Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to transfer her daughter Miss Y and her children to suitable social housing. We found fault with the way the Council carried out its review of Miss Y’s Housing Register allocation. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Miss Y and Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and carry out another review of Miss Y’s Housing Register allocation. The Council has also agreed to hold a meeting with all professionals involved with Miss Y’s family to discuss the family’s housing circumstances.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council's failure to secure her daughter’s (Miss Y) and her children’s transfer to a bigger and more suitable property. She says the Council also ignored concerns about damp, mould and cockroaches in her daughter's flat.
2. The Council’s failings resulted in Miss Y and her three children living in unacceptable conditions. This affected the children's health and well-being. As a disabled person, Miss Y was significantly affected by living in unsuitable accommodation.

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. 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)
7. 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

8. I have not investigated Miss X’s concerns about mould, damp and pest infestation in Miss Y’s flat. This is because, as pointed out in paragraph six, we cannot look at any complaints about the Council as a social housing landlord. If Miss X wishes to challenge the way the Council dealt with her concerns about the state of the property, she would need to complain to the Housing Ombudsman.

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 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

Relevant law and guidance

Housing Register allocations

11. 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))
12. 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))

The Council’s Housing Register allocation scheme

13. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties. It uses a banding scheme to prioritise applications. Those with the highest priority will be awarded Band 1. This is awarded to applicants with an urgent need to move due to reasonable preference plus additional priority. Those with the lowest priority are awarded Band 4.
14. The Council awards medical priority and banding based on the extent to which the health and welfare of one or more of the applicant’s household is affected by their housing conditions and the expected benefits of providing suitable alternative settled housing.
15. The policy sets out the criteria for additional medical or disability priority. This includes:
• where an applicant’s condition is expected to be terminal within a 12-month period and re-housing is required for provision of suitable care;
• the condition is life threatening and the applicant’s existing accommodation is a major contributory factor; and
• the applicant’s health is so severely affected by the accommodation that it is likely to become life threatening;
• the applicant's accommodation is directly contributing to the deterioration of the applicant's health such as severe chest condition requiring intermittent hospitalisation as a result of chronic dampness in the accommodation and the condition of the property cannot be resolved within a reasonable period of time - usually six months.
16. In addition the policy gives increased priority to applicants who make a community contribution. Applicants must meet at least one of the eligibility and qualifying criteria to be considered for a community contribution award. This includes applicants who undertake formal care of dependants who are in receipt of higher rate Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
17. Applicants with a need to move due to reasonable preference and a community contribution are awarded Band 2.

Review procedures

18. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
19. 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.

What happened

20. Miss Y has learning difficulties and various health conditions. Her mother, Miss X, has been supporting her in her dealings with the Council and providing practical help on everyday basis.
21. In 2017 the Council offered Miss Y secure tenancy of a one-bedroom flat.
22. In September 2021 Miss Y applied to join the Council’s Housing Register as a transfer tenant. By then Miss Y had two children. In late October the Council allocated Miss Y’s application in the priority banding 3 for a two-bedroom property with the effective date of November 2020.
23. At the beginning of July 2024 Miss X asked the Council to review Miss Y’s housing circumstances. She stated a one-bedroom flat was inadequate for Miss Y and her daughters aged five and three. Miss Y had various disabilities which meant she could not continue living safely in her flat. The flat had mould, which affected the children’s health.
24. At the beginning of February 2025 Miss X complained to the Council. She said Miss Y needed a larger property as she was expecting another baby.
25. The Council responded three weeks later, providing Miss X with an outcome of a medical assessment for Miss Y’s housing carried out in December 2024. The Council explained that its medical advisors had reviewed the impact of Miss Y’s housing situation on her (or her household’s) existing medical conditions. The Council concluded:
• Miss Y’s (or a member of her household’s) medical condition was not so severe she would qualify for priority banding 1;
• overcrowding attracted its own priority;
• medical priority did not apply.
26. After reviewing Miss Y’s medical circumstances the Council decided her Housing Register application should remain in the priority banding 3. This was because of the overcrowding accepted by the Council. The Council explained the high threshold for the priority banding 1. Acknowledging its delay in responding to Miss X’s concerns the Council offered her £25.
27. Miss X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and asked it to take her complaint to stage two. She said there was mould in Miss Y’s property which affected her granddaughter’s health leading to weekly hospital visits. She raised the issue of bathroom tiles falling off causing safety hazard for the children. Safety of the family was affected by not having enough storage space.
28. The Council suggested preparing an evacuation plan to address issues in the event of fire. It also specified what type of property would be suitable for Miss Y because of her medical needs.
29. In mid-March 2025 Miss Y gave birth to her third child.
30. At the end of April and beginning of May 2025 Miss X contacted the Council several times asking to take her complaint to stage three. She said Miss Y’s living conditions had been worsening, affecting her and her children’s health and well-being. Miss X mentioned pest infestation.
31. In mid-May 2025 Miss X raised a new complaint with the Council about Miss Y’s unsuitable housing conditions. The Council acknowledged this complaint and at the beginning of June held a telephone call with Miss X. The Council’s officer told Miss X to send her youngest grandchild’s birth certificate and Miss Y’s Personal Independence Payment letter. Miss X also provided Miss Y’s Universal Credit payment statement for May 2025.
32. At the beginning of June 2025 the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint about the lack of communication from the housing team and the Council losing the documents she sent such as her grandson’s birth certificate. The Council acknowledged that after the birth of Miss Y’s third child her rehousing became more urgent. Once the Housing team received the baby’s birth certificate, Miss Y’s housing need would be updated to a three-bedroom property.
33. Based on the evidence sent by Miss Y, at the end of June the Council reviewed her priority banding and allocated her application in the priority banding 2 with the effective date of March 2023.
34. After Miss X’s request to escalate her complaint, at the beginning of July 2025 the Council confirmed Miss Y’s recent medical assessment of December 2024 did not award any additional priority to Miss Y’s application. This had changed after the Council received all the documents requested. Miss Y’s application was placed in the priority banding 2.
35. Miss X came to us at the end of July 2025.
36. Miss X continued writing to the Council about the lack of safety in Miss Y’s property and unacceptable living conditions. She kept raising the issue of mould, pests and overcrowding, affecting health of the family members, especially the youngest child, who was being re-admitted to the hospital with chest infections. Miss X mentioned the children services’ involvement.

Analysis

37. As explained in paragraph four we investigate councils’ processes rather than look at the merits of their decisions.
38. At the beginning of July 2024 Miss X alerted the Council to Miss Y’s housing difficulties, including overcrowding, mould and damp in her flat. The Council arranged Miss Y’s housing medical needs assessment in December 2024. It sent Miss X a letter with the outcome of the housing allocation review in February 2025, after she complained.
39. As suggested in paragraph 19 of this decision it would be reasonable to expect the review of Miss Y’s housing allocation to be completed within eight weeks. This happened after six months. Miss X only received a letter with the Council’s decision on Miss Y’s housing allocation after she had complained. The Council’s delay in completing Miss X’s housing allocation review is fault. It caused her and Miss X injustice as they remained uncertain whether Miss Y’s housing application would be allocated in a higher priority banding. This injustice was reduced by the fact that Miss Y’s housing application priority banding was not changed as a result of the review.
40. After Miss X told the Council about another change in Miss Y’s circumstances when her youngest child was born in March 2025, the Council again reviewed her housing allocation priority. This happened within eight weeks, so within the expected timescales. There was some confusion with the documents, which the Council requested more than once and Miss X claimed she had sent before, but it did not cause too much delay.
41. From the beginning of May 2025 Miss X was continuously raising the negative impact of mould and damp on Miss Y’s youngest child’s health. She said he was repeatedly hospitalised with chest infections and the children’s services got involved due to the frequency of the hospital visits. There is no evidence the Council checked whether Miss Y’s housing conditions had been affecting her son’s health. This is fault leading to the uncertainty of what the outcome of such assessment would be. Miss X’s and Miss Y’s distress caused by the Council’s failure to address their concerns about the potential impact of the housing conditions on the youngest child’s health was significant.

Back to top

Action

42. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, we recommend the Council complete within four weeks of the final decision the following:
• apologise to Miss X and Miss Y for the injustice caused to them by the faults identified. 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 the apology I have recommended;
• arrange a meeting with Miss X and professionals who are involved from the Council’s housing team, children’s services and Adult Social Care team to discuss Miss X’s housing and the way to address any concerns. This meeting will involve review of any medical documentation for Miss Y’s children. The Council will provide us with the notes of this meeting;
• pay Miss X and Miss Y £500 each to recognise their distress caused by the Council’s delays and failures found during my investigation.

The Council will provide the evidence that this has happened.

43. To remedy the injustice caused by the Council’s fault we recommend the Council within eight weeks of the final decision carry out a review Miss Y’s housing allocation priority considering impact of Miss Y’s current housing on her youngest child’s health. The Council will provide the evidence that this has happened.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman