Summary: Miss D says the Council mishandled her housing register application. I have found fault by the Council. It accepts it delayed awarding the correct effective date on the application. The Council has agreed to pay Miss D redress for avoidable time and trouble.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) says the Council has mishandled her housing register application and incorrectly changed her registration date, provided an incorrect effective date and failed to explain whether it used the correct, current, banding policy when assessing her case.

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 considered the 12 month period preceding when the Council issued its review decision, so from July 2024 to July 2025. I have advised Miss D she will need to make a new complaint/ use the review process with the Council about any issues occurring after July 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background

7. Miss D occupies a one bedroom property on the fourth floor with her child. The property is accessible via a lift and stairs. It has access to a balcony.

2023

8. In January 2023 the Council assessed Miss D’s housing need as band C. She was eligible to bid for a two bedroom home. Her registration date and effective date was 18 June 2018. On 15 April the Council carried out a medical assessment to see if Miss D had medical need for rehousing. It primarily considered evidence about her condition and did not find there was medical need to move. It noted Miss D was waiting for an assessment for her child. The Medical Team would review the case again once the assessment for the child was complete.
9. On 23 June Miss D told the Council there was change of circumstances regarding her child’s medical need for rehousing. On 30 August Miss D sent the Council GP letters about her child which said they had been referred for further assessment of behavioural issues. They would climb onto windows and balconies in an unsafe manner and had several falls. The GP said there was a serious risk for the child. On 12 September the Council received a safe environments home assessment report from the hospital caring for the child. This was an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment of Miss D’s home. The OT noted the child did not have a formal diagnosis but was receiving professional support. The OT found the child was at risk of falling from windows and the balcony as they had no awareness of danger. They recommended adaptations to the property, primarily restrictors on doors and windows, but said this would only “reduce but not remove risks”. The OT would send a copy of the report to the Council for the Medical Assessment Team to consider for rehousing. In October Miss D submitted a health form to the Council to assess if her child had a medical need to move home. She said the child was not safe in the property.

Events I have investigated

2024

10. On 24 July Miss D called the Council as she had not heard back about the medical information she had submitted. She called again on 31 July. On 30 August the Council assessed if the household had a medical need to move. The Medical Adviser took account of a June 2024 report provided by Miss D, the 2023 OT report and other information provided by Miss D. They recommended Miss D’s child needed their own room and the family required a property without an open balcony, no higher than the first floor and with a separate kitchen to other rooms. The family had medical need. On 5 September the Council told Miss D its assessment was complete. She remained in band C with a two bedroom need, and the effective date was 18 June 2018.
11. On 6 September Miss D asked the Council to review the medical need decision. Her property was unsafe because her child had a medical condition, She asked the Council to explain the banding criteria and why she was in band C and not band B. The Council replied that day and explained about significant medical need and specific housing need. It explained she could ask for a review of the medical decision. On 9 September Miss D emailed the Council to request a review and the next day she sent photographs of the property. The communal areas were dangerous for her child and could not be adapted.
12. On 31 October the Council responded to an MP’s enquiry about the case. It told the MP that Miss D was in band C. In November the Senior Medical Adviser emailed Miss D as they had been trying to call her. In December the Senior Medical Adviser at the Council told Miss D they could carry out a home visit if Miss D wanted to progress a review. Miss D could also compile medical evidence including a diagnostic report for her son. Miss D said she would progress matters once she had more evidence.

2025

13. On 25 April Miss D requested the Council reassess the medical need for her family. Since her last contact her child now had a formal diagnosis and his condition impacted on how he could safely live in their current home. Miss D detailed how the property was not safe. She enclosed the diagnostic report for her child. On 9 May Miss D emailed the Council again about her son’s diagnosis and attached another copy of the diagnostic report. The Council asked Miss D if she had any further supporting evidence she wanted to submit.
14. On 15 May Miss D’s Councillor submitted an enquiry about the banding on the case. On 22 May the Council asked Miss D to complete a health form to progress a new assessment of medical need. Miss D submitted the form that day. On 23 May Miss D sent the Council photographs of her accommodation to be considered in the review. On 30 May 2025 a Medical Adviser assessed the case. They had spoken to Miss D about the child’s condition and their current housing. They found the family had significant medical need and recommended rehousing on the same basis as before (a separate kitchen, no open balcony or walkways). On 18 June the Council sent its decision to Miss D. It had awarded significant medical need for her child, and the family were now in band B. No additional bedrooms were needed. The effective date changed to 9 May 2025. The Council explained why Miss D did not meet the criteria to be placed in band A.
15. The Council replied to the Councillor on 19 June that Miss D had reported a new medical need for her child that year after receiving a diagnosis. That information was received on 9 May and assessed. The Council stated the outcome of the assessment was “’A’ medical awarded for disability classification ‘learning difficulties’, F general needs”. The banding had been updated. On 25 June Miss D contacted the Council requesting a review of the medical decision and banding. She was unclear in the 2025 decisions if the current policy had been used to assess her case. The band was not reflective of the serious risks posed to her child by their current home. She asked for an explanation of how the banding had been assessed. Miss D also said an Officer had previously stated she had been awarded “A medical” and an extra bed space but the decision on her case showed band B and no extra bed space. Also on 25 June the Council replied that Miss D had been awarded band B medical with a two bedroom need. The earlier contact referred to types of medical classifications (A medical) that were no longer in use.
16. On 7 July Miss D told the Council she had been moved to band B, but the registration date had been changed to 2025. She was concerned she had lost six years of waiting time on her account and wanted the previous date reinstated. On 23 July the Council sent Miss D its review decision. She qualified for significant medical need because her accommodation was unsuitable due to a severe and enduring medical condition. The Council also accepted her child needed their own room and a two bedroom need had been accepted previously. It advised Miss D did not qualify for band A as this was applied to applicants who needed emergency accommodation. It said that applicants had priority (when bidding for social housing) by band date and category and Miss D was band B with a 9 May 2025 date. On 29 July the Council wrote to Miss D reiterating the contents of its 23 July letter but amending an incorrect name.

Events outside my investigation timeframe

17. In February 2026 the Ombudsman asked the Council for information about this case as part of the pre-investigation assessment process. The Council replied on 13 February that Miss D’s effective date was wrong and should be 23 June 2023, not 9 May 2025. This would reflect when the Council was notified by Miss D about changes in circumstances regarding housing need and her child’s condition. The Council notified Miss D of the changed effective date on 24 February. Her band B need was backdated to 23 June 2023. The Council says this was the date (2023) when Miss D had first notified it about a change of circumstance relating to her child.

What should have happened

Housing register

18. A person seeking social housing can apply to join the Council’s housing register. The Council will assess the applicant’s eligibility and housing need. Once housing need is determined the Council will place the applicant into a housing band to reflect the level of priority they have. Band A is applied to households with emergency needs. Band B applicants have a significant housing need, and Band C applicants have a specific housing need.
19. The registration date for an applicant is the date they the applied to join the housing register. This is the same as the effective date (the Council will usually just refer to the effective date). The date will change where an applicant’s banding is revised by the Council. So if an applicant moves from Band C to Band B their effective and registration date will become the date of the band change.
20. If an applicant submits medical evidence, once they are accepted onto the housing register, the Council should assess whether this shows if the household has a medical need for rehousing. The Council will consider if the evidence shows the household’s health if affected by their current housing and whether they would benefit from moving home. The applicant must demonstrate the medical condition is made worse by their housing and their current home cannot be adapted at a reasonable cost. The Council can seek advice from a Medical Adviser. Applicants assessed as having a significant medical need are placed in band B. Applicants with a specific housing need where a medical condition would be alleviated by moving home but the current accommodation is ‘not a threat to significantly exacerbating the condition’ are placed in band C. The Council prior to 2023 used to assess applicants as either A medical or B medical. Those classifications were replaced with significant and specific medical need.
21. An applicant can bid for advertised social housing properties using the Council’s Choice Based Lettings system. In general the Council will award a property to the bidder who has the highest band level and earliest effective date.
22. Where an applicant disagrees with a housing register decision, including the banding awarded, they can ask the Council to carry out a review. A review should be carried out within 56 days.

Was there fault by the Council

23. The Council delayed assessing the medical evidence Miss D submitted in October 2023. It did not consider the information until August 2024 and only took action after Miss D contacted Officers. There was an avoidable delay of around nine months.
24. Miss D says the Council incorrectly changed her registration date and effective date on her housing register account. The Council will change an applicant’s effective date if it awards a different housing band. In this case the Council changed the effective date in June 2025 because it had increased Miss D’s banding from band C to band B. It set an effective date of 9 May 2025 because that was when it received the diagnostic report which enabled it to increase the banding. However the Council subsequently reconsidered the effective date in 2026 after contact from the Ombudsman. It said that because Miss D had been given the option of a reassessment of the medical need in 2023 it had decided ‘to honour the initial date’ when Miss D first notified it about her child’s condition in June 2023. The Council has also accepted it was at fault because the 2023 effective date should have been awarded in June 2025 when the banding changed to band B.
25. Miss D says the Council incorrectly referred to her being in band A and failed to explain the banding to her. The evidence shows me that Miss D queried the reference to ‘A medical’ in June 2025 and the Council correctly explained this related to old classifications about medical need. As I set out above, the A and B medical classifications were replaced by significant and specific medical needs. Aside from this one reference I have not seen any evidence the Council used the wrong process or out of date criteria to assess Miss D’s case during the period I have investigated.
26. I have not found fault in the overall handling of this case. I appreciate Miss D feels the Council should have awarded a higher band earlier than 2025. The evidence shows me the correct process was followed by the Council. It took account of the evidence Miss D provided at each assessment of medical need in reaching a decision about banding. 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 and that applies to decisions about banding in this case.

Did the fault cause an injustice

27. I have checked whether the delay to award the correct effective date meant Miss D missed out on successfully bidding for advertised social housing using the Choice Based Lettings process. I am satisfied she did not lose an opportunity to be rehoused. However Miss D was subject to avoidable delays which caused her time and trouble because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Action

28. To remedy the injustice caused to Miss D the Council has agreed to pay her £200 for avoidable time and trouble.
29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Decision

30. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman