Summary: Mrs D complains the Council delayed processing and failed to correctly assess her housing register application. I have found the Council at fault. There were significant delays and the review decision fails to explain how evidence was considered. This meant Mrs D was caused avoidable distress and left uncertain about whether her circumstances had been properly assessed. The Council has already agreed to carry out a new assessment and it will pay Mrs D redress for the delay.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mrs D) says the Council delayed processing and failed to properly assess her housing register application and subsequent review. Mrs D feels the Council discriminated against her as a disabled person.

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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated events from February 2024 (when the housing register application was made) through to August 2025 (when the review decision was issued). If Mrs D is dissatisfied with the Council’s actions after August, she can make a new complaint to the Council.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. On 12 February 2024 Mrs D applied to join the Council’s housing register. She was living with her partner and two children of opposite sex over 10 years of age in a two bedroom property. It was too small, in a noisy area and did not feel secure. Mrs D said the family had health related housing needs. In February the Council wrote to Mrs D, it had assessed the information she provided on the application form. She did not meet the minimum threshold of housing need and would not be placed on the housing register. If she disagreed, she could ask the Council to review its decision.
8. On 4 March Mrs D asked the Council to allow her longer to request a review, she was waiting for legal advice. On the same day the Council replied that because she had completed the health related section of the housing register application her case had been forwarded to the Housing Register and Advice Team (HRA Team) for further assessment. It would write with the outcome of the assessment.
9. On 13 May a Social Worker contacted the HRA Team that she was completing a needs assessment for Mrs D and asked for an update on the progress of the housing register application. On 22 November the Council replied to the Social Worker that an Officer dealing with medical assessments would be in touch. On 11 December Mrs D called the Council asking for an update on her application. The Council said a health assessment was pending and it would contact her in the ‘coming months’ when the case had been considered. On 10 December Mrs D sent the HRA Team a copy of a Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) letter. The Council confirmed to Mrs D on 20 December that it had referred her evidence to the Team considering her case.
10. In January 2025 Mrs D’s partner called the Council twice about the application. The Council said the assessment was still pending. On 13 January Mrs D submitted a complaint to the Council. It was 10 months since she asked for a review of the Council’s decision and there had been no progress and no updates. She said the delay was causing undue stress. On 31 January the Council replied to the complaint. It said the housing register application had been ‘deferred for additional consideration under health related housing need’. It apologised for the delay and said ‘as and when’ the Team looking at the case reached Mrs D’s application it would assess the medical information she had supplied. It told Mrs D it only had a DWP letter on file which would not be sufficient for a health related housing need assessment. It invited her to provide additional information and gave clear examples of the types of evidence that would be helpful. It also advised that a health related needs assessment was not about the severity of an applicant’s medical condition but rather how their current accommodation affected the condition.
11. On 6 February Mrs D sent the Council documents about the family’s medical conditions. On 11 February Mrs D also sent the Council a written statement. At the start of March the Council noted it had spoken to Mrs D who had sent in medical evidence to the Team inbox. That, along with information about being awarded a blue badge recently, was noted. Her case would be assessed within the next two weeks. Also at the start of March the Social Worker for the family sent the Council documents which she said Mrs D wanted her to share.
12. On 4 March the Council sent Mrs D a decision about her application and health related housing need assessment. It had considered whether Mrs D’s application met the qualification requirements to be included on the housing register and whether the family’s medical conditions necessitated a move to more suitable accommodation. It detailed the various medical conditions Mrs D had referred to, the supporting documentation it had considered and the assessment outcome. It found the current accommodation did not moderately or severely affect the conditions to the extent the Council should include the family on the housing register. It advised Mrs D could ask for a review of the decision within 21 days. At the end of March Mrs D asked the Council to review its decision.
13. On 6 June Mrs D called the Council for an update on her review. The Council said a review would usually take 56 working days and could take longer. Mrs D had sent the request to the Housing Team and was advised to send a copy to the Review Team. On 4 August Mrs D called the Council again asking about the review, the Council reiterated the usual timeframe. On 4 August a Review Officer contacted Mrs D to arrange a call to discuss her case. On 12 August the Review Officer spoke to Mrs D and noted there were four people residing in the property. Mrs D’s children had medical conditions. They were occupying a two bedroom property with no living room and Mrs D was sleeping with her partner in the dining room. The Review Officer asked to see evidence for the children’s conditions and photographs of the property to be provided by the end of the month.
14. On 27 August the Council issued its review decision to Mrs D. It apologised for delays in the process and said service delivery had been severely impacted by reduced resources and an implementation of new working systems. The Council confirmed it had ‘due regard’ to the Equality Act. It had received medical evidence from Mrs D and videos and photographs of the family home. The family had been assessed as overcrowded by one bedroom. This meant they did not have reasonable preference for the housing register as it was only awarded to applicants overcrowded by two bedrooms or more. The Council set out the information it had considered and explained how the Allocations Scheme was used to decide who should be included onto the housing register. To be a qualifying person an applicant needed to have a recognised housing need which included a health related housing need. It said the original March decision about health related need was correct. The family would not be included on the housing register.

Events after my investigation period

15. I started my investigation in March 2026. In April 2026 a HRA Manager spoke to Mrs D and emailed her confirming the Council would carry out a new assessment of housing need to determine if the family could join the housing register.

What should have happened

16. The Council’s Allocations Scheme describes how the Council assesses and prioritises applications to join the housing register. An applicant must be eligible and meet the qualification criteria to join the housing register. The Housing Act 1996 Part VI requires the Council give reasonable preference in the way it allocates social housing to specified groups including people who need to move on medical grounds and people occupying overcrowded housing.
17. The Allocations Scheme details how the Council assesses how many bedrooms an applicant requires. A couple with two children of the opposite sex over 10 years old are entitled to a three bedroom home.
18. An applicant must be overcrowded and need at least two or more bedrooms to be considered as having reasonable preference. For health related housing need the minimum requirement is an applicant has ‘moderate health or disability problems where the housing conditions directly contribute to causing serious ill health’.
19. On receipt of a housing register application form the Council will carry out an initial ‘pre-assessment’ to check if the applicant meets the threshold for inclusion on the housing register. If an applicant has referred to health related housing need the application should referred to the HRA Team for a full assessment. In 2025 the Council’s timeframe to respond to an application with a decision was within 30 working days of receiving the application.
20. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of a housing register application, they can ask the Council to carry out a review, a request should be made within 21 days of the decision.
21. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.

Was there fault by the Council

22. Mrs D applied to join the housing register in February 2024. The Council should have referred the case to the HRA Team for full assessment because Mrs D had stated the family had health related housing needs. That did not happen and the Council incorrectly sent Mrs D a decision letter. That decision letter was insufficient as it failed to explain how the decision had been made. Only when Mrs D asked about a review of the decision in March did the Council realise its mistake, it then passed the case to the HRA Team on 4 March to carry out a full assessment.
23. There was significant delay issuing a decision on the housing register application. Mrs D applied in February, the case was referred for full assessment on 4 March and Mrs D did not receive a decision until 4 March 2025. There was a delay of over 10 months by the Council. During that period of delay Mrs D had to chase up the Council several times for updates and made a formal complaint to find out why a decision had not been issued. I understand the Council had a high volume of applications and other issues impacting on the progression of cases.
24. I have not found fault in respect of how the Council made a full assessment of the application. The 4 March decision letter clearly explains the evidence considered and why the family did not meet the criteria to be included on the housing register. 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 an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong: that applies in this part of the complaint.
25. Mrs D requested the Council review its decision in March. There was further delay by the Council, and a response was not issued until August. The review decision gave clear information about what evidence had been received but failed to detail how that evidence, particularly the documents received after the March decision, had been considered and factored into the decision. I consider the decision letter was insufficient.
26. Mrs D has told me she felt the Council discriminated against her family. I asked her what she meant by this and she told me there had been a lack of updates and delay progressing her case. I have already addressed the poor handling of the case and delays above. I consider these to be administrative issues, and the Equality Act is not relevant to these matters. I have taken account of the impact Mrs D says the faults by the Council had on her family in the section below.

Did the fault cause an injustice

27. The Council delayed issuing a decision to Mrs D on her housing register application and review. Mrs D only received minimal updates when she chased this up with the Council. Mrs D says the delay caused additional stress to her family because of their medical conditions. The review decision did not explain how recent medical evidence had been taken into account which left Mrs D uncertain if her case had been correctly assessed.

Back to top

Action

28. The usual remedy where there are issues with a review decision is to ask the Council to carry out a new assessment and ensure it takes account of the evidence provided by the applicant. In this case the Council has already agreed in April 2026 to do a new assessment of the housing register application.
29. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs D £150 in recognition of the delay and impact on the family.
30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions. The redress should be paid within four weeks of this case closing and the Council should tell us when it expects to complete the review.

Back to top

Decision

31. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman