Summary: Miss D says the Council failed to assess evidence she supplied to determine her housing need. I have found the Council at fault because it delayed assessing the evidence and caused Miss D avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to pay Miss D redress and apologise.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) says the Council failed to process and assess housing need evidence, which she initially submitted in January 2025, and decide if she had additional housing priority.

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 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)
3. 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

4. My investigation has considered what took place from January 2025 (when Miss D says she first submitted medical evidence) to October (when the Council’s final stage complaint response was issued).
5. I have explained to Miss D that I cannot revisit the issues she previously complained about to the Ombudsman (decision issued 28 November 2024). Miss D also refers to issues with the management of her former Housing Association property/ tenancy and poor communication from the Housing Association. I have advised her about the Housing Ombudsman service, and I understand she is already progressing a separate complaint about those matters. In respect of Miss D querying whether her housing register account held incorrect data she can take a complaint to the Information Commissioner about data rectification.
6. 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

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

9. Miss D was a housing association tenant. She was on the Council’s housing register and had been assessed as band B housing need because of multiple needs (band 3 overcrowding and band 3 moderate medical grounds).
10. Miss D says she visited a Council one stop shop in January 2025 and submitted a bundle of medical evidence because she wanted to have her housing medical need assessed. There is no record of the Council receiving the documents at that time. On 25 February Miss D called the Council about her need to move home. She was advised to submit a change of circumstances form.
11. On 7 March the Council noted that Miss D had supplied documents from medical professionals, information about benefits and prescriptions for the family. On 1 April Miss D told the Council she had submitted evidence to the Council about her housing need. She was told to give the Council time to assess the evidence. On 11 April Miss D contacted the Council that she had supplied medical evidence on 7 March and had not received an update.
12. On 2 June Miss D emailed the Council. She had handed in documents at the one stop shop, she hadn’t been told at the time to complete a change of circumstances form. She was concerned if she now filled out a form it would ask for the evidence which she had already provided. Miss D emailed the Council again on 17 June asking for a response. On 19 June Miss D submitted a change of circumstances form to the Council. She stated she had previously provided medical evidence at the one stop shop for her family. She also referred to a ‘recent attack’ relating to an incident of violence and attached a crime report from the Police.
13. On 7 July Miss D’s MP wrote to the Council. Miss D had reported she was being targeted by third parties and would the Council look into moving her. On 8 July the Council contacted Miss D’s landlord asking it carry out a risk assessment as priority. On 18 July the Council replied to the MP. It reiterated some information provided by Miss D’s landlord about housing offers. Miss D’s circumstances had previously been considered by the Social Welfare Panel in 2024 which found she had a welfare need to move, Miss D was already in band B at that point which was the highest band available for her assessed need.
14. On 4 August Miss D complained to the Council. She referred to events going back to 2023 and concerns about her housing band. She had submitted medical evidence and had not received a decision. She was living in a home where she had previously experienced domestic abuse and she found it distressing to remain there. On 21 August the Council replied to the complaint. The Council said Miss D’s medical and other needs had been assessed previously and awarded band B housing need. That was the highest band she could be awarded for medical need. If Miss D felt unsafe in her home, she should report this to the landlord so it could assist her. On the same day Miss D asked the Council to escalate her complaint.
15. On 13 October the Council issued its final stage complaint response. It said Miss D’s bids for social housing were being properly recorded. It advised her to consider bidding for a range of properties to improve her chances of success. In respect of medical evidence the last assessment was in 2022. If Miss D believed the family’s health had worsened, she could request a new medical assessment with up-to-date evidence. This would not result in a higher band, but she may be eligible for a priority medical star award. Miss D had told the Council she felt unsafe in her home because of vandalism and domestic abuse issues. It said her landlord was responsible for addressing safeguarding and safety issues. Miss D was encouraged to report issues to her landlord. The Council said Miss D was in the correct housing band for her circumstances.
16. On 14 October Miss D emailed the Council, she was unhappy with its final complaint response. She had been told to submit a new change of circumstances form, but as set out in her original complaint, she had already submitted evidence which had not been assessed. Also on 14 October the Council awarded Miss D welfare star priority on her housing register account. The Council says it has no record of it informing Miss D about this decision. In November Miss D was successful bidding for a property and subsequently moved home.

What should have happened

17. If a housing register applicant provides documents to the Council at its one stop shop the evidence should be scanned and uploaded to the document management system to be picked up by the relevant service area.
18. When an applicant submits an online change of circumstances form the information is assessed by the Housing Applications Team. Where there is medical evidence, the case is referred to the independent Medical Adviser for their recommendations. A Council Officer will then assess the evidence and advice to reach a decision on whether an applicant’s housing band should change.
19. Applicants assessed as having moderate medical need are placed into band 3. No priority star can be given to band 3 medical cases. Applicants with a severe medical need are placed in band B and a priority star is awarded for either medical or welfare grounds. An applicant can only receive one priority star irrespective of whether they have multiple housing needs.

Was there fault by the Council

20. Miss D told me she supplied evidence to the Council in January 2025. There is no evidence to enable me to verify that action so I cannot say with any certainty the Council received Miss D’s documents at that point. However, the Council accepts it failed to process the information supplied by Miss D in March. That evidence should have been referred to the Medical Adviser and then assessed by the Council: that did not happen. The Council apologises for the error. This meant there was a delay in the Council considering the evidence, including a crime report and medical information. There was also delay because the change of circumstances form submitted on 19 June was not added to Miss D’s file until 11 August.
21. There is no evidence about why the priority star was awarded in October, but it appears to have been because of Miss D’s email contact that month where she reiterated she had already supplied a change of circumstances form and the Council had failed to assess it. The Council should have documented its decision making process, notified Miss D about the star award and explained the reasons why it was given but failed to do so.
22. The Council’s complaint handling was poor. It failed to check whether it had received documents and a change of circumstances form. Instead it told Miss D to fill out a new form and supply evidence. Had the Council investigated this matter it would have found it had the evidence and could have assessed it sooner.

Did the fault cause an injustice

23. The star priority was added to Miss D’s account after consideration of the evidence she had submitted in March and the change of circumstances form, she supplied in June. It is reasonable to assume, had the Council considered the evidence provided by Miss D when it was initially received, she would have been awarded star priority sooner and by the end of June at the latest. Miss D was also caused avoidable time and trouble because of the poor handling of her case and the inadequate complaint responses which did not pick up on the error with the evidence she had already supplied.

Back to top

Action

24. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused to Miss D:
• Pay Miss D £250 for the distress caused by the poor handling of her case
• Send Miss D a letter of apology for the faults identified in this investigation
25. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of the case closing.

Back to top

Decision

26. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman