Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council considered her priority on its housing register and its decision not to complete a child in need assessment for her children. We do not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about how the Council handled her housing application. Mrs X says the Council failed to properly consider the medical needs of her family when deciding on the priority of her application and her property bedroom needs. Mrs X also complains the Council failed to consider its duty under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to act where her children’s health and development is being affected by their housing. As a result, Mrs X says her and her family had to spend more time than necessary in unsuitable accommodation.

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 the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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)
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. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
7. Complaints about events that took place more than 12 months before they were brought to the Ombudsman are considered late. We can only consider late complains if there are good reasons to do so.
8. Mrs X first brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in June 2025, meaning anything that took place before June 2024 has been raised late. I have seen no good reason to exercise discretion to look back further than June 2024.
9. I have investigated up to the point the Council completed its investigation under the children’s statutory complaints procedure in April 2026.
10. Any mention below to events that took place either before June 2024 or after April 2026 are for reference only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. 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

Housing allocations

13. 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))
14. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority. The Council must notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
15. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.
16. The Council’s scheme sets out how it allocates medical priority points. This includes to applicants or members of their household where the household is unsuitable because of a medical condition. Priority is awarded depending on the extent to which the health of one or more members of the household is affected by their housing and the expected benefits of providing alternative housing.
17. The Council allocates welfare points to applicants whose welfare needs are so severe that protection of vulnerable adults or children is only possible in a permanent home or where the present circumstances could deteriorate to put household member at risk unless alternative housing is offered.
18. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
19. 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.

Statutory complaints procedure

20. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
21. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution.
22. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
23. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the IO report and any report from the IP. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
24. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel.
25. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
26. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.

What happened

27. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mrs X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.

Housing allocations

28. Mrs X was on the Council’s housing register with her husband, Mr X and their two children. Mrs X had been awarded priority points and a two-bedroom need. Mrs X had been regularly bidding on properties but had not been successful.
29. In February 2025, Mrs X submitted a change in circumstances form and medical support letters to the Council for it to review her medical priority points. This set out the medical conditions of the members of Mrs X’s household as well as details about their living situation.
30. Mrs X contacted the Council in April 2025 to ask that her application be updated to reflect the need for a property with three-bedrooms.
31. In April 2025 the Council sent Mrs X’s medical evidence to its medical officer to consider.
32. The Council received the medical officer’s decision in May 2025. The notes provided by the medical officer show how they considered all the medical and welfare evidence Mrs X had provided as well as her request for an extra bedroom before making their decision.
33. The Council considered this and wrote to Mrs X to explain how it had calculated the priority points and had decided her household had a two-bedroom need.
34. Mrs X contacted the Council in June 2025, asking it to review this decision.
35. The Council reviewed all the medical and welfare information Mrs X provided and her request for a three-bedroom need against its usual allocations policy. The Council wrote to Mrs X in September 2025 to explain how it had calculated her priority points and decided on her household bedroom need in line with its usual allocations policy and why it had not changed its view.
36. In October 2025 and November 2025 Mrs X provided the Council with further medical evidence and letters of support setting out why she believed her living conditions were negatively affecting the medical conditions of her and her household.
37. In December 2025, the Council sent Mrs X’s medical information to its medical officer to consider. The medical officer responded later that month setting out how they had considered Mrs X’s information but decided there was no evidence to suggest she was entitled to further priority on the Council’s allocations policy.
38. The Council wrote to Mrs X with its decision on her medical application in January 2026. The Council explained how it had considered the evidence and information Mrs X had provided but decided there was no reason for medical priority beyond what had already been awarded.
39. Mrs X contacted the Council in February 2026 to seek a review of its decision. However, later that month Mrs X contacted the Council to explain she had now accepted an offer of a property and the review was no longer needed.

Children’s statutory complaints procedure

40. In May 2025 Mrs X complained to the Council. She said she had requested an assessment under the Children Act 1989 to determine whether her children’s health or development was likely to be significantly impaired without Council services relating to their housing, but her request was dismissed.
41. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint that month. The Council said there was no legal requirement to complete the assessment Mrs X had asked for on parental request alone. The Council explained it had referred Mrs X to a support service and had not upheld her complaint.
42. As Mrs X was unhappy with the Council’s response, she asked it to consider a complaint under stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. Mrs X said the Council had failed to apply the law and conduct the assessment she had requested.
43. The Council contacted Mrs X to seek to arrange a meeting to explore potential solutions, which she attended. As Mrs X then pursued a housing complaint, her complain about children’s services was not progressed further until she chased a resolution in December 2025.
44. In December 2025, the Council appointed an IO and an IP to conduct and oversee the investigation.
45. In February 2026, the IO issued their report, setting out their findings, conclusions and recommendations. The IO investigated under four different complaint headings. The IO did not uphold any part of Mrs X’s complaint. The IP also issued a report agreeing with the findings of the IO.
46. The Council issued its adjudicating response in March 2026, supporting the findings and conclusions of the IO and the IP. Based on the recommendations it received, the Council agreed to:
• Asses the possibility of creating an easy read document outlining the threshold criteria for various levels of assessment as stipulated under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989.
• Evaluate the advantages of establishing suitable guidelines to clarify the relationship between housing difficulties and intervention by Children’s Social Services.
47. Mrs X then asked that the complaint be progressed to a stage three panel hearing.
48. The panel met in April 2026 to review the stage two investigation and the response of the Council. The panel agreed with the findings of the IO and Mrs X’s complaint remained not upheld across all four complaint headings.
49. In April 2026 the Council wrote to Mrs X to explain the stage three review panel agreed with the outcome reached at stage two and did not identify any failings or matters that warranted additional recommendations. The Council confirmed it would be taking forward the recommendations from the stage two investigation.

Analysis

Housing allocations

50. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means our role is not to consider whether a housing applicant should be awarded a specific level of priority points or household bedroom need. Rather, we consider whether the Council decided on the application properly, having regard for the key factors and policies which are relevant.
51. If we consider the Council followed processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with it.
52. The Council’s allocations policy clearly sets out the criteria for how it awards priority points to applications.
53. In the period I have looked at, Mrs X twice asked the Council to review her priority points and household bedroom need and provided supporting evidence. On both occasions the Council referred the evidence to its medical officer for further consideration. Evidence shows the medical officer considered all the information Mrs X provided as well as the Council’s allocations policy before reaching their view. The Council considered this and wrote to Mrs X to set out its reasoning for the view it took. I do not find fault with the process the Council followed to reach its decisions.
54. As Mrs X disagreed with the Council’s decision on the first application, the Council reviewed the decision and wrote to Mrs X to explain why its view had not changed. I do not find fault with the process the Council followed here.
55. In respect of the second application, Mrs X also asked the Council to review this but moved into a property she deemed to be suitable shortly after, meaning there was no need to complete the review. I do not find the Council at faut here.

Children’s statutory complaints procedure

56. The Council investigated Mrs X’s complaint about its decision not to complete an assessment under the Children Act 1989 under the statutory children’s complaint procedure. This being the case, the Ombudsman’s role is not to re-investigate the complaint. Instead, I have looked at whether there were any significant flaws in the complaint process and whether the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.
57. The Council followed the relevant statutory guidance in its handling of Mrs X’s complaint. While there was a delay in progressing Mrs X’s complaint to stage two of the process, the IO concluded this was down to the Council seeking local resolution, in line with statutory guidance. As the IO has found this was in line with statutory guidance, I cannot find the Council at fault for delay. I do not find fault with the way the Council followed statutory guidance when dealing with Mrs X’s complaint throughout the process.
58. The Council appointed an IO and IP to independently investigate Mrs X’s stage two complaint. Both produced detailed reports about the investigation. Both the IO and the IP did not uphold any element of Mrs X’s complaint. However, the IO made recommendations that the Council accepted.
59. I recognise Mrs X disagrees with the outcome of the investigation and the recommendations, but the available evidence shows the stage two investigation was completed in accordance with the relevant statutory guidance. The reports make clear the IO and IP understood the complaint, considered the relevant evidence and drew independent conclusions with reference to this.
60. For these reasons, I have not identified any concerns with the way the investigation was conducted, and I cannot find fault. It follows that I cannot criticise the judgments reached during the stage two investigation.
61. The Council addressed the IO and IP’s findings in its adjudication letter, accepted their recommendations and set out the actions it would take. I do not find the Council at fault for how it responded to the IO and IP’s investigation.
62. As Mrs X disagreed with the outcome of the stage two investigation, her complaint progressed to the stage three review panel. The panel considered all the information available as well as comments from Mrs X and the Council before agreeing with the outcome of the stage two investigation. The Council then wrote to Mrs X to confirm this.
63. As the correct process was followed to consider Mrs X’s complaint I have not identified fault with how the investigation was conducted and so I cannot question the outcome reached.

Back to top

Decision

64. I find no fault with the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s housing application or how it considered her complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman