Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council dealt with her housing. The Council was at fault for delaying in completing a medical assessment, failing to complete a review of her priority need and poor communication. This caused Miss X frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X for the frustration and uncertainty this caused and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the way the Council dealt with her homelessness application. She says the Council failed to respond to medical evidence she submitted to support her homelessness application and failed to respond to her request for a review of her housing register banding decision. Miss X also says the Council responded poorly to her complaint.
2. Miss X says this has caused her significant distress and time and trouble chasing the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
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

Legislation and guidance

The main housing duty

8. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198).

The published scheme

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))

Reasonable preference

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))

Review timescale and right of appeal

11. Councils must complete review of decisions about priority need or suitability of accommodation within eight weeks of the date of the review request.
12. These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
13. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

The Council’s scheme

14. The Council’s housing allocation scheme details its banding process:

• Band 1: high priority housing need, including medical and disability needs;
• Band 2: priority housing need, including homelessness and overcrowding; and
• Band 3: general housing options.

What happened?

15. Miss X was in temporary accommodation due to being homeless and had been awarded Band 2.
16. Miss X wanted the Council to award her Band 1 medical priority because of her son’s needs. She sent an unsigned and undated medical form to the Council in November 2024. The Council said it processed this in mid-December.
17. Miss X chased the progress of this several times over the coming months.
18. In mid-February 2025, Miss X sent a stage one complaint to the Council, she said:

• despite submitting a medical form in November 2024 and telling the Council her current accommodation is unsuitable due to her son’s condition, the Council had not responded; and
• she had chased this several times by telephone, email and by visiting Council offices.

19. The Council replied in mid-March. It apologised that it had not yet decided on any medical priority she may be owed. It said it would send her a decision as soon as possible. It also said that as it owed her a main housing duty, she could ask for a statutory review of her temporary accommodation and told her how to do this.
20. Miss X escalated her complaint to stage two in early April. She said she had still not heard anything about her medical assessment.
21. The Council said it wrote to Miss X shortly after this to say the medical recommendation following this assessment did not warrant any change to Miss X’s priority banding at this time and she would remain in Band 2.
22. In mid-April, Miss X contacted the Council to ask for a review of this decision.
23. The Council replied to Miss X’s stage two complaint at the end of April. It apologised for its lack of communication and said due to the high number of applications it receives, there are delays with processing requests. The Council accepted it should have told Miss X this and reassured her that her application was being processed.
24. The Council also incorrectly noted that Miss X had not asked for a review of its decision.
25. Miss X contacted the Council again at the start of May. She said when she gave the medical form to the Council, her son was awaiting an autism assessment, but he had now been diagnosed. She also noted she was still waiting for a decision on the review request she made in April about the Council’s priority decision.
26. The Council replied in mid-May, it said the health advisor to the Council recommended that her application was amended slightly in terms of suitable properties, but that her banding would remain the same. It said as her son had a new diagnosis, it would refer this to its occupational therapist team for assessment.
27. The Council replied in early July to say she would be allocated an occupational therapist once one became available. Miss X responded to the Council with a new medical report related to her son in support of her medical application.
28. An occupational therapy assessment was completed at the end of August. Following this, the Council decided Miss X’s temporary accommodation was unsuitable. It awarded her the highest priority band.

Response to my enquiries

29. The Council acknowledged there was a delay between processing the medical form in December 2024 and telling Miss X of the outcome of this in April 2025.  
30. We asked the Council to give us its response to Miss X’s review request of April 2025. It did not provide any documents relating to a response to this. There was also no reference to any review request in Miss X’s housing case notes.

Findings

Medical evidence

31. The Council already acknowledged there was a delay between processing Miss X’s medical form in December 2024 and telling her about the outcome in April 2025.
32. While there is no specific timeframe in place for completing a medical assessment, we expect a council to do this within a reasonable timeframe. In this case, the Council took over four months, which was fault.
33. But as the outcome of this assessment did not change Miss X’s banding, the injustice caused to her is limited to uncertainty about the outcome of the assessment and frustration in having to chase updates. I will recommend remedies for this.

Review request

34. Miss X provided evidence that she asked the Council to review its medical decision in April 2025. When she followed this up, the Council did not tell her that it had not received her review request. It also did not tell me this. Based on this, on the balance of probabilities, I consider that Miss X did send a review request to the Council in April 2025.
35. Despite this, the Council noted in its stage two complaint response that Miss X had not asked for a review. It also did not provide any evidence that it completed the review when I asked for it.
36. Miss X had a statutory right to a review, and the Council failing to complete this was fault. But, I cannot say on balance whether Miss X’s priority would have changed if the Council had completed this review. This is because Miss X submitted further medical evidence after this date which finally led to a change in her priority in August 2025. Because of this, Miss X’s injustice is limited to uncertainty about what the outcome of the review would have been, and frustration in having to ask the Council for updates.
37. I will recommend service improvements related to this.

Communication

38. The Council already accepted and apologised for its lack of communication with Miss X. This poor communication was fault which caused Miss X further frustration.

Back to top

Action

39. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council will:
• apologise to Miss X for the faults identified and the injustice this caused. 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 its apology; and

• make a payment of £150 to Miss X to reflect the frustration and uncertainty caused to her by delaying in completing a medical assessment, failing to complete a review of its decision and poor communication.

Within eight weeks of our final decision, the Council will:

• send us an action plan on how it will ensure all housing review requests are recorded and completed.

40. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman