Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly assess her housing application and family’s circumstances. We find no fault in the Council’s consideration of safeguarding issues, the medical evidence provided, or Mrs X’s length of residency in the borough. However, we find fault in the lack of clarity in the Council’s housing allocations policy on statutory overcrowding, and in its failure to properly address this in its handling of Mrs X’s complaint. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress, uncertainty, and time and trouble. We recommend the Council apologise, make a payment to Mrs X, and review its allocations policy.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly assess her housing application and family’s circumstances. In particular, the Council failed to consider:
1. statutory overcrowding;
2. safeguarding risks to her children;
3. medical evidence provided; and
4. long-term local connection to the borough.
2. She also complained the Council failed to provide a clear explanation of how the evidence provided was assessed or explain why she was placed in a lower priority band.
3. Mrs X says that her family remain in overcrowded, unsafe, and unsuitable accommodation which is having a significant impact on the family’s physical and mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 the 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 considered

6. 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)
7. Mrs X previously complained to the Council in 2022 about her banding, and the Council explained at that time why she had been placed in Band C. Mrs X had been aware of her banding for more than 12 months before she complained to us. This is therefore a late complaint, and there are no good reasons to investigate it now.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Housing allocations

10. 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))
11. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.
12. From March 2025, the Council awards eligible applicant’s priority from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 14 (lowest priority).

Council’s allocations scheme - overcrowding

13. A household is living in overcrowded housing if their current accommodation is too small for the size of the family.
14. The Council’s policy states “the number of bedrooms a household needs will be based on the bedroom standard”.
15. The Council awards priority based on each households circumstances and the level of overcrowding they are experiencing:
• Band 9 with 10 years’ residency or 10 without – statutorily overcrowded as defined in Part X of Housing Act 1985.
• Band 9 with 10 years’ residency or 10 without – severe overcrowding – where a household is lacking two or more bedrooms.
• Band 11 with 10 years’ residency or 12 without – other overcrowded households lacking one bedroom.

Statutory overcrowding

16. The law sets out two ways to assess whether a property is statutory overcrowded:
• the room standard; and
• the space standard.
17. A property is considered statutory overcrowded if either, or both, of these standards are breached.
18. A room counts as sleeping accommodation if it is normally used as a living room or bedroom.

The room standard

19. The room standard considers the number of people who must sleep in the same room and their sex.
20. The room standard is breached if two people of the opposite sex who are not living together as a couple must sleep in the same room.
21. Couples who are married, cohabiting or in a civil partnership can share a room without this amounting to overcrowding.
22. Children under the age of ten are ignored when calculating whether the room standard is breached.

The space standard

23. The space standard considers the maximum number of people who can occupy a property, based on its size.
24. The permitted number of occupants depends on:
• the number of rooms in the property that can be used for sleeping;
• the floor area of each room; and
• the age of the occupants.
25. The permitted number of occupants is the lower of the following two calculations:
• the number of people allowed according to the total number of rooms in the property (Table 1); or
• the number allowed based on the floor area of each room (Table 2).
26. Table 1 – Number of rooms

27. Table 2 – Floor space

28. When applying the space standard:
• children under one year old are ignored;
• children aged between one and ten count as half a person;
• rooms with a floor area under 50 square feet are not counted; and
• rooms counted must normally be used as either living rooms or bedrooms.

Child in Need Section 17 duties

29. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
30. A child is in need if they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support; their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or they are disabled.

What happened

31. Mrs X applied to join the Council’s housing register in 2020. At the time, she lived in a one-bedroom property with her two daughters. The Council accepted that the household was overcrowded by one bedroom and awarded her Band C under its previous allocations scheme.
32. In 2022, Miss X requested increased priority due to her living situation and provided supporting documents from her GP. The Council considered the medical evidence but decided she did not qualify for additional priority. This decision was later upheld on review.
33. At the time of my investigation, Mrs X’s daughters were aged 10 and 8.
34. In March 2025, the Council introduced a new allocations policy.
35. Later that month, Mrs X informed the Council that her husband had moved into the property.
36. In April 2025, Mrs X provided the Council with a letter from her GP. The letter explained that Mrs X had reported that overcrowding in the property was affecting her children’s mental health, sleep, and ability to complete homework.
37. Later that month, Mrs X made a complaint to the Council. She said the family were living in overcrowded accommodation and explained that her husband was now living in the household. She also said the Council had changed her housing banding without explanation. Mrs X asked the Council to reassess her housing priority and award Band A and requested a welfare and needs assessment of her children under section 17 of the Children Act 1989.
38. Two days later, the Council wrote to Mrs X explaining that priority bands had changed following the introduction of the new allocations policy. It said her application had been reviewed in line with the new scheme and she had been placed in Band 12, and her original priority date had been retained.
39. Mrs X later provided evidence showing she had lived in the borough for ten years since 2024. The Council updated her application to reflect this and increased her priority to Band 11 under the policy. It also backdated the banding date accordingly.
40. In May, the Council issued its stage one complaint response. It explained the household lacked one bedroom and was therefore overcrowded but not severely overcrowded under the Council’s policy. It confirmed that Mrs X’s 10 years’ residency meant she qualified for Band 11, but said she did not meet the criteria for Band 9 (which replaced the previous Band A). The Council said it had considered the GP letter Mrs X provided. However, it said the letter confirmed the household was overcrowded but did not provide medical evidence demonstrating a medical impact. The Council also acknowledged that it had received Mrs X’s change of circumstances form confirming that her husband had moved into the property.
41. Mrs X escalated her complaint. She said the Council had failed to properly consider statutory overcrowding and had not addressed its duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 when considering the GP letter. She also said the Council had not properly considered her long-term residency in the borough and had not clearly explained how it had assessed the evidence or reached its decision. Mrs X again asked for a review of her banding and consideration for Band A priority. She also provided three letters supporting a reassessment of her application, dated 2022, 2023 and the GP letter from 2025.
42. In July, the Council issued its final complaint response. It explained that, under its policy, Mrs X’s children were expected to share a bedroom. As the family lived in a one-bedroom property, the household lacked one bedroom and was therefore considered overcrowded, but not severely overcrowded. The Council said it had reviewed the three letters provided but found they did not contain any new information. It also said the GP letter did not confirm any diagnosed medical conditions and mainly reflected information Mrs X had reported to the GP. The Council said it would consider further evidence if Mrs X could provide documentation confirming any diagnosed medical conditions. However, it concluded that Mrs X had been placed in the correct priority band.
43. During my investigation Mrs X has confirmed that her children are not known to children’s services and are not currently assessed as children in need.
44. In response to my enquiries the Council stated “Band 9 or 10 applies in instances of statutory overcrowding or severe overcrowding under the bedroom standard where a household is lacking 2 or more bedrooms. Bands 11 or 12 apply for other overcrowded households i.e. lacking 1 bedroom”.

My findings

Overcrowding

45. Under the Council’s allocations policy, Mrs X’s household has been assessed as lacking one bedroom since 2020. When her husband moved into the property in March 2025, this assessment did not change because the Council applies the bedroom standard when determining overcrowding. On that basis, the household remained overcrowded by one bedroom.
46. However, applying the statutory overcrowding tests, the position changed when her husband joined the household. Taking account of the number of occupants and the size of the accommodation, the property then met the legal definition of statutory overcrowding under the space standard.
47. The Council’s allocations policy says households that are statutorily overcrowded should be placed in Band 9 or 10, depending on residency. However, the policy does not clearly explain that, in practice, the Council only considers the bedroom standard when assessing overcrowding, or that qualification for these bands also depends on the household lacking two or more bedrooms.
48. The Council has confirmed during my investigation that it does not apply the space standard when assessing statutory overcrowding for allocation purposes. But this is not made clear in the published policy, which creates ambiguity about how statutory overcrowding is defined and applied.
49. I find the policy lacks clarity and contains internal inconsistency on this point. This is fault, as it creates confusion about how applications will be assessed. In Mrs X’s case, this caused avoidable uncertainty and distress.
50. In addition, the Council did not address Mrs X’s specific point that her household had become statutorily overcrowded. Nor did it explain why, despite meeting the legal definition, this did not lead to a higher priority band. Instead, its responses focused only on the bedroom shortfall. This was fault and caused Mrs X further distress, as well as time and trouble in pursuing her complaint.

Safeguarding

51. Mrs X asked the Council to consider her children’s welfare under section 17 of the Children Act 1989.
52. Mrs X has confirmed her children are not known to children’s social care and are not assessed as children in need. The information available does not indicate that the children meet the statutory definition of a child in need.
53. In these circumstances, the Council was not under a duty to carry out a section 17 assessment. I therefore find no fault in the Council’s decision not to undertake such an assessment.
54. However, the Council did not clearly address this point in its complaint responses. A clear explanation could have helped Mrs X understand why the Council had not taken further action. The lack of explanation caused Mrs X some avoidable time and trouble in pursuing the matter.

Medical evidence

55. 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 someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
56. The Council considered the medical evidence Mrs X provided. It explained in its stage two complaint response how it considered all three medical letters and that these did not provide evidence of diagnosed medical conditions or demonstrate a medical need for higher housing priority.
57. It was open to the Council to reach this view based on the evidence available. I have seen no evidence the Council failed to consider the information provided, departed from its policy when doing so, or fail to thoroughly explain its position. I therefore find no fault in the Council’s consideration of the medical evidence.

Long-term residency

58. Mrs X later provided evidence showing she had lived in the borough for ten years.
59. The Council accepted this evidence, updated her application and increased her priority band accordingly. It also backdated the banding date to reflect the earlier eligibility.
60. This was in line with the Council’s allocations policy. I therefore find no fault in how the Council considered Mrs X’s long-term residency.

Back to top

Action

61. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Mrs X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
• pay Mrs X £300, to recognise the uncertainty caused by its allocations policy; and
• pay Mrs X £200, to recognise the time and trouble caused by the poor handling of her complaint.
62. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to review and amend its allocations policy to ensure it clearly explains:
• how it defines and applies statutory overcrowding for the purposes of housing priority; and
• how this relates to the level of overcrowding assessed under the bedroom standard, including the number of bedrooms a household is lacking.

The revised policy should make clear whether statutory overcrowding alone is sufficient to qualify for higher priority, or whether this is dependant on also meeting a specific bedroom shortfall.

63. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

64. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman