Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application. We find fault in the Council’s delay in completing her medical assessment, poor communication, failure to provide adequate reasons for its decisions, failure to notify her of her review rights, and incorrectly suspending her housing application. These faults caused Miss X distress, uncertainty, avoidable time and trouble, loss of her review rights, and a lost opportunity to secure suitable accommodation. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X, provide a direct offer of suitable accommodation, and take steps to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s actions regarding her housing application. In particular, she says the Council:
1. Delayed completing her request for medical priority;
2. Failed to properly consider the medical evidence she provided;
3. Suspended her housing application account for three months, preventing her from bidding on properties; and
4. Failed to communicate with her or provide updates during this period, despite her attempts to make contact.
2. As a result, Miss X says she was unable to bid on suitable properties during this period and believes she has been placed in the wrong housing band.

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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Relevant law and legislation

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;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

Decisions and review rights

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

Review procedures

11. 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.

Council’s housing allocations policy

12. The Council’s allocations policy places eligible applicants into priority bands based on their level of housing need. For the purposes of this complaint, Band 2 applies to applicants with a high need to move. This includes households assessed as having a high medical or social need, as defined in the Council’s policy.
13. The Council assesses medical priority through a suitably trained senior officer. Where necessary, it may seek further information from relevant medical professionals, such as a GP or consultant, and may also obtain advice from an independent medical adviser before reaching a decision.

What happened

14. Miss X joined the Council’s housing register in 2024.
15. In 2025, the Council introduced a new housing IT system. All applicants were required to register on the new system, and from 1 April 2025 they could no longer bid for properties using the previous system.
16. Miss X registered on the new system in March 2025. At the same time, she submitted a medical assessment form requesting additional priority.
17. In May, Miss X contacted the Council for an update on her application but did not receive a response.
18. She then contacted her MP, who also contacted the Council seeking an update. Miss X again contacted the Council but still received no substantive response.
19. The Council later requested supporting documents, which Miss X provided promptly.
20. By July, Miss X had still not received an outcome to her medical assessment and had not been given the information needed to bid for properties on the new system. She complained to the Council, saying she had been unable to bid since April.
21. Shortly after, the Council activated Miss X’s application, enabling her to bid. It also issued the outcome of her medical assessment, awarding a moderate medical priority. This did not change her existing Band 2 status, and her effective date remained early 2024.
22. Miss X immediately asked the Council to review the medical decision. The Council told her that her concerns would be addressed through its complaint process.
23. The Council later reviewed her effective date and amended it to early 2023, in line with its “Born and Bred” criteria, as she had lived in the area continuously since birth.
24. In its stage one complaint response, the Council apologised for delays in assessing her application and medical information. It confirmed the outcome of the medical assessment and said it would consider any further medical evidence she provided.
25. Miss X remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint. She said the Council had not properly considered her medical evidence and had not explained why she did not qualify for a higher priority.
26. Miss X’s MP also contacted the Council, requesting a review of the medical decision.
27. The Council carried out a further assessment after receiving additional medical evidence but decided there was no change to her priority.
28. In its final complaint response in August 2025, the Council said it had considered all the medical information provided but that Miss X did not meet the criteria for Band 1. It said it would consider any new medical evidence submitted in future.
29. The Council also confirmed to Miss X’s MP that two medical assessments carried out in July had both resulted in a moderate priority award.
30. After Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, the Council reviewed further medical evidence submitted in October 2025 but again decided there was no change to her priority. It advised her to continue bidding and to consider other housing options.
31. In response to my enquiries, the Council said:
• an officer had incorrectly suspended Miss X’s application in April 2025 pending the medical assessment, which prevented her from bidding until July;
• there had been a delay in completing the medical assessment, although it did not provide an explanation;
• it considered Miss X had been advised of her review rights in its complaint responses; and
• during the period she could not bid, 18 eligible two-bed houses were advertised, although in 11 cases the successful applicant had an earlier effective date.

My findings

Medical assessment

32. The Council took around 16 weeks to complete Miss X’s initial medical assessment. This represents a delay of approximately eight weeks beyond a reasonable timescale. The Council has acknowledged this delay and provided no explanation. This was fault and caused Miss X avoidable frustration and uncertainty.
33. The Council says it considered the medical evidence Miss X provided. However, its decision letter did not adequately explain how that evidence was assessed or why it did not justify a higher priority. It did not explain whether evidence was discounted, given limited weight, or considered insufficient.
34. Because of this lack of explanation, I cannot be satisfied the Council’s decision-making process was properly carried out. This is fault. It also caused Miss X uncertainty about whether the outcome would have been different and led to avoidable time and trouble pursuing the matter.
35. The Council also failed to inform Miss X of her right to request a review of the medical priority decisions as part of its decision letters, this was fault. The information provided in its complaint responses referred her to submit further evidence which is not the same as being offered a review of the original decision. This was fault and meant Miss X lost the opportunity to challenge the decisions at the appropriate time.
36. In addition, when Miss X explicitly requested a review, the Council did not treat this as a formal review request and instead directed her through the complaints process. This was further fault.

Poor communication

37. The Council failed to respond to Miss X’s requests for updates between May and July 2025. She had to chase the Council multiple times and involve her MP before receiving a response.
38. During this period, the Council did not provide clear information about the status of her application, the delay in her medical assessment, or how to access the new bidding system.
39. This lack of communication was fault. It caused Miss X avoidable frustration, uncertainty, and time and trouble in repeatedly chasing the Council for updates.

Suspension of bidding

40. The Council has accepted that it incorrectly suspended Miss X’s application between April and July 2025. This was fault and prevented her from bidding for properties during that period.
41. I have considered the evidence provided by the Council about properties advertised during this time. There were 18 two-bed houses advertised during this period. In 11 cases, the successful applicant had an earlier effective date, meaning Miss X would not have been successful.
42. However, in seven cases she would have been the successful applicant had she been able to bid. On balance, I find, this means she lost a clear opportunity to secure suitable accommodation. As a result, Miss X remained in unsuitable overcrowded accommodation for longer than she otherwise would have. This is a significant injustice.

Back to top

Action

43. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Miss X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
• pay Miss X £300 to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused;
• provide Miss X with a direct offer of the next suitable two-bedroom house that meets her preferences;
• pay Miss X £1,350 to recognise the additional nine months she spent in unsuitable accommodation (calculated at £150 per month from July 2025 to April 2026); and
• pay Miss X £150 a month until she is rehoused through a direct offer, she secures suitable alternative accommodation, or six months have passed. If Miss X remains in the property after six months, she can bring a new complaint to the Ombudsman.
44. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Remind relevant staff involved in medical priority decisions of the need to clearly explain the reasons for their decisions in the outcome letter. This should include how medical evidence has been considered and, where a higher priority is not awarded, why the evidence was either not sufficient, was given limited weight, or supported only a lower level of priority;
• Review its decision letter templates to ensure they clearly set out applicants’ right to request a review of decisions;
• Review its allocations policy to ensure it includes a clear procedure for requesting a review of housing application decisions, including appropriate timescales for each stage of the process.

Back to top

Decision

45. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman