Summary: There was fault in the way the Council considered evidence Mr X provided in support of his housing register application. The Council will apologise and make a payment to acknowledge the uncertainty and frustration this caused Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his housing register application. In particular, he complained the Council did not:
1. adequately consider the medical evidence he provided under the Equality Act 2010 when it refused to award him a second bedroom; and
2. properly consider his complaints in line with its complaints procedure.
2. Mr X said the Council’s actions impacted his wellbeing and his ability to care for his child safely.

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. 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)
5. 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.
6. 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

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

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))

11. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications. Government guidance (allocation of accommodation: guidance for local authorities) provides guidance on review procedures. This says reviews should be completed wherever practicable within a set deadline. Eight weeks is suggested as a reasonable timeframe.

The Equality Act

12. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
13. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
14. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

15. The Council is a partner in a local choice-based lettings scheme and publishes its allocations scheme online. The scheme allocates a band to applicants in accordance with their assessed housing need (Emergency – only allocated in extreme circumstances, Gold, Silver and Bronze, in that order).
16. Applicants will only be considered for the size of the property that meets their housing need. A single adult applicant would be eligible for a bedsit/studio or one bedroom property. A separate bedroom will be allowed for:

• A single applicant or a married/cohabiting couple
• A pair of children of the opposite sex aged under 10
• A pair of children of the same sex aged between 0 - 16
• Any adult aged 16 or over
• Any foster child staying
• Any other person

17. An additional bedroom may be considered in the following exceptional circumstances/cases:

• A carer providing regular overnight care for the applicant and/or their partner.
• A child has a serious disability and cannot share a bedroom as a result.
• Foster carers or those seeking to adopt.

The Council’s internal review procedure

18. The Council uses a two-stage review process when applicants use their right to request a review of the following decisions:

• whether they are eligible for an allocation of accommodation
• whether they are a qualifying person
• how their case was assessed in considering whether to allocate accommodation to them (including type of property for which an applicant will be considered)

19. Stage one: A stage one review is carried out by a senior officer who was not involved in the original assessment or decision.
20. Stage two: A stage two review is conducted by two independent officers not previously involved in the assessment of the application or the stage one review. Stage two review is a paper-based hearing but may include a conversation or meeting with the applicant at the reviewing officer’s discretion. The reviewing officers will provide a written outcome and recommendation report within 56 days of the date of the applicant’s written review request of the original decision.

What happened

21. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
22. Mr X has physical and mental health conditions. The Council had assessed him as needing a one-bedroom property. Mr X had gold priority on the Council’s housing allocations scheme. In early April 2025 Mr X submitted a request to the Council to increase his minimum bedroom need to two bedrooms. He said he needed an additional bedroom to manage his health needs and parenting responsibilities.
23. Mr X initially submitted a GP letter (dated February 2025) as well as other medical and non-medical evidence with his request. Mr X said he sent in a further GP letter (dated April 2025) later that month.
24. The GP letter dated February 2025 provided a brief medical background and summary, outlining Mr X’s medical conditions and symptoms. The letter noted that becoming homeless would significantly impact Mr X’s physical and mental health. The GP letter dated April 2025 noted Mr X’s conditions and stated that living in cramped living conditions or one that required him to share facilities with strangers was likely to worsen his mental health.
25. The Council refused Mr X’s request for a second bedroom. Mr X appealed this decision. He said the Council had not considered the medical evidence he had provided nor its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
26. In early May 2025 the Council issued a stage one review response. It refused Mr X’s request for a second bedroom. Mr X wrote to the Council to request a stage two review. He also asked the Council to prioritise/expedite his review. His written request noted that he understood that his initial request for an additional bedroom had been declined due to insufficient supporting evidence for his mental health needs, but he believed that the Council’s decision did not fully reflect the severity of his condition and its impact. He acknowledged the standard criteria for bedroom allocation as per the Council’s policy and asked the Council to use its discretion due to his health needs and under the Equality Act 2010 to allow his request for an additional bedroom.
27. In late May 2025 the Council issued a stage two review response. It outlined the evidence it used in its consideration. It upheld the original decision that Mr X had a one-bedroom need. It said that the supporting evidence related to Mr X’s medical diagnoses did not confirm that he required an additional bedroom to relieve his mental health issues. It also noted that Mr X had not provided formal confirmation from professionals about requiring overnight care – he did not have a registered carer who needed to live with him or provide overnight night. It also added that Mr X’s child had a permanent residence elsewhere.
28. In late May 2025 Mr X also complained to the Council about the lack of a satisfactory resolution to his housing situation. He said that despite extensive and clear medical evidence, the Council had not agreed to his request for a second bedroom. He also said the Council had ignored his request to expedite his application.
29. In early June 2025 Mr X submitted a new GP letter which was more detailed. Mr X said his GP updated their previous letter of April 2025 with more information. This letter said Mr X’s mental health was likely to worsen from living in cramped spaces or using shared facilities (entrances and communal spaces) with strangers. It also said Mr X “requires an additional bedroom as part of a reasonable adjustment for his mental health conditions” and that “a second bedroom is clinically necessary to provide therapeutic space” and reduce triggers and prevent his conditions from deteriorating. Further a second bedroom was essential to support family contact and maintain Mr X’s wellbeing.
30. In response the Council said it had completed the two-stage review process in relation to Mr X’s initial request and issued its decisions. However, as he had since provided new supporting evidence (the updated GP letter), it would pass this evidence as a “fresh submission” for its housing team to review and decide in 28 days. It said that it was unable to log Mr X’s concerns about the bedroom allocation as a formal complaint as the correct process to review his concern had been followed with responses issued within appropriate timescales.
31. In mid-June 2025 the Council wrote to Mr X with its decision. It decided that Mr X did not meet the standard criteria for an additional bedroom and the supporting evidence did not provide enough detail or confirm the need for a second bedroom:

• In response to concerns about shared facilities, the Council said it offered self-contained properties and that its choice-based letting system allowed applicants to bid on properties they wished to apply for, therefore Mr X did not need to bid on properties (including bedsits) he felt would impact his health conditions. It added that Mr X would limit his choices by not bidding on properties with communal entrances, even with his Gold banding/priority.
• Regarding the GP’s opinion that Mr X would benefit from a therapeutic space, the Council said it felt this was based on an assumption that Mr X’s future property would be restricted in space. It said that there would be alternative space available for therapeutic purposes even in a one-bed property and so an extra bedroom was not the only option to meet this need.
• Regarding the GP’s comment on the social and family benefits of a second bedroom, the Council said its housing policy explained that such a need must be assessed and proven. It listed the policy wording outlining the exceptional circumstances under which an additional bedroom could be allocated and said that it had seen no requirement of carers needing a separate room to care for Mr X. It also added that Mr X’s daughter did not live with him.
• It stated that “in the current housing climate, with housing policy and legislation requiring that allocated properties must house as many people as feasible, there is no expectation that housing associations should award additional bedrooms as a result of mental health needs”.
• It told Mr X of his right to request a review of its decision.

32. In mid-June 2025 Mr X asked the Council to review its decision. Mr X said that the Council had considered the latest GP letter in isolation. He added that the Council’s response was discriminatory. He said that mental health conditions were recognised as a disability under the Equality Act 2010 which placed an obligation on the Council/housing provider to consider reasonable adjustments on that basis. He said that the Council dismissed the reality of his conditions by stating that mental health needs did not justify an additional bedroom under any circumstances.
33. In response, the Council wrote to Mr X and said that it would consider his requests for reasonable adjustments as part of the stage one review – it apologised that it had not addressed this in its previous responses. It also said that the standard timeframe to issue a stage one review response was 28 days from receipt but it “would do its best to expedite the process.”
34. In July 2025 Mr X complained to us about the Council’s refusal to award a second bedroom as a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010 and its lack of proper consideration of the medical evidence he provided. He also complained to us that the Council made discriminatory comments, mishandled his complaints and reset the review process unfairly.
35. In mid-July 2025 the Council issued a stage one review response. It upheld its decision to refuse a second bedroom. It said that:

• housing providers had a duty under the Equality Act to consider reasonable adjustments where a policy or practice placed a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage. It said that its policy only permitted an additional bedroom in exceptional circumstances where there was a clearly evidenced medical or welfare need, supported by a specialist health professional, and the case was approved through the Council’s medical assessment process.
• the evidence Mr X provided did not meet the threshold to justify departing from its policy or to make a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act. It did not show that an additional bedroom was “a necessary or proportionate adjustment to mitigate a substantial disadvantage arising from the mental health condition.”
• reasonable adjustments must be supported by clear specialist evidence which showed that the adjustment was essential to avoid discrimination –in Mr X’s case, the need for an additional bedroom was not shown to be essential to help him access suitable housing fairly due to his mental health needs.
• it would be happy to reassess Mr X’s case if he provided further supporting evidence, particularly from a specialist mental health professional.
• Mr X could ask for a stage two review if he was dissatisfied with this outcome.

36. Mr X requested a stage two review. He reiterated his request for a second bedroom as a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010 due to his long-term health conditions. He also said that despite his requests to expedite the review process; the Council’s response arrived on or near the final deadline which further worsened his conditions and left him at risk of homelessness. He added that the Council’s previous comment stating that mental health conditions did not qualify for a second bedroom was discriminatory.
37. In mid-September 2025 the Council issued a stage two review decision. It noted that its policy said applicants would only be considered for the size of the property that met their housing need and that a single adult applicant would be eligible for a bedsit/studio or one bedroom property. However, the new GP letter Mr X provided confirmed that a second bedroom was clinically necessary. It concluded that Mr X needed an additional bedroom to meet his housing needs.
38. Mr X told us that the Council’s decision came after a long and distressing process which included a new stage one and two review. He also said that the Council’s decision confirmed that his case was not managed fairly or thoroughly at the earlier stages. He said that the new GP letter was “nearly identical in content” to the original evidence which the Council had dismissed. Mr X also said he was told he could not contact the review panel directly which was not true. He said this caused unnecessary delay in the review process.

Findings

Consideration and handling of Mr X’s application

39. The Council has an established review process for challenging housing allocation decisions which is in line with Government guidance. The correct way to challenge the Council’s refusal was through this review process. The review process exists to provide a fair mechanism for the Council to re-evaluate and correct any errors in its initial decisions. The Council explained why it would not consider Mr X’s concerns as a complaint when they were already being considered through the review procedure. This was a decision the Council was entitled to take and was not fault.
40. The Council’s allocation scheme states that the stage two review is a paper-based hearing but may include a conversation or meeting with the applicant at the reviewing officer’s discretion. There was no requirement or duty for the panel to communicate with Mr X directly regarding his stage two review request.
41. Mr X said that despite his requests for a quicker outcome, the Council’s review responses arrived on or before the standard deadline. The Council had 56 days to provide a stage two review outcome in line with its published policy, and it did this. The Council noted Mr X’s request for a quicker response, but it had no duty to expedite his request, therefore I cannot find it at fault.

The Council’s decision and decision-making process

42. The Ombudsman does not provide a further appeal against the Council’s decisions. We look at the process the Council followed, in line with the relevant law and policy to make its decision. If we find no fault in how the Council made its decision, we do not question whether that decision was right or wrong.
43. The Council considered the evidence Mr X provided with his initial request in April 2025 and decided that the medical evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate he needed a second bedroom. It explained the reasons for its decision as noted in its stage two review response of May 2025. There was no fault in how the Council made this decision.
44. Mr X submitted further updated medical evidence from his GP in early June 2025. The Council received this evidence after it had completed both stages of its review process and issued its decisions. It decided this new information needed fresh consideration which would then trigger another internal review process for that new decision. The Council acted appropriately by agreeing to consider the new information provided. The Council was not at fault.
45. The new GP letter provided further detail which stated that a second bedroom was “clinically necessary” to provide a therapeutic space. This information was new and was not stated in Mr X’s previous GP letters and other supporting evidence.
46. The Council reviewed this evidence at stage two and decided to use its discretion to award Mr X a second bedroom because the GP letter confirmed that a second bedroom was clinically necessary to provide a therapeutic space. However, its initial decision letter and the stage one review outcome did not show any consideration and analysis of this new information and in particular the statement that a second bedroom was clinically necessary. The Council’s lack of proper consideration of this information in the initial stages of its decision-making process was fault.
47. It was for the Council to decide, based on all the information it considered, whether this information was sufficient to award Mr X a second bedroom. I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, what decision it would have made had it considered the new GP letter properly in its initial decision and stage one review. However, this leaves Mr X with a sense of frustration and uncertainty over whether he may have been awarded a second bedroom sooner.
48. In the mid-June 2025 decision, the Council said there was no expectation to award additional bedroom for mental health needs due to the housing climate, its policy and the legislation. This suggested the Council took a blanket approach with no room for discretionary decisions. While the Council made a discretionary decision at stage two to award a second bedroom, its initial response was poorly worded and suggested the contrary, which was fault. This caused Mr X avoidable upset and frustration.

Back to top

Agreed actions

49. Within one month of this decision the Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment of £200 to Mr X to acknowledge the avoidable frustration and uncertainty caused by its lack of proper consideration of its housing register application. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology.
50. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

51. I found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed actions to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman