Summary: Mrs D complained the Council failed to properly consider her application to join the housing register. We find the Council was at fault for failing to properly consider Mrs D’s evidence and circumstances. It also delayed dealing with Mrs D’s housing application and her request for a review. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs D complained the Council failed to properly consider her application to join the housing register. She says the Council failed to consider her children’s special educational needs and her personal circumstances.
2. Mrs D says the matter has caused her distress and upset.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mrs D and the Council.
6. Mrs D and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

7. The Council’s housing allocations scheme describes how the Council assesses applications for housing, prioritises each application and decides which applicant will be offered a council or housing association home.
8. The scheme sets out people with high levels of assessed housing need the Council is required to give reasonable preference to. This includes people who:

• Live in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• Need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• Need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others.

9. If an applicant is unhappy with the Council’s decision on their housing application, they can ask for a review. The Council aims to complete the review within 56 days of the request.

What happened

10. Mrs D applied to join the Council’s housing register in September 2022. She explained she with lives in a small flat with her partner and two children who have special educational needs. She said she lives in a dangerous area with a lot of noise. She said her youngest son has sensory difficulties and the noise was making his condition worse. She also said her eldest son needs his own space to study because of his moderate dyslexia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
11. The Council reviewed Mrs D’s application and wrote to her in March 2023. It said she had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate how her property was negatively impacting her and her family’s health.
12. Mrs D asked the Council to review its decision in April. She sent in further information for it to consider. This included medical documents detailing her children’s special educational needs. She also provided letters of support from her youngest son’s school. The headteacher stated Mrs D’s son has significant sensory issues and the noise in the property was causing him to hit himself and others.
13. The Council spoke to Mrs D in July. Mrs D further explained how her living situation was affecting her family.
14. Mrs D chased the Council for a response in August. The Council responded and said review requests were taking longer than 56 days because of the volume and its reduced resources. It said it would try and complete her review within two weeks.
15. The Council issued its review response in November. It apologised for the delay in responding. It said her landlord offered mediation between her household and her neighbours to resolve the issues with the noise nuisance. It said her children’s medical needs did not meet the threshold for inclusion on the housing register. Finally, it said her living conditions did not have a significant detrimental impact on her welfare or social needs. Therefore, its decision remained the same.

Back to top

Analysis

16. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide whether Mrs D is eligible for social housing; that is the Council’s responsibility. Our role is to review whether the Council properly considered Mrs D’s evidence and circumstances and made its decision in line with its published housing allocations scheme.
17. In the Council’s review request, it said Mrs D’s landlord had offered mediation to resolve the noise issues. However, in the documentation Mrs D supplied, there is a letter which states mediation had not worked and the noise was still ongoing. There is no evidence the Council considered this matter further and whether mediation had resolved the problem.
18. The Council also stated Mrs D’s children’s medical needs did not meet the criterion for inclusion on the housing register. However, it failed to provide a detailed reason. The documents from Mrs D highlight her son’s sensory issues and the noise from the property was making his condition worse and causing him to become aggressive. I cannot see from the review the Council has properly considered this point.
19. The Council’s faults in paragraph 17 and 18 of this statement have caused Mrs D a significant injustice in the form of uncertainty as she cannot be satisfied the Council considered her application properly.
20. The Council also delayed dealing with Mrs D’s application to join the housing register and then her review request. Although there is no statutory timescale for processing housing applications, we would normally expect this to happen within eight weeks. The Council took nearly six months in Mrs D’s case. This is a significant delay.
21. The Council should have taken 56 days to complete Mrs D’s review request. However, it took seven months. It also told Mrs D in August it would try and issue its response within two weeks. However, it took a further two months. I cannot see the Council provided Mrs D with any further updates. The Council’s delays in dealing with Mrs D’s housing application and her review request have caused her frustration.
22. We have highlighted the Council’s delays in dealing with housing applications and review requests in other cases. We asked the Council to produce an action plan to resolve the significant backlog and delays in processing applications. Therefore, I have not recommended any further service improvements to address the Council’s delays.

Back to top

Agreed action

23. By 11 April 2024 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mrs D for her frustration and uncertainty.
• Pay Mrs D £150.
• Carry out a new review of Mrs D’s housing application. It should consider Mrs D’s evidence. If it decides on review to allow Mrs D onto the housing register, it should backdate her registration date.
• Issue written reminders to staff who deal with housing reviews to ensure they give proper scrutiny to supporting evidence and explain their reasons for not relying on evidence where they decide not to.

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

Back to top

Final decision

25. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mrs D an injustice. The Council has accepted my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman