Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her medical and safety needs when assessing her housing application. We find no fault in the Council’s decision not to award her medical priority points. However, we find fault in the Council’s failure to consider whether it was reasonable for Miss X and her children to remain in their current accommodation in light of the harassment she was experiencing, and in its failure to appropriately signpost her to, or coordinate with, its homelessness service. These failings caused Miss X uncertainty about whether she should have received additional advice or assistance. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X, assess whether Miss X’s current circumstances give rise to homelessness duties, and take action to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her medical and safety needs when assessing her housing application. She says she needs to move due to harassment from her ex-partner and requested medical priority for ground floor accommodation because of her health conditions, but the Council refused.
2. Miss X says this has caused her anxiety and stress, and she feels unsafe in her current home.

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. 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.
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 before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

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. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority. Statutory guidance recommends Council’s complete reviews within eight weeks.  

Council’s allocations scheme

10. The Council operates a points-based allocation scheme. It awards applicant’s different amounts of points, based on their circumstances. This includes points due to homelessness, needing to move for medical reasons, harassment and violence, and other circumstances.
11. “To be assessed as eligible for housing and health related points, you must demonstrate that:
• your medical condition is being caused or made worse by your housing conditions, and
• your current property cannot be improved or adapted to meet your needs at a reasonable cost, and
• rehousing is likely to significantly improve your condition.”
12. As far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards 600 points to individuals who are fleeing severe harassment or violence and are in urgent need of rehousing.
13. The Council’s allocation scheme says it aims to consider applications for medical priority within 21 working days. It says this might take longer if there are delays in providing the Council with the necessary evidence. (Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme 2018, paragraph 4.6.6)
14. The Council has a two-stage review process for housing allocation applications, including medical priority:
• Stage one – a review by the officer who made the decision within 14 days.
• Stage two – a review by a more senior officer within 56 days. (Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme 2018, paragraphs 9.2.4 – 9.2.5)

Homeless definition

15. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
16. It is not reasonable for a person to continue to live in accommodation if it is probable this will lead to violence or domestic abuse against them. (Housing Act 1996, Section 177)

Interim accommodation and domestic abuse

17. If a council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless as a result of domestic abuse, it should make interim accommodation available to the applicant immediately whilst it undertakes its investigations. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 21.25)

Assessing homelessness and domestic abuse

18. The Council should try to get an account of the applicant’s experience to assess whether the behaviour they have experienced is abusive or whether they would be at risk of domestic abuse if they continued to occupy their accommodation. The authority should support the victim to outline their experience and make an assessment based on the details of the case. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 21)

Safety planning and risk assessment

19. The Code says applicants at risk of domestic abuse should not be expected to return home on the strength of an injunction - such as an occupation or non-molestation order – as these are not always effective. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 21)

What happened

20. Miss X lives with her children in a council property. In 2021, she was accepted onto the Council’s housing register and has been awarded housing points for her living conditions, length of time on the register, and her request to transfer from a council property.
21. In 2024, Miss X was referred to the Council’s domestic abuse service after experiencing harassment from her ex-partner. The service supported her to apply for a non-molestation order and to seek additional housing allocation points. As a result, the Council awarded Miss X 600 harassment points, the maximum available under the scheme.
22. In October, Miss X applied for medical priority points due to her health conditions.
23. The Council considered her application and decided not to award medical priority points. It notified Miss X of her right to request a review, which she did. The Council closed the review when Miss X did not return a health and disability questionnaire.
24. In November, Miss X submitted the completed questionnaire. The Council referred the information to an external medical adviser, who concluded that medical priority did not apply as Miss X lived in a property with access to normal facilities and there was no evidence of an adverse medical impact caused by the accommodation.
25. In January 2025, the Council wrote to Miss X confirming that she did not meet the criteria for medical priority.
26. Miss X requested a stage one review. The Council referred the matter back to the external medical adviser, who reviewed the available information and concluded that her housing did not have a severe adverse effect on her health.
27. In March, the Council wrote to Miss X to tell her it was upholding the original decision not to award medical priority points.
28. Miss X then requested a stage two review and provided further evidence. The Council referred this to the external medical advisers who arranged an Occupational Therapist to assess Miss X. They concluded that she did not qualify for medical priority.
29. In May, the Council completed its stage two review and upheld the original decision, finding that Miss X’s medical conditions were unlikely to improve through rehousing.
30. Dissatisfied with the outcome, Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

My findings

Medical priority points

31. 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.
32. In considering Miss X’s application for medical priority points and the subsequent reviews, the Council followed its published allocations scheme, obtained appropriate advice from external medical professionals, and completed both review stages. I find no fault in the way the Council reached its decision not to award medical priority points.
33. The Council took longer than stated in its allocations scheme to complete the stage one review, which took 34 days rather than 14. This was fault. However, I do not consider this delay caused Miss X significant injustice, as the outcome of the review was unchanged and the stage two review was completed within timescales.

Harassment and homelessness considerations

34. The Council became aware that Miss X was experiencing harassment from her ex-partner in August 2024. The Council responded by providing her with appropriate support through its domestic abuse service and awarding her 600 harassment points, the maximum available under its scheme. I find no fault in that decision.
35. However, the evidence shows the Council did not consider whether it was reasonable for Miss X and her children to continue to occupy their accommodation in light of the harassment she was experiencing. Although Miss X had not made a homelessness application, the Council has not shown that it signposted her to its homelessness service or shared relevant information internally so that her circumstances could be considered under homelessness legislation. This was fault.
36. On the balance of probabilities, based on the information available to the Council at the time, I find that Miss X met the threshold for homelessness assistance and should have been offered interim accommodation. I cannot say whether Miss X would have chosen to accept such accommodation, particularly as doing so may have affected her housing allocation points. However, the Council’s failure to consider this or to offer appropriate homelessness assistance resulted in a missed opportunity for Miss X to receive additional advice and support.

Back to top

Action

37. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Miss X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
• pay Miss X £250 to recognise the missed opportunity to provide her with homelessness advice and assistance; and
• contact Miss X to assess whether her current circumstances give rise to reason to believe she may be eligible for assistance, homeless, and in priority need, and if so, ensure she is provided with clear information to enable her to make an informed decision about her options.
38. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council should:
• remind relevant housing allocation and domestic abuse staff of the need to consider, when harassment or abuse is disclosed, whether it may be unreasonable for an applicant to remain in their accommodation, and of the requirement to appropriately signpost the applicant to, or liaise with, the homelessness service where relevant; and
• review and, where necessary, update its internal procedures to ensure that information about harassment or domestic abuse disclosed through housing allocation processes is consistently shared with the homelessness service, so that homelessness duties can be considered at an early stage.
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