Summary: Mrs B complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application and delays in it reviewing her banding. The Council was at fault. It failed to properly consider medical evidence Mrs B had sent it, delayed carrying out a review, and its communication was poor. As a result, Mrs B suffered distress and frustration, and she missed the opportunity to be offered a property she bid on. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B, make a symbolic payment, and issue staff guidance.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains the Council failed to consider her housing application correctly, delayed in dealing with her request for a review of her priority band, and failed to notify the partner housing association her band A award date had been backdated.
2. Mrs B says the Council’s failings have caused distress and frustration and delayed her finding a transfer to a suitable property. She would like a financial remedy and improved services to prevent similar failings in future.

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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A), and 25 (7) 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. 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 investigated

7. I have investigated matters in this case from January 2024, when Mrs B submitted supporting medical evidence to the Council which was pivotal to her band award, to July 2025 when the Council sent Mrs B its stage two complaint response. I reference matters outside of these dates for context.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I read Mrs B’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the phone.
9. I considered evidence provided by Mrs B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mrs B 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

Housing allocations scheme

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))

Choice based lettings

12. The Council is a partner in a local choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which are advertised.

Review procedures

13. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
14. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline. 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

Back to top

What happened

15. This is a summary of events outlining key facts and it does not cover everything that has happened in this case.
16. Mrs B made a housing application to the Council in October 2023. The Council awarded Mrs B band D, but shortly after awarded band B.
17. In mid-January 2024, Mrs B submitted medical evidence to the Council. This was a letter from a mental health professional with information about her partner’s mental health condition.
18. At the end of February 2024, the Council awarded band B to Mrs B, including band C for a medium medical need.
19. Mrs B sent the Council further medical evidence regarding her partner’s mental health condition in September 2024 from a mental health professional, which the Council advised was sent to its medical experts for banding advice. In October 2024, the Council decided after a review by its medical experts, the information did not change Mrs B’s banding.
20. Mrs B requested a review of the Council’s banding decision. She told the Council its lettings policy states that a person suffering from a diagnosed mental illness where the medical condition would be significantly improved by a move to alternative accommodation should be awarded band B for a high medical need, but that she currently had band C for medium medical need.
21. The Council sent its review decision to Mrs B at the end of December 2024. It changed Mrs B’s medical priority from medium to high, which increased her overall banding to band A, for urgent multiple needs. The Council backdated the award date to late September 2024 when Mrs B sent it further evidence about her partner’s mental health condition, as it says this information was pivotal to its decision.
22. Mrs B complained to the Council in April 2025. She expressed the Council had failed to consider her partner’s medical evidence of her mental health condition and had failed to carry out the banding review in a timely manner.
23. Mrs B bid on a property in late April 2025, which was later rejected. The shortlist for the property closed at the start of May 2025. The property was offered to the successful applicant a week later. The Council says it backdated Mrs B’s award date in mid-May 2025. It backdated the award date to mid-January 2024, when Mrs B had first sent evidence of her partner’s mental health condition to the Council. In mid-May 2025, the property was still being shown as being shortlisted. The successful applicant’s tenancy at the property started at the end of May 2025. The property was marked as let in late June 2024.
24. The Council sent its stage one complaint response to Mrs B around the same time. It told her it had backdated her banding and said it would take steps to discuss points of learning. It also acknowledged it could have handled Mrs B’s housing application better and asked for further evidence from her.
25. Mrs B raised a stage two complaint with the Council, and it sent Mrs B its stage two response at the end of July 2025.
26. Mrs B moved into a different property in December 2025.

Back to top

Analysis

27. The Council has acknowledged it was at fault for:
• How it handled Mrs B’s housing application. It said it did not make further enquiries with her when she provided it with letters from a mental health professional to evidence her partner’s mental health condition. It also did not contact the mental health professional directly to ask for more information.
• Its delay in completing the review of Mrs B’ banding.
• Its lack of updates to Mrs B to explain why the review was taking the Council longer than eight weeks to complete.
28. This caused an injustice to Mrs B. Had the Council properly considered the medical information Mrs B first sent it in January 2024 which was pivotal to it backdating Mrs B’s award date to mid-January 2024, on balance, the Council would have decided to place her in band A for urgent multiple needs around February 2024, when it awarded a medical need. For the property Mrs B placed a bid on, the successful applicant’s priority date is April 2024. So, on balance, Mrs B missed out on the opportunity to be offered this property because of the fault. The Council’s delays and poor communication with Mrs B also caused frustration and meant she continued to chase the Council for updates.
29. For the property Mrs B placed a bid on, the system was not updated in a timely manner to reflect the tenancy of the successful applicant until the end of June 2025, despite the tenancy beginning a month earlier. This was fault, which meant Mrs B remained hopeful the property may be offered to her, following her high position on the shortlist after the Council backdated her band award date. This caused frustration to Mrs B.
30. I also have concerns about the Council’s understanding of its responsibilities. The Council told Mrs B the allocations process is the responsibility of the partner housing association. However, while the housing association manages the shortlist and biddings, the Council remains responsible for the administration of the allocations scheme. This applies even where a housing association writes and manages the property listings. When shortlisting applicants, the partner housing association is acting on the Council’s behalf. I have made a service improvement recommendation to reflect this.
31. I have not made any other service improvement recommendations. This is because there does not appear to be any current themes within our casework which highlight a systemic issue within the Council in relation to the faults identified in this case. We do however monitor emerging themes and issues in the complaints that are brought to us and will make service improvement recommendations where appropriate, which we carefully monitor to help drive improvement to council services.
32. Sometimes we will recommend a financial payment to the person who brought their complaint to us. This might be to reimburse a person who has suffered a quantifiable financial loss, or it might be more of a symbolic payment which serves as an acknowledgement of the distress or difficulties they have been put through. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way a court might. Nor do we calculate a financial remedy based on what the cost of the service would have been to the provider.
33. We have published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered because of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the council had not occurred.

Back to top

Action

34. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mrs B by the fault I have identified, the Council will take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mrs B for the injustice caused by the identified faults in this decision. This apology should be in line with our guidance Making an effective apology.
• Pay Mrs B £500 for the distress, frustration and lost opportunity caused by the identified faults.
35. Within three months of my final decision, the Council will also make relevant staff aware that the Council remains responsible for the administration of the allocations scheme, and that the partner housing association is acting on the Council’s behalf. The Council will share the learning from this decision with relevant staff from the Council and the partner housing association.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

37. I uphold Mrs B’s complaint and find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman