Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of, and delays with, her medical assessment and review for her housing application. We found the Council at fault for its delays, poor communication, and a failure to make a decision when it should have. This caused Miss X frustration, distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council's delays and poor communication with her when she made a request for a medical assessment in relation to her housing application. She says this caused frustration and distress as it had not considered or assessed her family's complex medical and health needs, with their home significantly affecting their mental and physical wellbeing at the time.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered her views.
5. I considered information the Council provided in relation to this complaint, 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 received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and administrative background

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))
8. 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))

9. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
10. 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.

The Council’s allocation scheme

11. The Council operates a points-based allocation scheme. It awards applicants different numbers of points, based on their housing needs. This includes points for living in an overcrowded property, needing to move for medical or welfare reasons, and other circumstances.
12. The Council’s allocation scheme says it aims to consider applications for medical priority within 21 working days. It says it might take longer if there are delays in providing the Council with the necessary evidence. The Council’s policy also says it puts applications on hold while assessing medical priority, which prevents applicants from bidding.
13. The Council has a two-stage review process for housing allocation applications, including medical priority: Stage 1 – a review by the officer who made the decision within 14 days. Stage 2 – a review by a more senior officer within 56 days.

Background

14. Miss X and her children have been on the Council’s housing register for several years, with eligibility to bid on 3-bedroom properties. In January 2025, the Council awarded her the highest points under a welfare category, recognising she had a serious need to move.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

15. In mid-February 2025, a Council housing officer made a request for a formal review of a medical decision made on Miss X’s housing application.
16. In mid-March 2025, Miss X made a formal complaint to the Council. It had not responded to her emails, and it was over the timeframe for a decision. She said she had an urgent rehousing need due to an ongoing welfare issue. This was having a serious and harmful impact on the safety and wellbeing of her family. She said it was causing more distress by failing to properly assess her children’s medical needs.
17. In early April 2025, the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint at Stage 1. It apologised for the lack of communication and its delay. An officer had now contacted Miss X for more evidence, and its review was ongoing. It would then forward to the medical team for assessment.
18. In early May 2025, Miss X escalated her complaint. The case officer failed to send her the correct form despite chasing and she resorted to submitting medical documents herself.
19. Miss X then complained to us. She added the housing officer told her it would offer a “like-for-like” direct offer matching her current property size. She said this may fail to meet their medical and disability needs as it had not done an assessment as it should have.
20. In late June 2025, the Council responded at Stage 2 and upheld her complaint. It accepted its delay in completing the medical assessment which it should have done within eight weeks. It was working through a large number of reviews. It offered a financial remedy of £100. Miss X said she did not accept this.
21. Since her complaint to us, the Council made a direct offer to Miss X. She accepted and has since moved property. The Council said it withdrew and closed Miss X’s medical review assessment as a result.
22. I spoke to Miss X. She confirmed the following:
• After the medical review request in February 2025, she was still able to bid on properties throughout this.
• She was of the view the medical assessment would make her eligible for additional medical points. This would increase their priority for bidding. She also wanted an additional bedroom due to her children’s complex needs.
• She is happy with the property she is in now. She did not know the Council had withdrawn the medical assessment but said having one now is not necessary.

Analysis

23. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide if someone is eligible for medical or additional priority on a housing register. That is the role of a council. We look at the process of how a council considers and makes it decisions, and decide whether there is fault, causing personal injustice to the complainant.
24. I recognise the background of Miss X’s concerns about her situation; however, I am considering the main substance of her complaint to the Council. This related to the delayed medical assessment and review from February 2025.
25. The Council accepted its poor communication with Miss X after her request. This is fault. This caused Miss X avoidable frustration, with time and trouble in chasing up responses.
26. Shortly after Miss X’s complaint to us, she accepted a direct offer from the Council. By this point, the Council had delayed the medical assessment by five months. This is fault, causing Miss X frustration, uncertainty and distress.
27. The Council had previously acknowledged Miss X’s welfare situation and acknowledged she had a high need to move. It appears it made the direct offer according to the points she had at the time. She was also able to continue bidding which lessens some of the injustice. But as Miss X moved, she never received a medical decision. This means we do not know what the outcome of the assessment would have been had the Council completed it as it should, and if it would have awarded her additional medical points. This creates a high level of uncertainty for Miss X and whether had it not been for the fault, whether she would have been offered a property sooner. This uncertainty is injustice.
28. The Council offered £100 as a remedy to Miss X. While positive, I made a recommendation to increase this amount to more appropriately recognise her injustice.
29. Normally in these circumstances, we would also recommend the Council to carry out a new medical review. But given Miss X’s view that this is not needed for the situation she is in now, I have not made this recommendation.

Back to top

Agreed Action

30. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Miss X in writing (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology) for the injustice caused by the faults identified; and
• Pay Miss X a symbolic payment of £200 to recognise her injustice.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
32. In a previous complaint finding similar fault, we recommended the Council provide an action plan of how it would address the backlog of medical assessments and reviews. We received this in June 2025, which is before and around the time of the events of Miss X’s complaint. We need to give the Council the opportunity to embed this plan and so I have decided not to make further service improvements for now.

Back to top

Decision

33. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman