Summary: The Council delayed assessing Mr X’s application to join the housing register. But there was no fault in the way it decided Mr X did not qualify to join the register, or its decision that he did qualify after he provided new information. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X, backdate his registration date and provide an update on the action it is taking to reduce delays.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council took too long to accept his housing application on to its housing register. He says the Council delayed assessing his application, wrongly decided that he did not qualify to join the housing register, failed to carry out a review of its decision and then referred his application back to the registration team to reassess his application, without giving a timescale for completion.
2. Mr X says the Council’s failings have caused him anxiety and distress and have resulted in him living in unsuitable accommodation for too long.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. 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

7. 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))
8. 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))
9. 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

10. Bidding: The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. This means housing applicants can apply for available properties. This is called bidding. The Council advertises new properties on a weekly cycle.
11. Qualifying: Applicants who have been assessed as having no housing need and whose circumstances do not warrant inclusion in any of the priority bands do not qualify to join the housing register.
12. 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.
13. Registration date: This is the date on which the Council first places an application into a priority band. The Council uses it to decide priority within a band.
14. Refusal of suitable offers: Applicants who have refused two suitable offers of social housing will be disqualified from the housing register for a 12-month period.
15. 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.
16. Band 2: So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band 2 where 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.

What happened

17. Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register in December 2020. He said that he considered his accommodation was affecting his health.
18. In April 2021, the Council asked Mr X for medical evidence to support his application. Mr X then submitted a letter from his GP.
19. The Council decided that Mr X did not qualify to join the housing register. It said that whilst it acknowledged he had health problems, the evidence did not demonstrate that he had a medical housing need.
20. Mr X asked the Council to review its decision. He submitted another letter from his GP which said that he considered Mr X’s current accommodation was worsening his health.
21. The Council referred Mr X’s case back to its registration team to assess the new medical evidence and decide whether Mr X qualified to join the housing register.
22. Mr X then complained to the Ombudsman that the Council had not carried out a review and had not accepted him on to the housing register, despite the medical evidence he had submitted.
23. The Council accepted Mr X on to its housing register on 5 July and awarded Band 2 medical priority. Mr X has been bidding for properties since then.
24. In November, Mr X complained that the Council had incorrectly recorded that he had refused an offer of suitable accommodation. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint initially, but when Mr X complained again, it accepted that there had been some confusion in relation to the refusal. It reinstated his right to refuse two suitable offers.
25. Mr X considers he should be awarded Band 1 medical priority. Mr X requested a review of his housing priority in December, and then made a complaint around 8 weeks later because it had not yet carried out the review.
26. The Council apologised to Mr X and explained the reasons for the delay. It also advised that Band 1 is only awarded in exceptional circumstances, such as where there is a threat to life.

Analysis

27. The Council took around four months to initially assess Mr X’s housing application. We consider a reasonable timeframe is four to six weeks. The Council’s delay in assessing Mr X’s application was fault.
28. The Council considered the first GP letter which Mr X submitted and decided that it did not show that he had a medical housing need, and he therefore did not qualify to join the housing register. I have found no evidence of fault in the way this decision was reached.
29. After requesting a review of the decision, Mr X submitted a second letter from his GP on 29 April. I do not consider it was fault for the Council to refer the new evidence back to its registration team. But it took too long to do so. It also would have been helpful if the Council’s letter to Mr X had included a target date for completion. The new evidence was assessed on 5 July and resulted in Mr X qualifying to join the register.
30. If there had been no delays by the Council, I consider Mr X would have been accepted on to the housing register in April, three months before his registration date of 5 July. The Councils delays in assessing Mr X’s application and evidence have caused him distress and anxiety, but I consider it unlikely that they have caused him to miss out on any properties.
31. In December 2021, the Council accepted that Mr X had not refused a suitable offer of accommodation in October 2021. However, in the Council’s response to my enquiries, it again said that Mr X had refused the accommodation due to its location. The Council should ensure its records show that Mr X did not refuse a suitable offer of accommodation.
32. The Council has not yet completed its review of Mr X’s housing priority. At this stage, the delay has not caused Mr X any significant injustice. However, if the Council decides to award Band 1 when it reviews Mr X’s housing priority, he may wish to make another complaint, as any delay in awarding additional priority is likely to cause him injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. Within four weeks the Council will take the following actions:
• Make a payment of £100 to Mr X.
• Backdate Mr X’s registration date by three months.
• Provide evidence to show that it has corrected its records to show the reasons why Mr X refused accommodation offered in October 2021, and that Mr X still has the right to refuse two suitable offers.
34. The Council has accepted it has ongoing delays in processing and reviewing housing applications and has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its action plan to reduce application processing times. The Council will provide a further update within eight weeks.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr X’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr X. 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