Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his housing. The Council was at fault for poorly communicating about Mr X’s housing reassessment and delaying in completing a housing review. This caused him frustration and uncertainty. The Council will apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his housing, he says the Council:
1. failed to assess his medical needs fairly and failed to award him the correct banding; and
2. delayed in responding to his medical review appeal.
2. Mr X says this has caused him to live in unsuitable shared accommodation which has worsened his mental health.

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. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr 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 published scheme

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))

Reasonable preference

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.
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

Decisions and review rights

10. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation or that the applicant is not a qualifying person.
11. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
12. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

Review procedures

13. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:

• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

Banding

14. The Council’s housing allocations policy places applicants for housing in a Band from A to C.

• Band A – is for those applicants who have the most urgent or critical housing need
• Band B – is for those applicants who have a high priority housing need
• Band C – is for those applicants who have an identified housing need

Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman principles of good administrative practice

15. In 2018 the Ombudsman published a guidance document setting out the standards we expect from bodies in jurisdiction. This says we expect councils to keep to commitments and deal with people helpfully, promptly, and sensitively.

What happened?

16. Mr X has been on the Council’s housing register for several years. He was awarded Band C in July 2023.
17. In June 2024, Mr X completed a change of circumstances form noting several health related issues which he says were being impacted by his current housing.
18. Shortly after this, the Council asked its medical advisor to consider his medical evidence. In early July, the Council’s independent medical advisor advised that Mr X already lived in accommodation with access to normal facilities and that it couldn’t find anything “specifically medically amiss” with his current accommodation.
19. In late August, the Council wrote to Mr X with its decision on his reassessment. It decided Mr X should remain in Band C with no medical priority.
20. The decision letter explained its consideration of Mr X’s medical evidence, including the health assessment form he completed in June 2024 and supporting letters from medical professionals from June 2024. It also explained its consideration of his situation in relation to legislation and guidance and its housing allocations policy.
21. Three days later, Mr X asked the Council for a review of its decision. He said the Council’s decision to place him in Band C did not consider the full extent of his medical condition and the impact of his living situation.
22. In early January 2025, Mr X wrote to the Council again. He said his circumstances had worsened and he needed an immediate reassessment of his housing needs. He also complained the Council had not processed his review request from August 2024.
23. The Council wrote to Mr X four days later, asking for more information about the changes in his circumstances. It also asked him to send any relevant supporting documents.
24. Mr X responded a couple of days later, saying his health had deteriorated and asked the Council to review a report from a doctor from June 2024.
25. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on the same day. It apologised for failing to respond to his review request from August 2024. It said because of the time that had passed, it would instead conduct a fresh assessment. It asked Mr X to send any new medical evidence.
26. The Council then, instead, completed a review of its decision. It wrote to him with its decision in mid-September 2025, apologising that it was significantly delayed.
27. It upheld its decision that he should be placed in Band C with no medical priority. In making this decision, the Council referenced Mr X’s health assessment form, medical reports from 2024, Mr X’s review requests and emails with new information that he supplied in January 2025.
28. It also explained its view related to legislation and guidance and explained why it considered he did not meet the criteria for Band A and B, referencing its housing allocations policy and advice from its independent medical advisor.
29. The Council explained there was no indication in any of the medical evidence Mr X provided that any medical professionals identified concerns about the negative impact of his housing on any medical conditions.

Response to enquiries

30. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had missed Mr X’s request for a review in August 2024 and was only alerted to this when Mr X contacted them again in January 2025.
31. It noted that it decided to make a fresh decision rather than complete the review and asked Mr X to complete an up-to-date medical assessment form.
32. The Council said Mr X did not send in a new assessment form, but when he escalated his concern in September 2025, it decided to act on the original review request and issue a review decision to avoid any further delay.
33. The Council acknowledged that it should have taken a more proactive approach given the initial delay.  

Findings

The Council failed to assess Mr X’s medical needs fairly and failed to award him the correct banding

34. The Ombudsman’s role is to review how councils have made their decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or not properly explained a decision it has made. We call this fault, and, where we find it, we can consider any consequences of the fault and ask the relevant council to address these.
35. However, we do not make operational or policy decisions on councils’ behalf, provide a right of appeal against their decisions, or seek to replace their judgement with our own. If a council has made a decision without fault then we cannot criticise it, no matter how strongly a complainant feels it is wrong. We do not uphold complaints simply because someone feels a council should have done something different.
36. What that means in this particular case is that it is not for me to make my own judgement about whether Mr X should have been awarded a higher band and medical priority. However, I can consider whether the Council properly made and explained its decision about this.
37. The Council made the decision in August 2024 and again during the review in September 2025 that Mr X should be placed in Band C with no medical priority. I have looked at the information the Council considered to reach these decisions. The Council considered all the medical information Mr X provided and specifically referenced this in its decision letters.
38. The Council also consulted with its independent medical advisors and sent all the information it had for them to consider. The medical advisor stated they could not find anything “specifically medically amiss” with his current accommodation.
39. This gives support to the decision reached by the Council that Mr X had no medical priority.
40. It also explained in its decision letters the reasons it considered Mr X did not meet the criteria of Band A and B, referencing its housing allocations policy.
41. The Council evidenced that it considered all of the information Mr X provided in making its banding and priority decision and explained this decision fully to Mr X. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make and one made without fault.
42. I am however concerned that the Council told Mr X it would complete a fresh assessment in January 2025 but did not do so, completing a review instead. The Council told me that it asked Mr X to complete a new housing assessment, but there is no evidence that it did so, so I consider on balance that it did not ask Mr X to complete a new housing assessment.
43. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s ‘Principles of Good Administrative Practice’ which says councils should keep to commitments and deal with people helpfully, promptly and sensitively. This poor communication about his housing reassessment was fault, which caused Mr X uncertainty about how the Council was dealing with his housing application.

The Council delayed in responding to Mr X’s medical review appeal

44. We expect councils to follow statutory timeframes set. The statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline, noting that eight weeks is suggested as reasonable.
45. In view of this, the Council should have completed Mr X’s review, following his August 2024 request, by the end of October 2024. Despite this, it did not complete the review until September 2025. This significant delay of 11 months has already been accepted by the Council. This was fault because Mr X had a statutory right to a review, which was significantly delayed.
46. But, his injustice is likely limited to uncertainty and frustration, because when the Council completed the review, it decided Mr X should remain in Band C with no medical priority, which was a decision it was entitled to make. So, there is no evidence that the Council caused Mr X to live in unsuitable shared accommodation.
47. The Council has already agreed to make service improvements as an outcome of another similar complaint, so I will not make further recommendations. I will, however, make recommendations for a personal remedy to Mr X to recognise the injustice caused.

Back to top

Action

48. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council will:
• apologise to Mr X for the frustration and uncertainty caused to him by its faults. 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 £100 to Mr X to remedy the frustration and uncertainty caused by the Council poorly communicating about his housing reassessment and delaying in completing his housing review.

49. 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