Summary: We found no fault on Miss Y’s complaint about the Council failing to assess her medical needs and information. There was fault in failing to tell her it had suspended medical assessments with the introduction of its new housing allocation scheme. There was also fault in the way it dealt with her formal complaint. The apologies the Council gave remedied the injustice these failures caused.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about the Council failing to:
1. assess her medical need when she applied to join the housing register in 2022;
2. assess her medical need when reviewing her application;
3. assess her medical information in 2025;
4. tell her it had suspended medical assessments; and
5. respond to her stage 1 complaint and ensure it was securely sent to her.
2. As a result, she had to resend sensitive medical information, missed offers of suitable accommodation, lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than needed, which impacted on her medical conditions and caused a great deal of frustration and stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have not investigated:

• Complaint a): This is because the law says we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) As she complained to us in August 2025, we would usually only investigate to August 2024.

In reaching this decision, I noted her medical needs were assessed when she first applied to join the housing register in 2022. This was why she was awarded Band B. She had the right to ask for a review of this decision at the time it was made. I am satisfied the Council told her about this right when it wrote to her.

I see no good reason to investigate any complaint she has about actions that took place before August 2024. References to events before this date are to put the complaint into context only.

• Complaint b): I have not investigated any part of this complaint that took place before August 2024.

In reaching this decision, I took account of the fact the Council sent an annual review request for Miss Y to complete in August 2023. She failed to complete it which meant the Council reviewed her application based on the information she previously gave.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss Y, the Council’s response to my enquiries, as well as relevant law, policy, and guidance. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Miss Y and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

8. Miss Y joined the housing register in 2022 and gave the Council information about her health problems.
9. The Council awarded her Band B due to medical needs when she joined. The letter it sent her confirmed her banding and said the average waiting time for a one-bedroom property was more than three years. Her band date was 19 October 2022. If Miss Y disagreed with the banding, she had the right to ask for a review of the decision.
10. Each year, she was asked to complete a review request form to stay on the housing register. Miss Y complains the Council failed to properly assess her information at the time it carried these out. Had it done so, she might have been awarded higher priority under its allocation scheme.
11. In August 2023, she failed to complete the review request form the Council sent her.
12. There was limited contact with her until January 2025 when it issued her with a full review request form which she completed. She told the Council she had moved. She remained in Band B.
13. In February/March 2025, the Council issued a press release about the consultation period for proposed changes to the scheme. It confirmed it sent a link to it for applicants on the housing register with an email address.
14. In March, Miss Y received confirmation she had successfully bid on a property. She was confused as she had not bid for it. The Council explained a nomination form was completed for her. Miss Y said the property was unsuitable as it had stairs. The Council later accepted it had been wrongly described as a ground floor property when it was first floor. It then asked her for medical evidence and an occupational therapist assessment to support the needs she claimed she had.
15. The following month, she sent the Council updated medical evidence. It accepted there was a delay acknowledging it as the officer she sent it to was on leave.
16. In May, the Council told her it did not have the medical evidence she sent and asked where she sent it to. She was asked to send it to its generic email inbox as it could not access her attachments because of their format.
17. The Council sent her its stage 1 response to her formal complaint in June about its handing of her email attachments and poor communication. It did not uphold her complaint.
18. The same month, she received confirmation her further attempt at sending the medical evidence was successful. Her evidence was considered by the independent medical advisor who recommended housing on medical grounds with accommodation on the ground floor or any floor with a lift. Band B (medical priority) was confirmed.
19. Towards the end of the month, the Council told her the policy had changed and all current applications were being reviewed. It would contact her when hers was done. She said she was not told the Council paused all medical assessments.
20. The housing allocation scheme was amended so applicants usually now needed to have lived in its district for five years.
21. A press release was issued in July after the new scheme was approved about the new scheme. The Council closed the housing register to new applications to allow it to re-assess all existing housing register applicants against the new scheme. The Council used a targeted approach to contact applicants which gave priority based on property types most frequently available for nomination. This was largely accommodation for those over 55 and for one bedroom properties.
22. In July, Miss Y asked for her complaint to go to stage 2 of its complaints procedure.
23. The Council replied the following month, accepting:

• the officer dealing with her case was on leave when she sent her evidence which delayed its response. The evidence was later sent to the independent medical advisor.
• because of changes to the allocation scheme in July, all medical assessments were placed on hold, and she was not told this. The Council apologised for this failure but said she did not miss out on suitable property offers. This was because no one-bedroom properties with private gardens became available which she would have qualified for under Band B.
• accommodation was offered to her in March which was initially listed as a ground floor flat but was a first floor flat. She was not disadvantaged by this error in terms of priority or missed opportunities.
• due to a technical problem, at stage 1, the team leader was unable to send the response from the customer care account and instead sent it from her own work email account. This mismatch caused a warning banner on the email sent to Miss Y. The Council apologised for the confusion this caused and the poor communication because of technical issues. It was working to improve its email systems.

24. Due to the changes in its allocation policy, Miss Y was no longer eligible to join the housing register as she did not meet the local connection criteria. She asked for a review of the decision, but this was unsuccessful. It exercised discretion to allow her to remain on the housing register but suspended until she reaches the age of 55 years. She would then become eligible for sheltered accommodation if she could show a local connection of five years.

Back to top

My findings

Complaint b): failure to assess medical needs when reviewing her application

25. I found no fault on this complaint because I am satisfied the Council assessed her medical needs when reviewing her application during 2025.

Complaint c): failure to assess medical information in 2025

26. There was a slight delay acknowledging her evidence, as an officer was on leave, but I am not satisfied this was enough to justify a finding of fault.
27. I am satisfied the Council assessed the medical evidence she sent in 2025.

Complaint d): failure to tell her medical assessments were suspended

28. The Council accepted it failed to tell her medical assessments were suspended with the introduction of the new allocation policy as it worked through the housing register to re-assess applications under the new scheme.
29. This was fault and caused her avoidable injustice (stress and anxiety, for example). As the Council apologised, and she remained in Band B, I am not satisfied there is any outstanding injustice to her.

Complaint e): complaint process

30. Although a stage 1 response was sent to her, there was fault on this complaint as the Council sent it from an officer’s work email address rather than through its own customer complaint inbox which Miss Y was expecting. This understandably caused Miss Y some alarm and anxiety. I am satisfied the Council’s apology to her about this failure remedied the injustice caused.

Back to top

Decision

31. I found the following on Miss Y’s complaint against the Council:

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman