Summary: The Council delayed processing a change to Mr and Mrs B’s housing circumstances which meant they were unable to bid on properties of the size they needed. The Council also delayed dealing with their complaints about this. There was no fault in the way the Council decided which housing priority band to award to Mr and Mrs B, and there is no evidence of fault in the way it has allocated properties. However, information the Council publishes on its website about properties it has recently let is not always accurate. The Council has agreed to take action to ensure the information is always accurate, and to apologise and make a payment to Mr and Mrs B.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs B complain that the Council:
• took too long to process their change of circumstances which meant that for around six months, they could only bid on two-bedroom properties when they had a need for a three-bedroom property.
• delayed dealing with their complaints about this.
• did not award any additional priority on the housing register after they submitted evidence to show their accommodation was affecting Mr B’s and their son’s health.
• is not allocating properties in accordance with its Housing Allocations Policy. They say that because of this, their bids were not successful and their family was living in unsuitable accommodation for too long.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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 have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

6. 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))
7. 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))
8. The Ombudsman normally will not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

The Council’s allocations scheme

9. Bidding: The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. Housing applicants can apply for available properties. This is called bidding. The Council advertises new properties on a weekly cycle.
10. Priority band: The Council places applicants who qualify to join the housing register in a priority band from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 4 (lowest priority). This priority is the first factor the Council uses to allocate a property.
11. Registration date: This is the date on which the Council first placed an application into a priority band.
12. Award date: When a higher priority band is applied, the award date is used instead of the registration date to prioritise between applicants within the same band. If a lower priority band is applied, the registration date is used to prioritise between applicants within the same band.
13. Band 1: So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band 1 where:
• a medical condition or disability is made substantially worse by current housing. This includes people whose life is at risk or who are completely housebound because of their housing conditions or type of accommodation.
14. Band 2: So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band 2 where:
• the applicant’s household is lacking two bedrooms in their current accommodation.
• the applicant’s medical or disability needs mean their housing is unsuitable. This includes applicants who are not housebound or whose life is not at risk, but whose current housing is directly impacting their health.
• the applicant is homeless and owed the main duty because they have been assessed as being in priority need and unintentionally homeless.
15. Band 3: So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band 3 where:
• the applicant’s household is lacking one bedroom in their current accommodation.

Key events

16. The Council placed Mr and Mrs B and their two children in temporary accommodation, a two-bedroom flat, when they were homeless in February 2019.
17. Mrs B was accepted on to the Council’s housing register and assessed as priority Band 2, due to homelessness, and eligible to bid for a two-bedroom property.
18. In July 2020, Mrs B’s brother moved in to the flat. Mrs B submitted a change of circumstances form to the Council and asked it to review its banding decision. She said they were overcrowded and the housing conditions were affecting her husband’s and son’s health. She provided medical information to support her request.
19. Mr and Mrs B complained in October and December about the Council’s delay in dealing with their change in circumstances.
20. In January 2021, the Council assessed the change in circumstances and decided to change their bedroom need from two bedrooms to three bedrooms. The Council decided they should remain in Band 2, due to homelessness, but it also awarded Band 3 for overcrowding. It decided the criteria for a medical award had not been met.
21. Mrs B submitted further medical evidence and another change of circumstances form in May 2021. The Council assessed the information in June 2021 and decided again that the criteria for a medical award had not been met.
22. Mr B has checked his bidding history against a list of recently let properties. He considers the Council has failed to allocate properties in accordance with its Housing Allocations Policy. He submitted evidence to the Council to show that some properties they had bid on were offered to people who had been awarded Band 2 after them.
23. The Council investigated and told Mr B that the properties he had highlighted were all let to applicants in a higher band or with an earlier registration date.
24. The Council has recently offered Mr and Mrs B a three-bedroom property.

Analysis

Change in circumstances

25. It took the Council around five and a half months to assess the information about Mr and Mrs B’s change in circumstances. I consider a reasonable time frame would be four to six weeks. The Council’s delay was fault.
26. If there had been no fault, Mr and Mrs B would have been able to bid on three- bedroom properties around four months earlier. I have considered whether Mr and Mrs B missed out on any properties because of the Council’s delay. There were several three-bedroom properties which Mr and Mrs B would have been able to bid on, but I do not consider it likely that they would have been offered a property any sooner. This is because Mr and Mrs B’s bidding history shows that they are unlikely to have bid on many of the properties, such as those without gardens. I consider it likely that if they had been able to bid on three-bedroom properties four months earlier, the bids they would have made would have been unsuccessful because the properties would have been offered to applicants with more housing priority.

Complaint handling

27. The Council aims to respond to complaints within 15 working days. It took the Council four months to respond to the complaint Mr and Mrs B made in October 2020. This delay was fault.

Medical award

28. The Council’s Housing Allocations Policy sets out the criteria for awarding medical priority. Mr and Mrs B would only have been given more priority if they had provided evidence to show that a member of the household met the criteria to be awarded Band 1 medical priority. I have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed the medical evidence provided and decided that Band 1 medical priority should not be awarded.

Allocations process

29. The Council has explained that when it overrides an award date, it is not picked up by the reporting software, and so the information it publishes on its website shows the successful applicants’ most recent band award date, which may not be the relevant date. This means that it appears that some properties have wrongly been allocated to applicants who have spent less time on the housing register. This is fault and caused Mr B to feel properties were being allocated unfairly.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. Within four weeks, the Council will apologise and make a payment of £150 to Mr and Mrs B to recognise the distress and frustration they experienced because of the failings identified in this case.
31. To ensure the information the Council publishes about recent lets is accurate, the Council has requested a change to its software. The change will be completed by 1 July 2022. In the meantime, the Council will put measures in place to ensure the information it publishes is checked for accuracy. It will take this action within eight weeks.
32. The Council has accepted that it has ongoing delays in processing and reviewing housing applications due to unprecedented demand. It has provided us with a copy of its action plan to reduce application processing times, which includes a full-scale restructure and extensive recruitment.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr and Mrs B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr and Mrs B. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman