Summary: The Council wrongly closed Miss B’s housing application and delayed carrying out a review of its decision. We have recommended that the Council carries out the review and takes action to prevent similar failings in future.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains about the Council’s decision to close her housing application, and its delay carrying out a review of its decision. She says that as a result of failings by the Council, she 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. 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

4. 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

5. The Council’s housing allocations scheme sets out the rules for qualifying to join the Housing Register, how applicants are prioritised and how the Council manages the allocation of available properties.
6. 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.
7. The Council awards Band 2 where the applicant is living in housing which is unsuitable for the medical or disability needs of a member of their household. This includes applicants who are not housebound or whose life is not at risk, but whose current housing is directly impacting their health.
8. 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 Council’s housing register.
9. Applicants have the right to request a review of a decision to treat them as not qualifying for an allocation. Government guidance suggests eight weeks as a reasonable timescale for completing reviews.
10. The Council’s housing allocations scheme says that applicants will be disqualified, and might be prosecuted, if they deliberately withhold information or provide misleading information. A person guilty of such an offence could be liable to pay a fine and may also face prosecution for fraud which can result in imprisonment.

Overview

11. Miss B lives in a fourth floor two-bedroom flat with her two sons, aged 5 and 9.
12. In January 2021, Miss B applied to join the Council’s housing register. She stated that she had a need for housing due to difficulties with her mobility.
13. The Council wrote to Miss B on 18 May after considering her housing application. It said that Miss B would need to be assessed by the Council’s Occupational Therapist, and if she did not request an assessment within 10 calendar days, her application would be closed. Miss B requested an assessment that day.
14. The Council contacted Miss B on 1 June to find out if she had requested a mobility assessment. There is disagreement over what was said during this call, but it resulted in Miss B making another request for a mobility assessment that day.
15. The Council wrote to Miss B on 7 June. It said that it had closed her application because she had failed to request a mobility assessment.
16. Miss B immediately asked the Council to review its decision and provided evidence to show that she had requested a mobility assessment on 18 May and 1 June. The Council acknowledged Miss B’s request and gave 2 August as its target date for completing the review.
17. The mobility assessment was carried out over the telephone on 26 June. Miss B provided details of her medical conditions and said that she struggled to use the stairs when the lift broke down, which she said happened regularly. Miss B said that she could manage one flight of stairs, but more became difficult and painful. The Occupational Therapist decided that Miss B required a standard property and did not have any mobility needs.
18. Miss B contacted the Council several times because the target date for completing the review had passed and she had not received its decision. Miss B then complained via her MP about the Council’s decision to close her application, and its delay in carrying out the review.
19. In the Council’s response, it said that Miss B’s application had been closed because she had requested the mobility assessment outside of the timeframe given. It explained that it had a significant volume of applications awaiting review and while its service standard was to carry out reviews within 56 days, it was exceeding that timescale. It apologised to Miss B for the delay.
20. The Council commenced its review in January 2022. The reviewing officer suspected that Miss B had altered one of the medical letters she had provided to support her need for housing. The officer referred the matter to the Council’s Audit Team.
21. Miss B was interviewed under caution in June 2022. She admitted that she had altered a letter from her Hospital Consultant as she did not believe she would be eligible to join the register if she submitted the original letter.
22. The Audit Team has recommended that consideration be given to disqualifying Miss B from the housing register. While the Council considers Miss B’s conduct is unacceptable, it has taken her circumstances into account, and decided to give Miss B the opportunity to obtain fresh medical evidence and it has offered to carry out a face-to-face mobility assessment. It will then conclude the review.

Analysis

23. Miss B submitted her housing application on 28 January 2021. The Council assessed Miss B’s application on 18 May, around 15 weeks later. We expect councils to assess applications within four to six weeks. The Council’s delay here was fault.
24. The Council failed to properly check its records before it closed Miss B’s application in June 2021. This was fault. If the Council had properly checked its records, it would have seen that Miss B had requested two mobility assessments within the required timeframe and it would not have closed her application.
25. Miss B requested a review of the Council’s decision on 7 June 2021. It has not yet completed the review. We consider councils should complete reviews within eight weeks. The Council’s delay here is fault. I recognise that some of the delay is due to Miss B’s actions. However, the Council took too long to assess Miss B’s application, too long to commence its review, and too long to contact Miss B after it suspected she had falsified a document.
26. Where we find evidence of fault, we consider what would likely have happened if there had been no fault. I consider it likely that the Council would have reached its decision on Miss B’s application by 22 April 2021. As the Occupational Therapist did not consider Miss B had any mobility needs, the Council would likely have decided that Miss B does not qualify to join the register, and she would have requested a review. The review would then have commenced within 8 weeks, by 17 June 2021 and Miss B would have been interviewed by the audit team within 6 weeks, by 29 July 2021.
27. Miss B was interviewed by the audit team on 22 June 2022. I am satisfied that the action the Council is taking before concluding the review is reasonable. However, I consider the Council would have reached this point 47 weeks earlier if there had been no delays. The Council’s delays caused Miss B frustration and put her to avoidable time and trouble.
28. Where there have been such significant delays, we would usually recommend that the Council make a payment to remedy the complainant’s injustice. However, I have decided that is not appropriate in this case, given Miss B’s own actions, and after taking into account the action the Council has agreed to take.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. Within eight weeks, the Council will:
• Provide evidence that it has given Miss B the opportunity to obtain fresh medical evidence, carried out a face-to-face OT assessment and completed the review. If the Council decides that Miss B does qualify to join the housing register, it will backdate her housing registration and award date by 47 weeks.
• Remind relevant officers of the process for checking whether OT assessments have been requested.
30. 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.
31. 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

32. I have completed my investigation and uphold Miss 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