Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to acknowledge her complaint about the suitability of her accommodation. We find the Council at fault for a delay in completing its assessment of Miss X’s medical needs. The delay caused Miss X uncertainty and frustration, however the assessment result was backdated which remedied the injustice caused by the delay.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to acknowledge her complaint that her accommodation is unsuitable on the grounds of overcrowding, medical needs and significant damp and mould issues. Miss X told us the disrepair and overcrowding of the property is impacting the family’s health and limiting their use of the property. Miss X would like to be rehoused in suitable accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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 s34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have not investigated the Council’s action in addressing the issue of damp and mould at Miss X’s property. This has been investigated by the Housing Ombudsman.
5. I have investigated the Council’s handling of Miss X’s request for rehousing.

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

Legal and administrative background

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. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
11. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

What happened

12. Miss X contacted the Council in October 2024 to complain her accommodation was unsuitable on the grounds of disrepair, medical needs and overcrowding. Miss X requested the Council rehouse her family. A month later Miss X provided evidence to support her complaint.
13. Between October 2024 and November 2024, the Council inspected the property and determined the property was habitable with no category one hazards.
14. The Council issued a complaint response in November 2024 which explained it believed the property remained habitable. The Council confirmed it would complete an assessment of Miss X’s medical needs.
15. The Council wrote to Miss X in December 2024 to explain the waiting time for a medical needs assessment was approximately 12 weeks from the date the case was added to the waiting list. Miss X’s assessment was added to the waiting list on the date she provided her supporting evidence at the beginning of November 2024. In accordance with the 12 week waiting list, the Council should have completed its assessment by the end of January 2025.
16. Miss X provided additional supporting evidence at the beginning of December 2024.
17. The Council wrote to Miss X again in the second week of February 2025 to explain it would not be able to complete the assessment within the original 12 week timeframe.
18. The Council wrote to Miss X at the end of March 2025 to explain it had completed its assessment of Miss X’s medical needs and awarded her band A priority. This was backdated to the beginning of December.

My findings

19. There was a delay in the Council completing its assessment of Miss X’s medical needs. The delay caused Miss X uncertainty and frustration. The Council backdated Miss X’s band A priority to the date it received her medical evidence. This remedies the injustice caused by the delay.
20. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s medical needs or the banding it has awarded. The Council has awarded Miss X priority banding A in accordance with its published allocations scheme.
21. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of Miss X’s complaint.

Back to top

Decision

22. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has already taken action to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman