Summary: Miss D complains the Council delayed allowing her to bid for a larger social housing property. I have not found fault overall in the handling of the case except for one instance when the Council failed to clarify how it had assessed some evidence and applied its Allocations Policy. The Council will apologise to Miss D and revise its guidance on this matter for officers.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) says the Council failed to assess her request for an additional bedspace in line with procedures, in particular that evidence was not considered. Miss D also says the Council did not follow the correct process when dealing with a complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. Miss D refers to events dating back to 2023. I am unable to look back that far but have considered events from 15 May 2024, which is 12 months prior to Miss D complaining to the Ombudsman. I have exercised discretion to look at events up to September 2025, when the Council issued its most recent decision about the bedroom entitlement. That is because Ms D had completed the complaints process and the issues are a continuation of the points she had previously complained about to the Council and the Ombudsman.
6. Miss D’s contact with the Council also includes queries about Council Tax matters. I have not investigated those because the emphasis of Miss D’s complaint to the Council and the Ombudsman was related to the assessment of her children’s medical need and bedroom entitlement. In addition I understand Miss D has subsequently complained to the Council about these issues and achieved a resolution in 2026. If she is dissatisfied with the outcome of those complaints, she can pursue a new case with the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Background

9. In 2023 Miss D occupied a two bedroom property with two children of the same sex. The Council assessed her as eligible to bid for two bedroom social housing properties under its choice based letting system. Miss D was placed in Band 4 for her housing register application. Miss D asked the Council to allow her to bid for three bedroom homes as her children had medical needs and one of the children (child A) had a condition meaning their behaviour was impacting on the other child (child B) and they needed separate bedrooms. In January 2024 Miss D supplied evidence to the Council including proof child A received DLA and a letter from a Social Worker stating professionals working with the family shared the view that separate bedrooms for the children would help. The Council replied it had considered the information provided, including the Social Worker’s letter, but it required a formal diagnosis for child A before the case could be referred to the Medical Adviser. Miss D asked for a review of the decision.

Events I have investigated

2024

10. On 23 May 2024 the Council wrote to Miss D with a review decision after she had asked it to reconsider its decision not to award the family with an additional bed space. It had considered the evidence she provided but it did not show a direct statement from professionals that child A needed their own bedroom. Ms D replied the same day disputing the decision. On 30 September Miss D asked the Council to review its decision about the bed space matter. On 11 October Miss D copied in the Council to an email exchange with professionals about child A’s special educational needs.
11. On 11 November a Social Worker emailed the Housing Manager dealing with the case setting out that child A’s behaviour impacted on child B and they would benefit from having separate bedrooms. On 18 November the Council sent Miss D the review outcome. It listed the documents she had supplied and which had been considered. It said it could not refer the case to the Medical Advisor for recommendations because child A did not have a formal diagnosis. Once a diagnosis was provided a referral would be made. No additional bed space was allowed.

2025

12. On 3 January 2025 the Council says it had a copy of child A’s diagnosis confirming they had ADHD. Miss D says she provided the diagnosis information to the Council a week earlier. On 3 January the Council referred the case to the Medical Advisor. It asked them to consider the diagnosis document and Miss D’s request that child A have their own bedroom. On 7 January the Medical Advisor reported to the Council with their findings. They said an ‘exclusive bedroom’ was not ‘medically essential’ for child A. Miss D could try screening off the shared bedroom for the children, so child A had some private space. On 29 January the Housing Manager emailed Miss D with the Council’s decision. He had reviewed the evidence (which included the documents previously supplied and considered in November 2024) and found the ADHD diagnosis did not specify child A needed their own room, as such he did not agree the family needed a three bedroom property. On 31 January Miss D replied that child B was sleeping on a mattress in the living room. She had tried room dividers before, and they had been destroyed by child A.
13. On 11 March Miss D sent the Council some text from the Social Worker relating to the sleeping arrangements for the family. On 21 March Miss D submitted a formal complaint, she believed the Council had failed to consider all the evidence she had provided about her children’s needs. The Head of Service replied on 2 April that it had considered the additional information provided from the Social Worker. It said the family were not overcrowded. The Officer subsequently confirmed to Miss D they had consulted with the Housing Manager when considering the complaint. On 3 April Miss D asked the Council to escalate her complaint. The Medical Advisor had only looked at the diagnosis letter and other evidence she had previously submitted. She felt no-one was considering the impact on both children especially as child B was also disabled. Both children received DLA because of care needs. She asked the Council to review the case. The Council responded on 8 April that it would resubmit all the information Miss D had provided as part of her complaint to the Medical Advisor.
14. On 14 April the Council referred the case to the Medical Advisor with the diagnosis letter and the supporting documentation supplied by Miss D. On 22 April the Medical Advisor reported they had considered all the information provided dating back to 2023. They acknowledged there was a ‘difficulty’ for the children sharing a room but went onto say they found no reason to stop the children sharing a room given their age. Medical priority did not apply. On 23 May the Council responded to Miss D’s request for a review of its bed space decision. The Council had reviewed the information provided by Miss D including information from child A’s school and a letter from the Social Worker. The Council did not consider the evidence was sufficient to show professionals felt an extra bedspace was needed. It also said the Allocations Policy stipulated ‘detailed supporting evidence from the child’s consultant’ be provided in cases like this: that evidence had not been supplied. It therefore found an extra bed space should not be awarded.
15. On 12 August Miss D requested the Council review the bedroom entitlement issue again. She said the Social Worker information sent in February had been ignored. She also said the complaints process had not been followed because the Housing Manager had dealt with her complaint in April. On 15 August the Head of Service issued the complaint response. They said the Housing Manager had not directly responded to the complaint and the correct process had been followed. Miss D requested the Council escalate her complaint the next day.
16. On 28 August the Council received an autism diagnosis for child B from Miss D. On 3 September the Council referred the case to the Medical Advisor with a copy of the diagnosis and a SEND report. On 4 September the Council (a Head of Service who was not part of the Housing Service) replied to the complaint. They said new evidence about child B had been sent to the Medical Advisor to consider. In respect of Miss D’s allegation the complaints process had not been followed, they said it was correct for the Council to ask for input on a case from Officers directly involved. However the response was written by a Service Manager. That process had been correctly applied in this instance. They also explained what was meant by overcrowding for the Allocations Policy and the Council had considered previously if Miss D met the definition it used for overcrowding. It did not find there was a basis to say the family were overcrowded.
17. On 9 September the Medical Advisor reported to the Council. They had considered the information provided by Miss D as part of her complaint, previous medical advice and the recent SEND report and diagnosis for child B. They found that medical priority did apply and the family should be placed in Band 3. Child B should have their own room. On 23 September the Housing Manager wrote to Miss D. The Council had considered all evidence previously submitted in 2024 and 2025 plus the Medical Advisor report from September. Because both children had been diagnosed with conditions the Council had decided the family were eligible for a three bedroom property. The housing register application would be updated and the family moved to Band 3. The priority date would be 6 August 2025 which was the date of the diagnosis for child B given this was the key event that changed the decision on housing register priority.
18. On 29 September Miss D complained to the Council. The priority date should be January 2023 when she first asked to be rehoused. The Council replied the next day. It said there had not been sufficient medical evidence in January 2023 to award need for an extra bedroom. The Council usually set the priority date as the day the Medical Advisor recommendations were received, in this case, as a goodwill gesture, the Council had set it to when the diagnosis for child B was made. Miss D subsequently told the Council it should set the priority date for January 2024 when child A received their diagnosis.

What should have happened

Allocations policy and Bands

19. The Council’s allocations policy sets out how the Council uses a Banding Scheme to prioritise people who have joined the housing register.

• Band 1 contains a small number of applicants with an exceptional or critical housing need;
• Band 2 has applicants with a substantial housing need;
• Band 3 has applicants with a high housing need; and,
• Band 4 has applicants who have a housing need but whose priority is currently reduced, usually because of their actions or circumstances.

20. Band 3 includes tenants, after a bedroom need assessment, lack one bedroom. Band 4 includes tenants who are suitably housed but want to move.
21. Each applicant is given a priority date, that date will reflect when their priority was either first awarded or amended.

Bedroom entitlement

22. The Council assess the size of accommodation a housing register applicant requires. The following are deemed as needing separate bedrooms:

• applicant /and partner
• person assessed as needing separate bedroom for medical reasons, including a severely disabled child assessed as needing a separate bedroom
• each child over 16
• two children of the same gender under 16
• two children of opposite gender under 10

23. A two bedroom property is usually considered suitable for a single parent/ couple and two children of the same sex under the age of 16.
24. The Allocations Policy states that an applicant with a ‘severely disabled child’ can request a separate bedroom on medical grounds for the child. They will need to provide the Council with ‘detailed supporting information from the child’s consultant and others involved in their care and proof of middle rate care element of DLA for overnight care’. The Council may seek advice from an independent Medical Advisor, but the decision is one for the Council to make.

Reviews and complaints

25. An applicant can ask the Council to review any decision made regarding their application for social housing including they priority awarded. An officer senior to the officer making the original decision should carry out the review.

Was there fault by the Council

26. Miss D says the Council should have accepted her family needed an extra bed space sooner than September 2025. In November 2024 the Council told Miss D it would not refer the case to the Medical Adviser because Miss D did not have a formal diagnosis for child A. The Allocations Policy, which is the published scheme the Council should adhere to, says the Council requires detailed supporting information from the child’s consultant and other involved in their care to assess if an additional bed space is medically essential. This is different to requiring a diagnosis letter. The Council was wrong to advise Miss D it had could not assess the case because there was no diagnosis letter. Instead it should have explained it required detailed supporting information from a consultant. Whilst I consider there was fault on this specific point it remains the case the Council had the right to make its November decision because it still did not have ‘detailed information’ from child A’s consultant.
27. In January 2025 Miss D provided a diagnosis for child A to the Council and it asked for the Medical Adviser’s view. The Medical Adviser said Miss D could try screening the bedroom with a divider. Miss D told the Council on 31 January she had already tried that, and the divider had been destroyed by child A. What I cannot see is how those comments were subsequently taken into account when the Council carried out a further review in April. The Medical Adviser acknowledged there was a ‘difficulty’ in the children sharing a bedroom but then stated that child A and child B could share a room. The Council’s decision on 23 May did correctly point out it had not received a detailed supporting letter from a consultant. However it failed to explain how it had weighed the conflicting evidence from the Medical Adviser and Miss D. I consider there to be some fault in this matter. We do not expect the medical recommendations to list how every piece of evidence has been assessed, that would be disproportionate. But I would expect to see the Council explain how it considered the apparently conflicting statement made by the Medical Adviser, where they acknowledged difficulties in a room being shared but then said there was nothing preventing a room share, and the divider issue.
28. In respect of the Council’s requirement that an applicant supply a diagnosis letter, before a case will be referred to the Medical Adviser, I consider this to be a concern. The Council must adhere to the published Allocations Policy, that does not stipulate a diagnosis letter is needed instead it says the Council needs ‘detailed supporting information’ from the child’s consultant. There is a subtle difference between a diagnosis letter and ‘detailed supporting information’ and the Council should be clear on what the Allocations Policy requires.
29. Miss D feels the priority date for her application should be backdated to when she first applied for the extra bed space. The evidence shows me the Council has followed the correct process. A priority date is usually set for when a decision is made about a change to an applicant’s banding/ priority. In this case the Council decided to set the priority date for 6 August when it the diagnosis for child B was made which enabled it to award Band 3 priority. I appreciate Miss D wants an earlier priority date but there is no requirement on the Council to do so. It correctly set the date for when it received the key information that enabled it to change Miss D’s banding status.
30. Miss D also refers to the Council’s complaint handling in 2025, in particular that a response in April was issued by the Housing Manager who had been dealing with her case. There is no fault in this matter. The April response was issued by a Senior Officer and the Council confirmed this to Miss D. It explained it was usual for the responding Officer to consult with Officers directly involved in a case for background information.

Did the fault cause an injustice

31. The Council failed to fully explore the evidence supplied by Miss D in its 23 May 2025 review decision, in particular issues around screening the room and the apparently conflicting statement made by the Medical Adviser. I cannot say, had that fault not occurred, the Council would have awarded Miss D an additional bed space. Given the Council did not have a detailed consultant’s letter at that point it may well have still found a bedspace was not required. It is reasonable to say this fault resulted in uncertainty for Miss D.

Back to top

Action

32. To remedy the injustice to Miss D the Council has agreed with my recommendations and will send Miss D an apology letter. The Council will also consider how it is applying the requirements of the Allocations Policy (in respect of evidence needed to support a bed space request) and ensure it adheres to the specifications within the published Policy. If it wants to add to those requirements it would need to amend the Policy. The Council should clarify guidance for staff on what evidence is required.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Decision

34. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman