Summary: Miss X complained about the delay from the Council in processing her housing application. She says that it took over 18 months to process with a lack of communication and explanation provided by the Council. She reports the Council has also not decided whether it owes her a priority based on her medical needs. We found the Council at fault. There is clear delay in both processing Miss X’s housing application and deciding whether she has a medical priority. We found the Council should apologise, make payment to Miss X to recognise the distress, and decide whether she has a medical priority.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the delay from the Council in processing her housing application. She says that it took over 18 months to process with a lack of communication and explanation provided by the Council. She says that it has also not decided whether it owes her a priority based on her medical needs.
2. She says the impact of this issue on both her and her family is significant, and she has struggled to gain updates from the Council.

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 the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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 Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making the final decision.
6. I have also considered the relevant statutory guidance, as set out below. In addition, I have considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

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. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
10. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

The Council’s allocations policy

11. There are times when people need to move because of their health or disability. Priority on health or disability grounds will only be awarded after an assessment if someone in the household has a service long-term limiting illness or permanent and substantial disability AND their health or quality of life is severely affected by the home they live in. (Paragraph 130 Allocations policy)
12. The Council can grant emergency or priority medical awards following a medical assessment. It can also consider recommendations from a health advisor about the type of property that is most suitable and essential on health grounds.

What happened

13. In January 2024 Miss X submitted a housing application. On her application she indicated that she had a medical priority. In March 2024 Miss X provided added information about her application.
14. In June 2025, Miss X made a complaint about the delay in processing her application. In July 2025, the Council accepted Miss X on to the housing register at level 2b. Miss X appealed, stating the level was wrong. In July 2025, the Council updated the banding to level B2A.
15. In August 2025, the Council provided its stage two response. Miss X provided the Council a medical form in September 2025 and in February 2026 the Council asked for more information from Miss X about her medical issues.
16. In its response to the Ombudsman, the Council confirms that Miss X banding level is now 2A because it is acknowledged that her current property is overcrowded. It has backdated her banding level to January 2024, when Miss X applied. It confirms there is an average waiting time of 12 years for a property with this priority. If a person is awarded a medical priority this is reduced to 7 years.

Analysis

17. There is no statutory timescale for processing housing applications. Unless the council’s allocations scheme sets out a specific time frame, we would usually expect a council to process a housing application or change of circumstances update within eight weeks. This is because the statutory guidance suggests councils should complete reviews within eight weeks. In this case there is no timescale set out in the Council’s allocation policy.
18. The Council has confirmed that due to an IT error, it caused a backlog in processing applications which it has now resolved. Although IT problems are difficult to diagnose and predict, there is clear fault for the time it took the Council to process Miss X’s application. A delay of 18 months caused Miss X injustice in the form of uncertainty and distress.
19. There was also further fault when the Council mistakenly placed Miss X in the wrong banding. The Council has reported that it has now corrected this error and placed Miss X in the correct banding. It has also checked and confirmed that Miss X has not missed any potential properties because of this error.
20. The Ombudsman recognises the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.
21. We can however find fault, for the distress caused by this delay both in processing the application and then for the delay in allocating the correct banding for Miss X.
22. The Council also confirms that it has yet to decide whether Miss X has a priority for a medical need. There is evidence that Miss X made the Council aware of this need, at the point of her application in January 2024. It is included in her application form, and she also provided additional information in March 2024. I consider it fault the Council has not picked up on this. It did not issue a medical form until after Miss X had made a complaint about this.
23. There is also further fault from the Council in the subsequent delay. It is now over two years from her initial application and almost twelve months since she submitted the medical form.
24. This fault has caused Miss X a further injustice by increasing the distress and uncertainty she felt about this matter. I find therefore that from two months from the date of our final decision; the Council should decide whether it owes Miss X medical priority in terms of its housing allocation policy.
25. I do not consider that Miss X should be disadvantaged by the fault from the Council. If it makes an award for priority, it should backdate this priority to when Miss X made an application initially in January 2024. This would in theory put Miss X back into the position she would have been if not for the fault from the Council.
26. The Council should also consider whether Miss X has missed out on any properties because of this delay. If she has, the Council should commit to offering the next available suitable property for Miss X. It must be noted however that due to the long waiting list, even with medical priority it seems unlikely that Miss X missed out on a property.
27. As the Council has confirmed there is no longer a backlog for housing allocations caused by its IT error, I have decided that no service improvements are required for this case. I have also taken into consideration the Ombudsman has recently made recommendations for the Council to improve the way it handles medical priority assessments.

Back to top

Action

28. Within four weeks of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide an apology for the distress and uncertainty caused by the delay in considering both Miss X’s application and her medical priority.
2. Pay Miss X £500 for the distress and uncertainty caused by the delay in considering both Miss X’s application and her medical priority.
29. Within two months of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Complete the medical assessment process and if it is agreed that medical priority is warranted, confirm that it will backdate this to 10 January 2024. It will also check whether Miss X has missed out on a property, if priority had been awarded in January 2024 and if so, offer the next suitable property available.
30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

31. I find fault causing injustice. The Council should apologise, make payment and come to a decision on whether it owes Miss X medical priority for the housing register.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman