Summary: The Council’s decision about the level of housing priority to award Mr B was not made in accordance with its housing allocations scheme, and it delayed reviewing its decision. The Council has now reviewed its decision, awarded additional housing priority and backdated Mr B’s award date. It has also agreed to make a payment to Mr B and to take action to prevent similar failings in future.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council has not given him enough priority on its housing register and has delayed reviewing its decision. He says that because of this, his family remains living 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 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 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 have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• considered 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))

The Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme

7. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. Housing applicants can bid on available properties.
8. 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.
9. 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.
• disabled persons (as defined under the Equality Act 2010) have restricted or limited mobility and are limited by their accommodation and unable to carry out day to day activities or have difficulties accessing facilities e.g. bathroom, kitchen, toilet, inside and outside of their accommodation safely and the current accommodation cannot be reasonably adapted.
10. 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.
• a member of the household seeking accommodation is disabled and re-housing will enable that person to overcome physical barriers created by current accommodation e.g. steps and stairs.
• a person with a severe disability requiring substantial adaptations to a property which is not and cannot be provided for in their current accommodation.

Disabled Facilities Grants

11. Disabled Facilities Grants are capital grants that are available to people of all ages and in all housing tenures (i.e. whether renting privately, from a social landlord or council, or owner-occupiers) to contribute to the cost of adaptations. (Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England, paragraph 1.2)

Overview

12. Mr B is currently living in a two-bedroom privately rented house with his wife and two children, aged 4 and 9 years old.
13. Mr B joined the Council’s housing register in February 2019. He was awarded priority Band 2 on medical grounds.
14. Mr B submitted further medical evidence and asked the Council to increase his housing priority. As Mr B indicated he had difficulties with his mobility, the Council advised him to request an assessment by the Council’s Occupational Therapy team. Mr B requested assessments for himself and his two children.
15. An Occupational Therapist (OT) carried out an assessment over the telephone. The OT did not make any recommendations when she reported her findings to Housing.
16. Mr B complained to the Council about the OT’s assessment. In the Council’s response, it accepted that the OT had not provided accurate information to Housing and it apologised to Mr B. It also arranged for a face-to-face assessment to be carried out. An OT then visited and carried out assessments on Mr B and both of his children.
17. The OT recommended Band 2 be awarded due to Mr B’s mobility needs. She said that he needed a through floor lift, ramped external access and a level access shower. The OT did not make any recommendations for Mr B’s children.
18. The Council wrote to Mr B to advise that it had awarded Band 2 on mobility grounds. This was in addition to the Band 2 medical priority previously awarded.
19. Mr B considered the Council should have awarded Band 1 so he requested a review of the Council’s decision.
20. Mr B then complained to the Council about the time it was taking to carry out the review. He said that according to the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme, if an applicant has two or more Band 2 needs, they should be moved to Band 1. He said that the Council should either award Band 1 or use a Disabled Facilities Grant to resolve the issues in his property.
21. In the Council’s response it explained that having two Band 2 awards does not result in a Band 1 award. It said that it could not give Mr B a Disabled Facilities Grant because the Council is not Mr B’s landlord and does not own the property. The Council apologised that it had been unable to carry out the review yet and explained why it was taking longer than usual to process reviews.
22. In March 2022, the Council wrote to Mr B about his request for a review. It said that Mr B had notified the Council that his circumstances had changed on 2 February 2022 and had asked to be assessed for other needs, and so a new housing needs assessment needed to be carried out. It explained that it could not carry out a review at the same time as it was carrying out a housing needs assessment, and it had therefore closed his review.
23. The Council carried out the new assessment on 27 May 2022 and decided the Band 2 decision should remain.

Analysis

24. The Council gave Mr B incorrect information when it said that Disabled Facilities Grants are not available when the Council is not the landlord. This was fault. Grants are available to people in all housing tenures, including those who rent privately. I do not consider this caused Mr B any significant injustice because it is clear from speaking to Mr B that he does not want a Disabled Facilities Grant.
25. I have checked the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme and I am satisfied that the Council does not award Band 1 when an applicant has two or more Band 2 housing needs.
26. The Council has accepted that the OT failed to provide the correct information to Housing after the first assessment. This was fault, but I do not consider it caused Mr B any significant injustice.
27. Mr B requested a review of the Band 2 decision on 5 October 2021. The review was not carried out because Mr B submitted a change of circumstances form on 2 February 2022 and a new housing needs assessment needed to be carried out. The Council carried out the new assessment on 27 May 2022 and decided the Band 2 decision should remain. If there had been no delay by the Council, the review would have been carried out by 30 November 2021, and the new assessment would have been carried out by 16 March 2022. The Council’s delays here are fault and will have caused Mr B frustration and put him to avoidable time and trouble.
28. When we issued the draft decision on this complaint, we recommended that the Council review its decision and carefully consider whether Band 1 should be awarded, considering the OT’s view that Mr B has difficulty accessing the bedrooms and using the bath, and the criteria for Band 1 includes disabled people who are limited by their accommodation and unable to carry out day to day activities or have difficulties accessing facilities. The Council has since reviewed its decision and decided to award Band 1 to Mr B.
29. The Council has explained that Band 1 was not originally awarded because the OT assessment is not based on the same criteria as that set out in its Allocations Scheme. It says that the procedure will be reviewed with the OT team to ensure future assessments are completed in line with its Allocations Scheme. The Council has backdated the change of band to 23 September 2021, the date the OT assessment was completed.
30. When we issued the draft decision statement, we also recommended that the Council consider whether Mr B missed out on any properties as a result of the failings identified. The Council has confirmed that if Band 1 had been awarded on 23 September 2021, Mr B would have been offered an adapted property which he bid on in November 2021.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. Within four weeks, the Council will:
• Provide evidence to show that it has backdated Mr B’s Band 1 award date to 23 September 2021.
• Make a payment of £150 to Mr B to recognise his frustration and the time and trouble he has been put to as a result of the Council’s delays.
• Make a payment of £1050 to Mr B. This equates to £150 for each full month between the date he missed out on a property and the date he was awarded Band 1.
32. Within eight weeks, the Council will:
• Remind relevant officers that Disabled Facilities Grants are available to people in all housing tenures.
• Review the OT assessment process to ensure future assessments are completed in line with its Allocations Policy.
33. 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 the timescales for assessing new applications, which includes a full-scale restructure and extensive recruitment.
34. The Council has recently agreed to provide an updated action plan to show how it proposes to reduce delays in processing all applications and review requests. It has also agreed to provide an updated report to show the improvements made since the first action plan was sent to us.

Back to top

Final decision

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