Summary: Based on current evidence we found there was repeated fault in the way the Council considered requests from Miss X for medical priority and a housing transfer. We recommended an apology, a distress payment and actions to properly consider her circumstances.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council:

• Failed to properly respond to reports she made of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB);
• Failed to address concerns about mould and damp at her property;
• Failed to award appropriate medical priority to her housing application;
• Failed to carry out an environmental health assessment of the building requested by the council’s medical adviser.
• Failed to consider or agree to management transfer;

2. As a result, she and her children are living in unsuitable housing which is exacerbating her children’s medical conditions.

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. 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)
5. 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.
6. 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. The protected characteristics include disability.
7. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended). This means that we cannot consider the elements of Miss X’s complaint relating to disrepair (mould and damp issues) and we cannot consider how the Council, acting as Miss X’s landlord, dealt with her complaints of anti-social behaviour.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Housing Allocations Policy

Medical Priority

11. The Council’s housing allocations policy states that it will ensure reasonable preference is given to people with the highest housing needs. This includes people who are overcrowded or need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
12. The policy states that housing officers will assess someone’s priority for housing using information they supply and by any other enquiries deemed necessary. Medical priority will be awarded and banded according to the extent to which the health or welfare of one or more members of the applicant’s household is affected by their housing conditions and the expected benefits of providing alternative housing.

Management Transfers

13. Paragraph 3.6 states that the Council will only offer a management transfer for situations where a Council tenant or members of the tenant’s household, are at serious risk by remaining in their current home and need an immediate move. The council will aim to re-house households in alternative accommodation assessed as suitable for their housing needs. Where there is a real and immediate threat to a tenant’s safety and the Council does not have a suitable property available it may offer ‘temporary accommodation’ for a fixed period while an investigation is carried out.

Priority Housing Panel

14. Paragraph 6.26 states that it is not possible for the Housing Allocation Scheme to adequately reflect every possible combination of housing need. The purpose of the Priority Housing Panel is to assess and make recommendations in relation to exceptional cases which do not fit easily within the boundaries of the Scheme.
15. Meetings of this Panel meet on an ad hoc basis and seek additional advice where necessary.

Background

16. Miss X lives with her three children in a one-bedroom council property. She is on the Council’s housing register seeking a move to a larger property because she is currently overcrowded and needs additional bedrooms.

Miss X’s complaint

17. In June 2025 Miss X complained that:
1. She had been reporting significant Anti-Social Behavior issues for over a year and the issues still persisted.
2. The Council wrongly declined a request for a management transfer to alternative accommodation. The Council agreed to escalate this to a director’s discretionary meeting but this had been delayed.
3. The Council failed to properly consider her request for more priority for a move based on her children’s health needs. She complained that the Council’s medical adviser told the Council to carry out an urgent environmental health report into the dust and damp nuisances Miss X reported but this had not been done.
18. Miss X’s complaint stated she had little contact with her early help or housing officers. She stated the housing officer and housing manager had both been on long term sick leave and no-one was available for her to contact for updates. When she called the duty line she was told there was no updated information on her file.

What Happened

19. I understand Miss X made a request for medical priority in March 2024. This request was delayed. The Council provided evidence it sent a referral in September 2024 asking its medical adviser to confirm if Band One priority should be awarded. On 1 October it decided there were insufficient grounds as the issue was with the neighbour’s dog and could be managed.
20. Miss X completed a detailed medical assessment form in January 2025. She explained the medical issues her disabled children had and how their current environment was affecting them. She explained that issues with dust and their neighbours’ pets use of the communal areas caused significant health concerns because of her children’s medical conditions and severe allergies. This had resulted in urgent medical treatment being needed on numerous occasions.
21. The Council’s medical adviser responded on 9 February 2025. They acknowledged the children’s health conditions. On the information they received, they concluded the housing conditions did not directly cause serious ill health. However, the medical adviser suggested an urgent environmental health report into the dust, damp and smoke issues Miss X reported and the issue of ‘pet dander’. If this could not be treated, they recommended the case was resubmitted to them for priority.
22. Although the Council received a response from its medical adviser in early February, it did not write to Miss X with the outcome until 21 May, over three months after the advice was received.
23. Separate to Miss X’s request for increased medical priority, a housing officer told Miss X they would present a statement of the situation to the Director’s Discretionary Housing Panel in March 2025. However, her case was not referred in March as promised.
24. In May 2025 the Discretionary Housing Panel considered her case. The panel noted the situation, but it decided it should not grant discretionary priority. It stated this was because the issues related to the management of communal areas, and as a landlord, it need to manage behaviours being reported and because the issues were “building/health related”.
25. The Council’s response to Miss X’s complaint in June 2025 acknowledged that the environmental health report requested by its medical adviser in February had not been carried out. It accepted there was no good reason for this. It apologised but even after the delay in acting, it seems no action was taken to address this. The Council stated a housing officer would re-submit Miss X’s case for a management transfer to the Discretionary Housing Panel so the panel could reconsider it. It offered Miss X £100 to reflect delays in action by its housing team.
26. When the Council responded further to Miss X’s complaint on 21 July, it stated housing officers were liaising with the environmental health team to obtain report for the building. The Council stated it may not be possible to eliminate all traces of dust in communal areas, but housing would work with environmental health to determine what action could minimise the risk.
27. In November 2025, the Council considered a fresh referral to its Discretionary Panel. It noted various information provided by Miss X and other professionals. The referral form stated that the council’s medical adviser had ‘reviewed the medical priority for this family and the latest recommendations are current’.
28. The panel decided that the Housing Manager would visit Miss X’s property to measure the size of the rooms. This was to consider if Miss X’s overcrowding represented statutory overcrowding. The panel decision made no comments about the other information provided. The Council did not tell us if and when it had since measured the rooms and reached a view on the overcrowding.
29. Miss X told us in March 2026 that the Council still had not carried out an environmental health report recommended by the council medical adviser. The Council had not referred Miss X’s case back to its medical adviser either. (We asked the Council to provide copies of any referrals it made to its medical adviser since 1 July 2024. The latest referral was that which resulted in the original advice from the medical adviser in February 2025).

What should have happened

Anti-Social Behaviour & Housing repair issues

30. As we state in paragraph 8, we have not investigated the way the Council dealt with reports of anti-social behaviour. This is because Miss X is a council tenant and the Council was acting in her capacity as her landlord when dealing with these issues. Miss X has made a complaint to the Housing Ombudsman about the handling of her ASB reports, which it has already considered.
31. We cannot consider a complaint about disrepair issues (mould and damp in Miss X’s case). This is also because Miss X is a council tenant and the Council is acting as a registered social landlord when addressing repairs issues. This is also a matter for the Housing Ombudsman.

Medical priority for housing/Transfers

32. We found there was fault in the way the Council dealt with Miss X’s requests for housing priority and transfers. There was delay in considering the first request Miss X made for medical priority in early 2024.This was not decided until October 2024. There was further significant delay in the Council assessing the detailed medical information Miss X provided about her children’s health in January 2025. This was only responded to in May 2025. The delay represents fault by the Council.
33. The Council then failed to properly address the medical adviser’s recommendations.
• In February the medical adviser stated that an urgent environmental health report was needed to consider the issues affecting the children’s health. They stated, if the issues could not be addressed, it should be passed back to them for further consideration of medical priority. The Council acknowledged that no environmental health report had been done in response to the complaint in June and again in July 2025 in response to Miss X’s complaint. Miss X told us this still had not been done at the time we considered her complaint in early 2026.
• Based on the information the Council provided, it was also evident it had not put her case back to the medical adviser either.
34. The failure to promptly communicate the medical adviser’s recommendation in February compounded the earlier delays in considering Miss X’s case. This was made worse by the Council then failing to carry out actions that the adviser had stated were urgent. These issues represent further fault by the Council.
35. Given the impact on Miss X’s children’s health, that she had explained, and the recognition that this was urgent by its medical adviser, this is a significant failing. Two of Miss X’s children are registered disabled, so this also calls into question whether the Council considered its duties under the Equality Act 2010. The Council was aware of the children’s disabilities but it did not appear to take into account that this may place them at greater risk. Their disabilities made it all the more important that the Council addressed the advice of its medical adviser without delay.
36. Over the same period, there was also a delay in presenting her case to the Discretionary Housing Panel. At the time Miss X complained the Panel had sought more information about Miss X’s overcrowding and the panel decision was not known.
37. I note that temporary accommodation was offered. I also understand from Miss X that the Council has since reconsidered her case and agreed a management transfer. However, it has stated she may only transfer to a like-for-like one-bedroom property (despite being overcrowded and eligible to bid for three-bedroomed properties). So, she now has dual eligibility on the Council’s housing allocation scheme. I understand she has Band One eligibility for a one-bedroom like for like property (through the management transfer), but she retains Band Two eligibility for a three-bedroom property which she is eligible for due to overcrowding. It is not clear how the Council reached this decision.
38. While the Council has agreed a management transfer, I understand that it has still not yet carried out an environmental health report and/or referred he case back to the council’s medical adviser. So, the Council has not reached a decision on whether it should grant increased medical priority.
39. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice Miss X has suffered as a result of the fault we have identified.

Back to top

Action

40. Within four weeks of our final decision we recommended:
41. The Council sends a written apology to Miss X for the delays in progressing the assessment of her medical priority and transfer requests. The apology should adhere to our guidance on making effective apologies. This can be found on our website, within our Guidance on Remedy here.
42. The Council should organise an urgent environmental health report concerning the dust, damp and pet issues as requested by its medical adviser and refer this back to its medical adviser to obtain their view on whether medical priority should be given as a result of these issues.
43. If, following advice from its medical adviser, the Council considers it should provide higher priority for housing for Miss X, it should put this in place. It should also:
• backdate this priority to 9 March 2025 (4 weeks after its medical adviser originally sought the environmental health report that has not been carried out).
• carry out an exercise to establish whether, if it had provided the increased priority on 9 March 2025, Miss X would have been likely to bid successfully for new housing in the intervening period. If she is likely to have been successful with the increased priority, the Council should make her an offer of the next property that she is eligible for and that meets her needs.
44. To reflect that there have been repeated delays and failings in Miss X’s case the causing distress to Miss X about the way the Council considered providing medical priority, the Council should pay her a distress payment of £100.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

46. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman