Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it handled Ms X’s request for medical priority and for the time taken to carry out a review of its decision. The Council was also at fault for delays in complaint handling. As a result Ms X cannot be sure the Council has considered her circumstances properly and has experienced anxiety and frustration. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the way the Council handled her request for Band two on its housing register, namely the Council:
1. Delayed considering her application for medical priority.
2. Did not properly consider her circumstances when deciding whether she should receive medical priority.
3. Delayed completing a review of its decision.
4. Delayed responding to her complaint.
2. Ms X said she and her children have been living in unsuitable conditions and this is impacting her health.

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. 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)
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)
6. 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

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Ms 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

Law and guidance

9. 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))
10. 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))
11. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:
• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
12. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
13. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

The Council’s housing allocations policy

14. The Council places applicants into Band 2 if it decides the physical or mental health of the applicant or a household member is severely adversely affected as a result of their current housing situation.
15. The Council places applicants into Band 3 if it is satisfied an applicant is occupying unsatisfactory housing that is having a significantly adverse affect on their wellbeing or a household members wellbeing. The Council also places households who are overcrowded into Band 3.

What happened

16. Ms X lives in a one bedroom flat on the second floor with her four children who are all under 10 years old. Ms X is in Band 3 on the Council’s housing register as she is considered overcrowded.
17. In September 2024, Ms X asked the Council to consider her medical priority on its housing register. Ms X completed a disability questionnaire and submitted evidence from her GP which outlined she had chronic back pain, mental health issues and significant mobility issues. Ms X told the Council she cannot use the lift in the property due to claustrophobia and struggled with the stairs due to back issues.
18. In late October 2024, the Council decided Ms X would remain in Band 3 on its housing register and did not qualify for medical priority.
19. Ms X sent the Council a further disability questionnaire in late 2024 and provided the Council with a letter from her doctor in April 2025. The Council issued Ms X a decision in early July 2025 saying its previous decision that she has no medical priority still stood.
20. Ms X asked the Council to review this decision on 7 July 2025. After sending out a draft of this decision, the Council provided Ms X with its review decision which upheld her Band 3 status.

Ms X’s complaint

21. Ms X complained to the Council in October 2024.
22. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in mid-November 2024. The Council apologised it had missed its deadline to respond to her complaint at stage one. The Council said after it received Ms X’s medical disability questionnaire it asked its medical adviser for an opinion and after considering this decided she was in Band 3 with no medical priority.
23. Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage 2 on 18 November 2024. Ms X said she believed her current circumstances qualified her for Band 2 on the Council’s housing register due to the impact her living conditions were having on her health and children’s wellbeing, namely;
• The lack of space in her flat worsened her chronic pain, sciatica and claustrophobia and she cannot manage these conditions effectively.
• Her mental health has deteriorated as her children have no space to play or study.
• The lack of space means the property is always cluttered and messy.
24. Ms X also raised concerns about not being able to submit the disability questionnaire properly at the end of 2024 and despite this she was assessed and placed into Band 3. Ms X provided the Council with several letters from her GP and asked the Council to re-assess her Banding.
25. The Council provided its final response to Ms X’s complaint in July 2025. The Council recognised it delayed responding to Ms X’s complaint and apologised and offered her £175 to acknowledge the delays. The Council recognised there had been delays completing Ms X’s medical assessment and offered her £100 to acknowledge the delays.
26. The Council said it considered Ms X was in the correct Band and did not meet the criteria for Band 2, however it would carry out a reassessment.

Analysis

27. After receiving a decision that she did not qualify for medical priority in October 2024, Ms X attempted to submit a new disability questionnaire in late 2024. Ms X experienced difficulties completing the form and sending attachments. The Council acknowledged this in its complaint response.
28. It took the Council until July 2025 to give Ms X a decision on whether she had medical priority. This was fault. As a result Ms X had to wait a significant period of time for the Council to decide on whether she qualified to join Band 2. The Council accepted there were delays with this process and offered Ms X £100 in recognition of this. I am satisfied this remedies the injustice caused to Ms X.
29. Ms X also complains the Council did not properly consider her circumstances and medical evidence when it decided she did not qualify to be in Band 2 for medical reasons. Ms X provided the Council over time with medical evidence. The Council’s decisions in 2024 and 2025 gave only very limited or no consideration to Ms X’s evidence and arguments for being in Band 2 and just stated the medical advisor’s opinion. This was fault. The resulting injustice is that Ms X cannot be sure the Council has properly considered her circumstances.
30. Ms X asked for a review of this decision. The Council issued the review decision after we sent out a draft decision. The Council was at fault for the length of time it has taken to carry this out this review. Ms X asked for a review of her Banding decision in July 2025 and only received the outcome of the review in June 2026. This will have caused her anxiety and frustration about whether her Banding would be changed.
31. There was also fault in the Council’s complaint handling. It took slightly longer than it should have to respond to Ms X complaint at stage one. At stage 2 it took the Council eight months to respond to her complaint. As a result she had to wait considerably longer than she should have to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman. The Council has recognised these delays and offered Ms X an apology and a payment of £175. I am satisfied this is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X and in line with what we would recommend as a personal remedy.

Back to top

Recommended Action

32. Within one month of my final decision the Council should carry out the following:
• Apologise to Ms X for the injustice caused to her from the above faults. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Ms X £200 to recognise the anxiety and frustration she has experienced as a result of the delays carrying out the review into her Banding decision.
• Consider why it took so long to respond to her complaint at stage 2 and whether it can make any changes to how it handles complaints so these delays do not reoccur. The Council should report back to the Ombudsman detailing any improvements it intends to make.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman