Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council’s medical assessment for a housing application. The Council agreed to providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused and to complete the next stage of the housings process. There are no wider public interest issues to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to complete his medical assessment within its 28-day timeframe and this has affected his housing priority. Mr X said the matter caused him distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. If we were to investigate it is likely we would find fault causing the complainant injustice because:
• Mr X submitted his housing application alongside medical evidence in November 2024. The Council agreed to a referral for medical assessment in May 2025.
• Therefore, to comply with its own guidelines, the Council should have completed the medical assessment by mid-June 2025. The Council’s delay has now exceeded seven months.

Back to top

Agreed actions

6. In a recent investigation, we asked the Council to develop an action plan to address the delays in its allocations banding decisions. Because we are satisfied that action is ongoing, there are no wider public interest issues to justify investigating.
7. In so far as Mr X’s personal injustice is concerned, within 28 working days of our final decision, the Council agreed to complete the medical assessment.
8. When the Council issues its decision, the Council agreed to assess any injustice to Mr X using our guidance on remedies and make an offer of a suitable remedy, and to include the following considerations:
• If the outcome is a change of priority band, it should provide that award and back date it, to the point when Mr X was due to have that priority awarded.
• In the event it decides to backdate Mr X’s award, it should identify if this meant Mr X lost out on a chance to bid for a suitable property, that he may have been eligible for. And if so, the Council should remedy that injustice.
• If it is the case Mr X did not miss out on an opportunity it should still consider his injustice because of avoidable delays by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We upheld Mr X’s complaint. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused and to complete the next stage of the housings process. There are no wider public interest issues remaining.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman