Summary: Ms C complained about the Council’s handling of her family’s housing situation since Spring 2024 when it found their accommodation impacted the health and wellbeing of the family. We found no fault by the Council in how it considered and applied its allocation scheme. It offered a symbolic payment to Ms C as part of its complaints process for its inability to attend a meeting and an omission in its complaint’s response. This was an appropriate remedy to acknowledge the inconvenience this cause her.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms C, complained about the Council’s handling of her family’s housing situation since Spring 2024. She said it failed to act to find her family suitable accommodation:
• when it increased the family’s priority banding, bedroom need, and were aware of known safeguarding risks in March 2024;
• when its Adult Social Care team confirmed re-housing was the only long-term solution to meet the family’s needs and mitigate the identified risks in January 2025;
• when its Housing team failed to attend a Child in Need meeting in July 2025; and
• by properly considering her family’s exceptional circumstances through discretionary powers under its Housing Allocations Scheme.
2. Ms C said, as a result, she experienced distress and uncertainty, and her family has lived in unsuitable accommodation which has impacted their daily lives and mental 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. 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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated Ms C’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her family’s housing situation since Spring 2024. While Ms C first complained to the Council in July 2025 and part of her complaint is therefore slightly late, I have found it appropriate to exercise my discretion to consider her complaint from this time. This is because some information was unknown to her and she had a related complaint during this time.
8. I have not investigated the Council’s handling of the family’s Adult social care support or an occupational assessment. This is because we have considered this in a separate investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and policy

The Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme

11. 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)).
12. 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))
13. The Council’s scheme sets out how it allocates medical priority. This includes to applicant or members of their housing where the household is unsuitable because of a medical condition. Priority is awarded depending on the extent to which the health of one ore more members of the household is affected by their housing and the expected benefits of providing alternative housing.
14. No medical points are awarded if the accommodation is deemed to be suitable. Category B of the medical points are applied when the housing conditions are having major adverse effect on a person’s medical condition.
15. The Council allocates welfare points to applicants whose welfare needs are so severe that protection of vulnerable adults or children is only possible in a permanent home or where the present circumstances could deteriorate to put household member at risk unless alternative housing is offered.
16. The Council’s scheme says in certain circumstances it may make a direct offer of suitable accommodation. This is at the Council’s discretion where it considers this is necessary or appropriate. It includes urgent housing situations where it would not be reasonable in the circumstances to wait for the points-based bidding process to take place.

Suitability and review rights

17. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

Child in Need

18. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
19. A child is in need if:

• they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support;
• their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or
• they are disabled.

20. Under the Children Act 1989, councils are required to provide services for children in need for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting their welfare. Where a referral is accepted under section 17 the council should lead a multi-agency assessment and compete it within 45 working days. Where the council’s children’s social care decides to provide services, it should develop a multiagency child in need plan which sets out which organisations and agencies will provide which services to the child and family. The plan must be reviewed within three months of the start of the child in need plan and further reviews should take place at least every six months thereafter. (Working Together to Safeguard Children) 

What happened

21. I have set out the key information and events which occurred. This is not intended to be a detailed summary of everything that happened.
22. Ms C has several children all of whom has health conditions which impacts their daily lives. They all have a child in need plan and live in a 4-bedroom property.
23. In January 2024 Ms C requested an occupational therapist (OT) assessment of the family needs in their home. This included to make the accommodation safe and consider adaptions to mitigate damage from one of her children’s challenging needs and behaviour.
24. An OT from the Council Adult Social Care team subsequently started processing her request and spoke with Ms C. The OT provided her with information, leaflets, referral forms to support adaptations.
25. In March 2024 Ms C shared medical evidence for her children and returned some forms to the Council’s Adult Social care and its Housing team.
26. The OT contacted the Council’s Housing Team to support her request for increased points in Ms C’s housing allocation application. She was placed on a waiting list for the OT assessment. The family’s need was identified as mainly needing rehousing.
27. The Council’s Housing team arranged a medical assessment to consider the family’s housing need. It subsequently found the family was in need of a six-bedroom property. They were severely overcrowded including having entitlement to a high number of medical points and welfare points on its allocations scheme.
28. Communication between the Council’s housing and its Adult Social Care team shows housing was expecting the OT’s assessment report to help it determine whether the assessment impacted the family’s housing need. The OT was clear the assessment was separate to the housing need and related to the support the family needed in the home.
29. In Summer 2024 an OT from the Council’s Adult Social Care visited Ms C and completed an assessment of the family’s needs. This included a risk assessment and consideration of how to support Ms C’s child in the home to mitigate the impact of his challenging behaviour.
30. The Council subsequently reached its view the best option was to consider a portable adaptation which could be moved with the family if, and when, they were moved to a new accommodation. This would be through a company which specialised in such solutions. A trial of the equipment would be arranged for Ms C’s child to try.
31. The Council’s Housing and Adult Social care met in Autumn and late 2024 to discuss the case. The OT again informed the Council’s Housing team that the assessment would not change the family’s housing need. This was unless there was a change in circumstances which meant they were entitled to more housing points. The OT’s assessment report would therefore not be relevant for the Council’s housing decision.
32. In late 2024 the Council and Ms C considered whether the housing situation could be resolved by splitting the family up. This would have been for two adult children to move out, so the rest of the family was not overcrowded. The Council’s Allocation scheme says it will not make a direct offer unless both parts of the family need to move. Therefore, the adult children would only be entitled to register their application on its housing register and bid for properties in their own right. Ms C and her family decided to remain as one family.
33. In January 2025 the Council’s Adult Social Care completed the trial of the equipment with Ms C’s child. However, this was unsuccessful and the Council’s Adult Social Care subsequently closed the support for the family. It explained this was because it could not provide further input until the family was moved to a suitable accommodation, but risks had been considered and mitigated. It again informed the Council’s Housing team of its support for a move.
34. In April 2024 the Council completed a further housing needs medical assessment for Ms C’s family. As they already had a high amount of priority points, no additional points were awarded on the scheme. It again agreed the family’s overcrowding meant the current accommodation was not meeting the children’s medical needs. Review rights were shared with Ms C.
35. In Summer 2025 a Child in Need meeting was arranged for the family. The Council said this should include representatives from its Housing team. However, its Housing Team did not attend two weeks later when the meeting took place.

Ms C’s complaint

36. Ms C complained about the Council’s handling of her family’s housing situation since April 2024. She said it failed to act to find her family suitable accommodation:
• when it increased the family’s priority banding, bedroom need, and were aware of known safeguarding risks in March 2024;
• when its Adult Social Care team confirmed re-housing was the only long-term solution to meet the family’s needs and mitigate the identified risks in January 2025;
• when its Housing team failed to attend a Child in Need meeting in July 2025, which meant safeguarding was not properly considered; and
• by properly considering her family’s exceptional circumstances through the discretionary powers under its Housing Allocations Scheme.
37. In response the Council did not uphold her complaint. It explained:
• it had adhered to its Allocation Scheme an enabled Ms C to bid for alternative accommodations with her increased points. Its medical assessments had on two occasions considered information and concerns raised by Ms C and its Adult Social Care team in the process;
• its Housing team was unable to attend the Child in Need meeting due to a mock inspection within the Council. However, it’s medical assessments and other discussions with its partners showed it had considered safeguarding risks; and
• it had considered Ms C’s request for a direct offer of housing under the Council’s discretionary powers in line with its Allocations Scheme. However, it had not found the family’s circumstances met the exceptional priority required for this, and other families were in similar circumstances.
38. Ms C escalated her complaint with the Council. However, the Council did not change its overall view. It did accept its initial complaint response did not properly consider the possibility of an additional bedroom need and it had missed the Child in Need review. It was found the family did need a further bedroom. The Council offered her a symbolic payment of £150 to acknowledge the inconvenience this caused.
39. Ms C asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint.

Analysis and findings

Housing allocations and suitability of Ms C’s accommodation

40. I have not found fault in how the Council considered its allocations scheme to reach its view Ms C’s family should be entitled to bid for a new property in line with their needs as set out in its medical assessments. This includes the number of bedrooms they were entitled to changed based on the information it received and the number of points it applied to her case.
41. As Ms C has been able to bid and I have not found fault in the process the Council followed, it therefore reached decisions it was entitled to make.
42. I also had regard to the Council and Ms C considered splitting up the family to address the overcrowding and that this would have the possibility of resolving the unsuitability of the accommodation.
43. Therefore, although the Council’s medical assessments of Ms C’s family’s circumstances have since April 2024 repeatedly confirmed they are in severely overcrowded accommodation which means the health and medical circumstances of the children are impacted. This was therefore not due to fault by the Council. It has also explained the challenges it has in terms of availabilities of properties, including large accommodations which Ms C’s family needs. This unfortunately means a wait for a suitable accommodation may continue for some time.

Discretionary direct offer under Allocations Scheme

44. I have not found fault in the process the Council followed to consider Ms C’s request for a direct offer of accommodation under its discretionary powers under its Allocations Scheme. This was therefore a decision it was entitled to make. In reaching my view, I was conscious:
• the Council’s Housing manager considered the request and reached the view the discretion should not be applied in Ms C’s case after it had considered the specific circumstances;
• the decision is not required to follow a specific format or detailed reasoning for the decision; and
• Ms C was informed about the outcome.

Attendance at the Child in Need meeting and safeguarding

45. When the Council arranged the Child in Need meeting in Summer 2025, it was made clear the Housing team’s attendance and input was important.
46. I acknowledge the Council held a mock inspection on the same day and the Housing team therefore did not attend. However, I found this should not have prevented the Housing Team’s attendance or the meeting should have been rescheduled to ensure the attendance, considering housing was the key issue at the time.
47. However, I have not found evidence the Council failed to consider safeguards for the family in their home. This is because it had received the views and risk assessment from its Adult Social Care team and had completed the medical assessments which did not raise safeguarding concerns other than the need for rehousing. The impact the family experience regarding safeguarding concerns was therefore the same as the unsuitability of the accommodation.
48. The Council agreed to some fault in its initial complaint response regarding the possibility of an additional bedroom need for Ms C and its inability to attend the Child in need meeting. It offered her a symbolic payment of £150. I am satisfied this was an appropriate remedy to acknowledge the inconvenience this caused.

Back to top

Decision

49. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault by the Council on the substantial matters complained about. It agreed to some limited fault in its complaints response and inability to attend a meeting, it has offered an appropriate remedy to acknowledge this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman