Summary: The Council failed to register Mrs X’s housing application accurately. However, this did not cause Mrs X an injustice as she did not miss out on a housing allocation as a result. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council assessed Mrs X’s medical priority.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly register her housing application and delayed updating the application when her circumstances changed. She also complained the Council failed to consider her family’s medical priority. She says this has caused her family distress and uncertainty and they have missed out on properties. She wants the Council to properly assess her housing application and compensate her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. Mrs X’s fourth child was born in 2022. Mrs X says she had repeatedly chased the Council to add her child to the application from this date. Mrs X’s complaint about adding her fourth child to her housing application is late because it concerns council actions that happened more than 12 months before she complained to us. I have not investigated this part of Mrs X’s complaint. Mrs X could have complained to us sooner about the issue and I consider it was reasonable for her to have done so. The Council added Mrs X’s child to her application in August 2024. Further investigation would not lead to a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

9. 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))
10. 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))

11. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
12. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

Background

13. Mrs X applied to join the Council’s housing register in 2018. Her family were made homeless in 2022 and have lived in temporary accommodation since. Mrs X had a fourth child in 2022 and says she has repeatedly asked the Council to update her housing application since then.

What happened

14. In 2024 Mrs X was at risk of homelessness from her temporary accommodation. She contacted the Council and it offered alternative temporary accommodation. Mrs X asked for a suitability review of the new accommodation offered. However, Mrs X was not made homeless and did not need to move to the new accommodation.
15. Mrs X complained to the Council in January 2025. She said a housing officer had told her she needed to be evicted to be rehoused, and the Council had worked with the landlord to try and evict her. She added that the Council had still not updated her housing application with her fourth child.
16. The Council responded a few days later, it said there was no evidence to show it had worked with the landlord to try and evict Mrs X. It said it was the landlord’s decision whether to evict Mrs X or not. It accepted its housing officer had given Mrs X incorrect advice and said it had added Mrs X’s fourth child to her application in August 2024 when it received their birth certificate. It said it would carry out a suitability review of Mrs X’s current temporary accommodation. Mrs X remained unhappy and asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two of its complaint process.
17. In March 2025 Mrs X emailed the Council to say she had updated information on her application and asked how to submit supporting evidence from her GP. The Council confirmed the next day it had corrected the start date of Mrs X’s application to 2018 as it had been recorded as 2019. It said her banding was “band 3 homeless”.
18. Mrs X asked the Council whether the error had resulted in her missing out on a property and whether she could bid on properties. The Council confirmed she could bid and she had not missed out on any properties. It said her current wait time for a property was 6 years and 11 months and the average wait time was over 16 years. It asked Mrs X whether she wanted to be registered to bid for both three and four-bedroom properties. Mrs X confirmed four-bedroom properties.
19. The Council responded to Mrs X at stage two of its complaint process in late March 2025. It said it was satisfied the stage one had addressed most issues. It confirmed Mrs X’s banding and that she was registered from 2018. It said her application was active and she could bid on three or four-bedroom properties. It noted she had bid on properties in February and March 2025. Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.
20. Following our enquiries the Council carried out a medical review of Mrs X’s housing application. In September 2025 its medical advisors reviewed information supplied by Mrs X decided her application for medical priority was based on being in temporary accommodation and overcrowding, which were not medical matters.
21. The Council considered the recommendation of its medical advisors and decided Mrs X did not meet the medical threshold to award a higher housing priority. Mrs X’s banding remained unchanged.

My findings

22. Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly register her housing application and delayed updating the application when her circumstances changed. Through investigating Mrs X’s complaint, it identified that it had recorded Mrs X’s registration date as 2019 rather than 2018. This was fault. However, it did not cause Mrs X an injustice as she did not miss out on a property as a result. The Council has now corrected the error.
23. The Council assessed Mrs X’s medical priority in September 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, regardless of whether a person disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
24. In making its decision, the Council took account of the relevant guidance, information from Mrs X, and its own policies. The Council followed the appropriate procedures when making this decision and I cannot therefore criticise it. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Decision

I find fault not causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman