Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to complete its assessment of medical evidence he provided in support of his housing register application within its published timeframe and did not award his application the correct priority banding. We found fault by the Council on both matters. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, make him a symbolic payment and check its records to see if he would have been made an offer of suitable accommodation if the delay had not occurred.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to assess medical evidence he provided in support of his housing register application within its 28-day timeframe. He also complained it failed to give his housing application the appropriate priority banding.
2. Mr X stated these failings have affected his housing priority and he has missed out on opportunities to successfully bid for suitable housing. He said this matter has caused him distress, frustration and resulted in him staying in his current accommodation for longer.

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 Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. 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

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))

Reasonable preference

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))

Decisions and review rights

9. 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.

10. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
11. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

Review procedures

12. 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;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

The Council’s Housing Allocations policy

13. This states the Council will assess medical information provided by an applicant in support of their housing register application within 28 working days.

Key events

14. Mr X has Multiple Sclerosis. He lives in private rented accommodation which is not suitable for his medical needs.
15. In November 2024 Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register. He provided medical evidence supporting his need to move.
16. In May 2025 Mr X complained at stage one of the Council’s complaints process. He complained about delay by the Council in processing his housing register application.
17. In mid-May the Council replied. It acknowledged there was delay in processing Mr X’s application and it awarded him £190 in recognition of the injustice caused to him. It said it had now processed his application and placed it in priority band 4. It also said it was referring his medical evidence for assessment, and this could take up to 28 working days.
18. In late June Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints process because it had failed to assess his medical evidence within the specified timeframe.
19. In September the Council replied. It reiterated its earlier reply and said that his application had been correctly placed in priority band 4. It did not acknowledge the outstanding medical assessment.
20. Unhappy Mr X complained to the Ombudsman about the delay and the priority banding awarded to his application, which he said did not accurately reflect his medical need to move.
21. In March 2026 the Council completed its assessment of Mr X’s medical evidence. It said it would now put his application into priority band 3 to reflect his need to move on medical grounds. It would backdate the award of priority band 3 to December 2024.
22. In April Mr X requested a review of the banding awarded to his application. He also supplied an Occupational Therapy report supporting his need for additional medical priority.
23. In June the Council completed its review and assessment of the OT report provided by Mr X. It put his housing application into band 1 and said he required an adapted property.
24. Meanwhile we made enquiries of the Council. It told us Mr X did not place any bids on properties between December 2024 and April 2026 and so he did not miss the opportunity to bid for suitable accommodation because of the delay in assessing his medical evidence and awarding him the correct priority banding.

Finding

25. The Council acknowledged that it took too long to register Mr X’s housing register and to assess his medical evidence. The delay amounts to fault by the Council.
26. To address the injustice caused to Mr X the Council has backdated the registration of his housing application to December 2024. This is the date his application should have been registered had the Council acted without delay. It also backdated the award of priority band 3 to the same date.
27. However, the Council has failed to consider if Mr X would have successfully bid for suitable accommodation between December 2024 and April 2026. While I accept Mr X did not bid for properties during this period this was because he was unable to do so as his application was not registered and had not been awarded the correct priority banding. To correctly assess the injustice caused to Mr X the Council should determine if Mr X would have been the successful bidder on any properties he was eligible to bid on during this period.
28. Similarly, the Council has paid Mr X £190 in recognition of the initially delay in dealing with his housing register application and medical evidence. I consider this address the injustice up to May 2025. However, Mr X had to wait until February 2026 for his medical evidence to be assessed. I consider this subsequent and significant delay caused Mr X additional uncertainty and frustration which has not been remedied by the Council.
29. Mr X provided the Council with additional medical information in April 2026. The Council assessed this within in its timescales and increased the priority banding accordingly. I do not find fault by the Council in its handling of this evidence.

Back to top

Agreed Action

30. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr X for the identified fault. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
• Pay Mr X £200 in recognition of the uncertainty and frustration caused to him as a result of the delay in assessing his medical evidence between May 2025 and February 2026.
• Check its records to see if Mr X would have been the first placed bidder on any suitable band 3 properties offered by the Council between December 2024 and April 2026. If the Council finds Mr X would have been offered a suitable property it should agree to make Mr Y a direct offer of the next suitable property that becomes available and pay him £150 per month for each month, he remained in his current accommodation after he would have successfully bid for accommodation.
• Send a memo reminding the relevant officers that when considering the injustice caused to a complainant as a result of delay in registering their housing application or assessing their medical evidence, they should check to see if the person would have been made a suitable offer of accommodation had the delay not occurred.
31. In response to a recent investigation, we asked the Council to develop an action plan to address the delays in its allocations banding decisions. For this reason, I do not consider it is necessary to make further service improvement recommendations.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

33. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman