Summary: Ms D says the Council made errors with her housing register account. I have found fault because the Council delayed progressing Ms D’s medical assessment. I have not found any additional fault to that already accepted by the Council in its complaint responses to Ms D. The Council has made a service improvement and made a direct offer of housing to Ms D. It has now agreed to pay Ms D redress for avoidable distress.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council failed to correct errors on her housing register account (account) and mishandled her case. She says the Council:

• Failed to update a ‘declined’ status on her account meaning it was frozen
• Has not updated an ‘under consideration’ status on her account
• Has lost medical documents meaning she had to resubmit them
• Has not followed the correct process assessing her medical need for rehousing.

2. Ms D believes the errors on her account meant she was prevented from being able to bid for social housing. She wants her account corrected and for the Council to pay her compensation for hardship.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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

6. I have considered events from May 2024 through to 30 September 2025 when the Council issued its final stage complaint response. I have advised Ms D that I am not investigating events before May 2024 as we expect a complaint to be made within 12 months of a problem occurring. I am also not considering what happened after 30 September 2025 because Ms D would first need to complete the Council’s complaints process about recent issues before she can bring those new matters to the Ombudsman.
7. Ms D also refers to recent problems with a housing association property. I have explained that she can make a complaint about the housing association to the Housing Ombudsman.
8. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Ms D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

2024

11. Ms D was on the housing register and had been assessed by the Council. It awarded her Band C housing need. She had 145 points which included 10 points for medical need, 60 points for lacking two bedrooms, 20 points for two or more children sharing a bedroom with parents, 20 points for two children of a different sex sharing a bedroom and 35 points for waiting time. She was eligible to bid for a three bedroom property.
12. On 12 July 2024 Ms D’s housing register account (account) showed a ‘change of circumstances – in progress’ status.

2025

13. On 19 and 25 February Ms D emailed the Housing Registration Team asking for help with housing. She referred to medical conditions and said the Council could contact her GP. On 28 February the Council sent Ms D a form to complete and return. On 9 April 2025 Ms D sent the Council medical evidence including the completed form. The Council failed to process the information and pass it for assessment.
14. In May Ms D wrote to her MP about issues with her account and said the Council had not replied to her submission of medical evidence. On 8 June Ms D emailed the Council, there was an error on her account about a property (property A) she had bid for in 2022. Her account showed she had refused property A and this was incorrect. She asked the Council to check if she had been disadvantaged by this error on her record and to reassess her housing priority.
15. On 20 June Ms D attended the Council offices; she had submitted a medical form to the Council in 2022. An Officer told Ms D there was no record of a medical assessment request. Ms D provided hard copies of the medical information. Ms D also referred to property A which she believed was incorrectly recorded as ‘declined’ on her account. Ms D subsequently submitted a formal complaint to the Council about the issues with her account and that staff had been rude to her when she visited the Council on 20 June.
16. On 8 July the Council replied to the complaint. It accepted that Ms D had been given several email addresses to use when contacting different services. One of those emails contained an error meaning it did not work. It apologised for the mistake. Ms D had told the Council she submitted medical evidence on 9 April, the Council said it had no record of receiving the evidence until it was provided by Ms D on 20 June. Ms D also complained she had not declined a property offer, but her account did not reflect this. The Council acknowledged Ms D had notified it about this in June 2023 and the record on her account was an error. It said the record could not be removed but it had also noted that it was a mistake. It said this had not impacted on Ms D’s ability to bid for advertised properties. Ms D had complained about the conduct of Officers when she attended the Council on 20 June. The Council had spoken to Officers who were present who refuted they had been rude. On 9 July Ms D requested the Council escalate her complaint. On 15 July the Council wrote to Ms D’s MP. It explained the issues raised by Ms D had been responded to through the complaints process. Ms D had not lost an opportunity to bid for properties, and her medical evidence had now been referred for assessment.
17. On 16 July the Medical Adviser received the evidence provided by Ms D. On 17 July the Council noted on Ms D’s records that she had not declined property A and this had no impact on her ability to bid for other properties. On 25 July the Medical Adviser considered all the information provided by Ms D. They noted the family were overcrowded and a move ‘would improve health’. They recommended a possible award of moderate health need and 20 points. On 31 July the Council sent Ms D its medical decision. It explained she now had 20 medical points meaning she had a total of 155 points. Also in July the Council says it removed the change of circumstances status on Ms D’s account.
18. On 28 August the Council wrote again to Ms D’s MP. It said the ‘under consideration’ status on the account did not prevent Ms D from bidding for properties. It was an error with the system, and it was being investigated. Ms D had been awarded 20 medical points in July bringing her points total to 155.
19. On 30 September the Council issued its final stage complaint response to Ms D. It apologised for the delay replying. It had reconsidered Ms D’s complaint about submitting medical evidence in April. It now accepted that Ms D had provided the evidence at that time, but it had not been processed, and no update was given to Ms D. The Council apologised for the error in April and the initial complaint response. It said the medical evidence had subsequently been assessed and Ms D was awarded 10 additional medical points on 31 July (meaning she had a total of 20 medical points). It said it was revising its procedures in light of the complaint for incoming emails. The Council confirmed Ms D had been correctly assessed for medical need and awarded the appropriate level of points. The Council had checked if, had the delay awarding the additional 10 points not occurred, Ms D would have been able to successfully bid for a property. It found she had missed an opportunity. As a result it would make her a direct offer of housing. It confirmed Ms D was in the correct housing band (Band C, housing association tenant seeking a transfer). It also accepted that two properties had shown as ‘under consideration’ on Ms D’s account in error. It explained this had now been rectified and it had no impact on Ms D’s ability to bid for a home. It acknowledged a ‘change in circumstances’ status on the account which was a mistake. This had also been remedied and had not prevented Ms D from bidding for a home. In respect of the conduct of Officers in June the Council said there was no independent record of the visit by Ms D to verify what had happened.

What should have happened

Housing register

20. The Council assesses a housing register applicant’s housing need and circumstances and places them in a Band. The Bands cover Band A (highest priority) through to Band H (low priority). The Council also allocates points to each applicant. The points for an applicant determine their priority within their allotted Band. Points are awarded for a range of factors including overcrowding and medical need. Applicants who are existing housing association tenants and seeking a housing transfer are placed in band C.
21. An applicant who considers their medical condition is seriously impacted by their accommodation can ask the Council to assess if they should receive medical points. They submit a medical form by email to the Council along with supporting evidence. The Council should log receipt of the information and pass it to a Medical Adviser who will make recommendations about what priority should be awarded in line with the allocations policy. A Council Officer then assesses all the evidence and advice from the Medical Adviser and makes a decision.
22. The Council will award 10 points for an applicant with a diagnosed condition with minor relevance to their current or future housing needs. 20 points are awarded to an applicant where their condition has moderate relevance to their housing need and 30 points to applicants where their health has major relevance.
23. Applicants can bid for advertised social housing properties using the Choice Based Lettings system. In most cases the Council will award the property to the applicant with the highest band and points.

Changes to housing register account

24. Where an applicant bids for a property their account will be marked as ‘under consideration’ until the Council awards the property to a bidder. This is an automatic update on the system.
25. The Council says that ‘change of circumstances – in progress’ status on an account would relate to a change of circumstances process that has not yet been formally implemented. Due to a technical error some applicants could access this status. The Council says this did not affect an applicant’s ability to bid for a property.
26. The Council says that where an account is wrongly updated to show a property offer was declined by an applicant it can only change this to a ‘bypass reason’ which is a limited list of alternative actions. That list does not include the entry was made in error. The Council can add a note to the account to confirm if the entry is incorrect. Applicants who are in Band C are not prevented from continuing to bid for a property even if their account shows a property offer was declined.

Was there fault by the Council

27. I have carefully considered the evidence and have not found any additional fault to that already accepted by the Council in its final stage complaint response.
28. Ms D says the ‘declined’ status on her account meant she was unable to bid for properties. The Council has already advised Ms D this was not the case. She has remained able to bid for properties throughout 2024 and 2025. I have not seen any evidence to show that is not the case and the account was frozen because of the incorrect decline status. The Council has told me it cannot remove the error on the account because of the way the system is set up. However it has placed a note on the records in July 2025 confirming the error.
29. Ms D says her account incorrectly showed a change of circumstances status. The Council has already addressed this error in its complaint response to Ms D and accepted it was at fault. As I understand it, this was caused by a technical issue, but the Council has confirmed Ms D never lost the ability to bid for properties.
30. The Council has accepted it delayed dealing with Ms D’s request for a medical assessment of housing need. It received the medical evidence on 9 April 2025 and failed to log it and pass it for assessment until July. In the final stage complaint response the Council detailed the errors and accepted it should have picked up the mistake when Ms D visited the Council and at the initial complaint handling stage. I have not found any additional fault in this matter.
31. Ms D says the Council did not correctly assess her medical evidence. I have not found any evidence of fault in this matter. The Medical Adviser and Council assessed all the information Ms D provided in April 2025. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong: that applies to this part of the complaint. The correct process was followed.
32. Ms D says staff were rude to her when she visited the Council in June 2025. I only have the file record made by the Council. In the absence of any other contemporaneous evidence I am unable to verify Ms D’s recollections about the event.

Did the fault cause an injustice

33. The Council assessed in September 2025 that Ms D had lost an opportunity to successfully bid for a property because of the delay assessing her medical need. In her complaint Ms D said she was seeking rehousing and financial redress for distress and hardship. Taking account of the faults identified in this case I consider Ms D was caused some avoidable distress.

Back to top

Action

34. The Council has carried out the redress it agreed in September 2025. It has made a direct offer of housing to Ms D in 2026 and made service improvements to how it receives and logs emails. In addition to those actions the Council has now agreed to pay Ms D £150 for the avoidable distress she incurred.
35. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Decision

36. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman