Summary: We will have upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of his housing needs. The Council will apologise and carry out a fresh review of his housing application within one month.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had not properly assessed the family’s housing needs when deciding they were adequately housed and therefore did not qualify to join its housing register.

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 has taken or 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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register. The Council decided he did not qualify because he was adequately housed. Mr X asked for a review of that decision on 17 November 2024. The Council acknowledged the request the next day and confirmed it would issue a review decision by 13 January 2025 (56 days after the request, which was the statutory timeframe for completing the review).
6. On 19 February 2025, the Council received advice from an independent medical adviser (IMA) to the effect that the family did not meet the criteria for medical priority. This was based on the medical evidence provided and that the family were sharing a one-bedroom flat on the fourth floor. Mr X has consistently said the property is on a much higher floor in a high-rise building and one of his concerns is about the difficulty of his disabled child evacuating the building.
7. The Council issued a review decision on 24 February 2025. This said the family were not statutorily overcrowded and accept the IMA advice that medical priority did not apply.

My assessment

8. We are not an appeal body. We can consider the decision-making process but, unless there was fault in that process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
9. If we investigated further, it is likely we would find the Council was at fault for a delay in carrying out the review and for relying on IMA advice that was flawed because it relied on inaccurate information about Mr X’s current property. This caused Mr X uncertainty about whether the correct decision was reached.
10. We asked the Council to take action to remedy the injustice caused and it has agreed to take the following action:
• within one month of the date of this decision, apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice;
• within 56 days of the date of this decision, carry out a fresh review of Mr X’s housing register application. This should include giving Mr X the chance to provided updated evidence. If, on review, the Council accepts the application, it should backdate the effective date to the date of the original application.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will have upheld this complaint. The Council will carry out a fresh review.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman