faults identified in this decision. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology we have recommended in our findings;

• increase its offer to Mr X to £1,200 for the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by its failure to make homeless inquiries and the delays in the OT assessment, over-riding priority decision and the stage two complaint response;

• arrange and hold a meeting with the family to explore all their housing options including privately renting and getting a disabled facilities grant as well as waiting for a suitable council property; and

• provide guidance to complaints officers that complaint responses should address the full complaint and be issued within the timescales set out in the Council’s complaints policy.

55. Within three months of the date of this report the Council has agreed to:

• create an action plan to show how it will identify potential homelessness cases regardless of point of contact within the Council and put in place monitoring to review the progress of this; and

• provide us with an action plan specifically around how the Council intends to reduce OT wait times. This will include senior level monitoring of progress on a regular basis.

Decision

56. We have completed our investigation into this complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr X and his child Y. The Council has agreed to take the action identified in paragraphs 53 to 55 to remedy that injustice.

Print this page