Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly assess his housing register application and priority points and consider his child’s disability. We have not found fault with the Council’s 2025 assessment and review of Mr X’s housing priority, or with its consideration of its Equality Act duties. We have found fault, causing injustice, with its failure to properly complete the further assessment of Mr X’s housing application. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising, making a payment to recognise the upset caused and completing the further assessment.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his housing register application. He says the Council failed to:
1. properly assess his housing priority and consider the medical and professional evidence about the severe impact of their current accommodation on his disabled child and on his own mental health;
2. make reasonable adjustments for his disabled child under the Equality Act by considering the impact of their current accommodation on their safety and development; and
3. show there is a lawful basis for removing the 200 housing points he was awarded under the previous allocations scheme and acted unfairly in doing so.
2. Mr X says, because of the Council’s failures, he has not been awarded the correct number of housing points and is unable to bid for properties.
3. He wants the Council to properly assess the medical and other evidence provided in support of his application and award the appropriate higher health priority and housing points to enable him to bid for properties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these.
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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

8. 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)
9. Mr X brought his complaint to us in September 2025. I have not investigated anything that happened before September 2024. This includes his complaints about a removal of points in or about 2014 and a failure to award points in 2016. This is because I don’t consider there are good reasons why Mr X could not have complained to us about these events sooner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

The published scheme

12. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.
13. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))

Reasonable preference

14. 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; and
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

Review procedures

15. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
16. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:

• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker; and
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

The Council’s published scheme

17. The Council’s current published scheme dated April 2025 states it complies with the Housing Act 1996 and has been drafted with reference to its Housing and Homelessness Strategies and equality duties. It says:

• the allocation scheme applies when it: selects a person to be a secure flexible or introductory tenant of the Council; or nominates a person to be an assured, flexible or introductory tenant of a housing association;
• applicants who are unhappy with a decision made under the scheme should make a request for a formal review within 28 days of notification of the decision. The applicant will be asked for a written submission setting out the reasons for their request and the Council will seek any further information it requires including medical advice. The Review Officer will notify the applicant of the review outcome, with reasons, within 56 days;
• it uses a points system for assessing applications. Due to the severe shortage of housing in the Council’s area, only applicants with 100 points or more are eligible to bid

18. The scheme also says:
1. health and wellbeing will be considered where the applicant or a member of their household has long-term health and wellbeing issues which are affected by their current housing. To be considered for health and wellbeing points:

• the applicant should complete a health and wellbeing self-assessment;
• the Council will carry out an assessment based on the medical information provided. Its medical officer will make a recommendation on health and wellbeing priority; and
• it will reassess health and wellbeing need if an applicant’s circumstances have changed significantly since they were last assessed.
2. the health and wellbeing points which may be awarded to applicants in private rented accommodation are:
• 1000 – high health and wellbeing need;
• 150 – medium health and wellbeing need. Where an applicant’s need to move is less urgent and not life threatening but their living conditions are unsuitable and if left unresolved their quality of life will deteriorate; and
• 50 - low health and wellbeing need. Where the applicant’s living conditions cause them difficulty in carrying out their daily activities, but this is neither life threatening nor would greater harm or progression of the illness be caused if they did not move.
3. it will award 700 points (but no health and wellbeing points) where an applicant or a member of their household has been diagnosed with a: mental health illness; learning disability; physical disability; sensory impairment; or long -term condition and they:
• receive support from social care services; or
• could need social care services in the absence of settled accommodation; or
• are an existing Council tenant lacking two or more bedrooms; and
• have a significant need for a social tenancy because their current housing circumstances are having a severe negative impact on their health condition and wellbeing.

Equality Act

19. 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.
20. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on disability or any other of the protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010.
21. The reasonable adjustment duty in the Equality Act 2010 applies to any organisation which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
22. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
23. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
24. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.

What happened

25. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

Background

26. Mr X lives in private rented accommodation with his family. He joined the Council’s housing register some years ago. He says he was awarded 200 housing points under a previous allocations policy, but these were removed in 2014 without explanation.
27. The Council updates its allocations policies from time to time. Its September 2020 policy was updated by its April 2025 published allocations policy.

March 2025: Mr X’s housing assessment

28. Mr X told the Council his current accommodation was unsuitable because of ill health and disability. He included information about his and his child’s health and disability issues.
29. The Council asked its medical adviser for an opinion about Mr X’s medical priority. The medical adviser considered the information provided and advised no medical priority applied.
30. The Council wrote to Mr X on 18 March confirming the outcome of the assessment. It told him:

• it had assessed his housing application and the medical information he provided in line with its allocation scheme and awarded zero priority on health and wellbeing grounds;
• the definition of zero health and wellbeing priority was: the current housing situation having no adverse impact on the health issues presented, or a move would offer no improvement; or a solution other than moving into a social rented home.
• it had assessed his bedroom need as three bedrooms. He was currently living in private rented two-bedroom accommodation. In accordance with its allocations scheme, tenants lacking one bedroom were assessed as having 0 (nil) points;
• as his application had been awarded 0 points, he did not have priority for social housing and was not eligible to be on the Council’s Housing Register; and
• he had the right to request a review of the decision, within 28 days of the date of the letter.  

April/May 2025: Mr X’s review request

31. On 1 April Mr X asked the Council to review its assessment. He set out the reasons for his request and provided further medical information in support of this.
32. The Council completed its review and confirmed the outcome by letter to Mr X on 22 May. It said it had:

• considered the information he had provided together with the other relevant information;
• assessed that as he and his household were lacking one bedroom and living in private rented accommodation, he was not entitled to any points for overcrowding under its allocations policy; and
• reviewed the medical and other information and explained why it now considered he met the criteria for a low health and wellbeing award of 50 points

33. The Council confirmed that as, under its allocations policy, only applicants with 100 points or more were eligible to bid, he did not have enough points to take part in its choice based lettings scheme.
34. It also advised Mr X that he could submit further information for a new assessment, if there was any change in his or his child’s condition.

Further contact about Mr X’s housing assessment

35. The Council contacted Mr X by email on 23 May 2025 about its decision to award low health and wellbeing points. It said it would need to continue its assessment, which included contacting his landlord for a tenancy reference. It asked him to provide his landlord’s details so it could follow this up.
36. Mr X complained to the Council in June 2025 about the outcome of his review request. He asked it to complete a re-assessment and provided further information for this.
37. In July 2025 he submitted additional information for the re-assessment.

The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint

38. The Council said, in response to Mr X’s complaint:

• he could not challenge the decision made on his housing application through the Council’s complaints process. He had exercised his right to a review and there were no further internal remedies available to him;
• it was not possible to reinstate points awarded under a previous scheme. It was too late now to consider a complaint about a failure to award points in 2016 in relation to a homelessness application; and
• it had passed on the additional medical evidence he had provided to its assessments and allocations team for attention.

39. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and brought the complaint to us in September 2025.

Events after September 2025

40. The Council submitted the further medical information to its medical adviser in October 2025 for their consideration and opinion.
41. The Council told us in response to our enquiries, there was nothing to show it completed its assessment or advised Mr X about the outcome.

My decision - was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

42. We recognise that demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

Consideration of Mr X’s child’s disability and Equality Act duties

43. The Council’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy sets out how it meets its Equality Act duties, including a duty not to discriminate on disability or any other of the protected characteristics.
44. With regard to its housing functions, the Council’s allocations scheme makes reasonable preference for applicants and their household members with disabilities, as required by the Housing Act 1996. It requires the Council to consider the impact of a person’s current accommodation on their health, disability condition and wellbeing, and awards priority where it assesses this is appropriate under the scheme. It also gives the right to request a review of these assessments.
45. With regard to its duty to remove or prevent obstacles for a disabled person accessing its service by making reasonable adjustments, its Equality Policy says the Council will provide reasonable adjustments where necessary to help people access its services.
46. I have not seen any information showing the Council failed to consider any request by Mr X for adjustments to help him access its housing service.
47. In my view, the Council has taken proper account of its Equality Act duties to Mr X and his child. I have not found fault with the Council on this part of the complaint.

The award of points

48. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaints about the removal of, or failure to award, points in 2014/2016 for the reasons set out in paragraphs 8 & 9.
49. The scheme states it applies at the time it selects or nominates a person for a tenancy and an applicant’s points are therefore those they have been awarded under the current scheme and which still apply at the time of allocation.
50. The Council confirmed Mr X had no points prior to the assessment of his medical information in March 2025. I have considered the categories for which an applicant could be awarded points under the scheme then in force (the September 2020 scheme). I have not seen anything to show Mr X’s priority points had not been correctly assessed at that date.

The Council’s March 2025 assessment and May 2025 review

51. The Council considered the medical and other information Mr X provided in March with his health and wellbeing form. This included information about his child’s disability. It asked its medical adviser for their recommendations and considered these before deciding not to award Mr X any health or wellbeing points.
52. It confirmed its decision to Mr X, with reasons, in writing and told him about his right to request a review.
53. In response to Mr X’s request for a review of the decision, the Council considered the reasons and further information Mr X submitted in support of his request.
54. A review officer completed the review and notified Mr X in writing of their decision, with an explanation of their reasons, within 56 days of his request.
55. My view is the Council properly completed its March 2025 assessment of Mr X’s priority points and May 2025 review of this decision. I have not found fault with the Council.

The Council’s further assessment following the May 2025 review decision

56. The Council told Mr X in May it would need to continue its assessment, including a landlord’s tenancy reference. It also told him the allocations team would assess the further medical information he provided in July 2025.
57. The Council has told us it has not yet notified Mr X about the outcome of the further assessment.
58. The Council’s failure to complete the further assessment is fault.
59. This delay, now more than a year, has caused Mr X uncertainty, worry and upset about the outcome of the further assessment and whether it would make any difference to his ability to bid for housing.

Back to top

Action

60. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr X for its failure to complete the further assessment of his housing application and priority, and the upset caused. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
2. pay Mr X £150 to recognise the worry, upset and uncertainty caused by its failure. This is a symbolic payment based on our guidance on remedies; and
3. contact Mr X to check whether he has any new information to submit, then complete its further assessment of Mr X’s housing application and priority and notify him of the outcome and his review rights.
61. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

62. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to carry out the above actions to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman