Summary: The Council was at fault for the delay in assessing Mr X’s application for medical priority on the housing register and for an extra bedroom need. However, this did not cause a significant injustice as the Council decided Mr X did not qualify for medical priority or an extra bedroom and there was no evidence of fault in how it reached this decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly assess his housing application and award him the correct priority on its housing register which has meant he has not been able to successfully bid for a property. In particular, he complained it failed to properly consider the anti-social behaviour the family is subjected to, the family’s medical needs and the impact of overcrowding on the family’s health. Mr X says this has left him and his family in unsuitable accommodation which is impacting their health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of my decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

7. 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))
8. 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))

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

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

10. The Council operates a choice based lettings system. It uses a points based and banding system to prioritise households on the housing register. Of particular relevance to this complaint are:
• Band one (acute housing need) serious risk to welfare points such as where there is a threat of physical harm and or serious harassment or abuse. The case must be made to a panel on the applicant’s behalf by the police, children’s services, adult social care or housing management.
• Band one emergency health and independence points where there is substantial evidence from specialist services that the applicant or a household member’s disability or severe and enduring medical condition is so serious it is virtually impossible to continue living at the current home and there is a need to move to receive appropriate care and support.
• Band two (major priority) includes health and independence points where there is substantial evidence from specialist services that the applicant or a household member has a disability or severe and enduring medical condition which substantially impacts their health and independence at home, and they are unable to enter or leave their home and/or access essential facilities and all other options have been explored.
• Band three (moderate priority) includes overcrowding points. Households who lack two or more bedrooms in their current home receive overcrowding points. Those lacking one bedroom will not receive overcrowding points.
11. The Council uses its bedroom standard to decide how many bedrooms an applicant needs. Two children of different sexes aged up to nine or two children of the same sex up to the age of 20 are expected to share a bedroom. The Council may recommend an additional bedroom if this is recommended by its Housing Health and Disability Team because of exceptional circumstances and the health problems a household has. This includes where there is clear medical evidence from specialist services that a couple or siblings cannot reasonably share a bedroom on medical grounds.

What happened

12. I have investigated what happened from May 2025 up until January 2026. The following is a summary of the main events relevant to this complaint.
13. Mr X is a Council tenant who lives in a one bedroom level access ground floor property with his partner and two young children. Mr X has disabilities and one of his children has health problems which mean they wake up frequently in the night needing support.
14. In May 2025 the Council’s neighbourhood service contacted the housing department requesting a referral for transfer for Mr X due to overcrowding and health/disability reasons. The Council arranged a telephone appointment for Mr X with its housing solutions team for later that month.
15. Mr X said he did not receive a call and complained to the Council. The Council responded in early July. It said an officer had called but Mr X had not answered and they could not leave a message. It partially upheld the complaint as it said the officer could have made further attempts to contact Mr X. It said it had now passed the case to another officer who had yet to contact Mr X and would do so shortly.
16. In mid-July 2025 an officer from the housing team contacted Mr X. They explained they would look at overcrowding but a need for an additional bedroom due to medical issues was a matter for the Housing Health and Disabilities Team to consider based on medical evidence. Mr X provided the officer with a large number of documents about his and his family’s health and medical conditions.
17. The Council officer told Mr X it would take them some time to open all the documents he provided and they needed advice on the practicalities of doing so. They said they requested specific evidence about the need for three bedrooms for medical reasons. They said issues about Mr X’s mobility were less relevant unless Mr X’s health had deteriorated as his current home was accessible.
18. Around that time, Mr X sent the Council a letter from his GP which said the property was having a detrimental impact on his and the family’s health. It recommended a move to a larger and more appropriate property to support the family’s long term health.
19. Mr X complained to the Council that the housing officer had not engaged meaningfully with the information he provided and said it was too extensive. The Council responded in August 2025. It said unfortunately the documents he provided were not passed to the Housing, Health and Disability Team and so it would now review the documents and do this. It said there was a waiting time of up to 12 weeks for a medical assessment. It partly upheld the complaint as it said the case officer should have told Mr X they needed more time to review the information he provided.
20. Mr X asked to go to the next stage of the complaints procedure. He said the Council had failed to assess the overcrowding and the family’s health conditions to determine whether he should get priority on the Council’s housing register and needed a three bedroom property.
21. In early October 2025 an officer from the Council’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) team wrote a letter in support of rehousing Mr X. They referred to anti-social behaviour he was experiencing from another resident. The officer set out the actions the Council had already taken to mitigate this. However, they said the risk remained high and they considered Mr X should be rehoused. Mr X said she shared this letter with the Council.
22. In mid October 2025 the Council completed a health and disability assessment report. It listed the documents it had considered and explained the very high threshold for it to award health and independence points. It explained there was no evidence the current property had a significantly adverse effect on Mr X’s health or independence. In addition, it said there was no evidence his children had severe enduring health conditions or an essential need to have separate bedrooms so it considered the family had a two bedroom need.
23. Mr X provided further information from his GP which said his medical conditions were likely impacted by overcrowded conditions. It strongly recommended both children needed separate sleeping spaces.
24. In mid November 2025 the Council’s panel considered the serious risk of harm information provided by the ASB officer. It decided it needed further information from the ASB officer who was on leave at that time.
25. Mr X complained about the decision not to award health points. The Council reviewed the decision in mid December 2025. It remained of the view there was no evidence the property had a significant adverse effect on his or the family’s health nor was there was an essential need for the children to have separate bedrooms. It said it had considered the GP’s recommendation and Mr X’s children’s health conditions but was not satisfied on the evidence provided that the children needed separate bedrooms on medical grounds and said Mr X’s children could share a bedroom.
26. In early January 2026 the Council accepted Mr X onto the housing register and awarded points due to a serious risk to his welfare taking account of the information from the ASB officer. It assessed he required two bedrooms and backdated the date of joining the register to May 2025.

Findings

27. The Council in its complaint response accepted that it delayed referring Mr X’s application to its Housing, Health and Disability Team. There was then a further delay in it carrying out the assessment. This delay was fault.
28. However, the delay did not cause a significant injustice because the Council concluded Mr X did not qualify for health and independence points, or for an additional bedroom under its housing scheme.
29. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a person disagrees with the decision the Council made.
30. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider Mr X’s application, and the information it took into account when assessing Mr X’s application for medical priority and in assessing his bedroom need. I found no evidence of fault in how it did this or in how it carried out its later review of this decision.
31. Mr X does not agree with the decision to award him a two and not a three-bedroom need but as there was no fault in how the Council reached this decision I cannot question it.
32. The Council considered information from its ASB officer and in line with its scheme awarded him serious risk of harm points. It backdated this award to the date of his application to join the housing register. Mr X is therefore able to bid for two bedroom properties on the housing register.
33. If Mr X has concerns about more recent issues or has new medical information to support his need for an additional bedroom it is open to him to provide this to the Council. If he remains unhappy Mr X can then complain again to the Council and then to us.

Back to top

Decision

34. I find fault not causing significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman