Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed reviewing the suitability of an offer of accommodation and its housing priority decision. The Council has accepted there were delays completing the reviews. Because of the delays, we find Mr X likely missed out on the offer of a Council property sooner than he did. He was caused significant distress and frustration during the delay. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make him several payments, including for the period he was left in accommodation that was unsuitable for his disability-related needs, and make certain service improvements.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to here as Mr X, complains the Council:
1. failed to make a timely decision on his request from January 2022 for a review of an offer of accommodation made by the Council. He said the accommodation offered was a flood risk and he had provided evidence from neighbouring properties and the Environmental Agency supporting this; and
2. failed to award him the correct banding on his housing register application. The Council had placed Mr X in Band 2. Mr X believes he should be in the higher band, Band 1, due to his significant medical and health needs, which are being made worse by his current property and are putting his life at risk.
2. Mr X says the delays in the Council carrying out the review has caused him avoidable uncertainty and frustration. He is concerned that, as he can only refuse two offers and this was his first refusal, it could have a chilling effect on what else Mr X bids for in the meantime. Mr X is worried that he will be prevented from bidding further if he refuses another offer.
3. Regarding his banding, Mr X says his banding is too low, meaning he is having to wait longer in difficult circumstances to bid on suitable properties. Mr X says he is housebound due to the impact of the living conditions on his health and disabilities. Mr X says this has impacted his mental health and caused him significant stress and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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

7. I spoke with Mr X about his complaint. I considered the information and documents sent to me by the Council and Mr X.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing Allocations

The published scheme

9. 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))

Reasonable preference

10. 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))

Decisions and review rights

11. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:

• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.

12. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
13. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

The Council’s Housing Allocations Policy (2018)

14. Under the Council’s Housing Allocations Policy from November 2018, which applied to Mr X’s complaint, the Council operated a choice-based lettings scheme. Housing applicants could bid on available properties.
15. The Council placed applicants who qualify to join the housing register in a priority band from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 4 (lowest priority). This priority was the first factor the Council used to allocate a property.
16. The award date was the date on which a higher priority band applied. It was used to prioritise between applicants within the same band.
17. The Council awarded Band 1 (emergency medical or disability priority) when the applicant had a serious medical condition or disability that was made substantially worse by their current housing. This would include people who were housebound because of their accommodation. It awarded Band 2 (medical or disability priority) when an applicant’s housing was unsuitable for severe medical reasons or due to their disability, but who were not housebound or whose life was not at risk because of their current housing.
18. Under the Policy, applicants who refused two suitable offers of social housing were disqualified from the housing register for a 12-month period, after which time a new application had to be made.
19. Regarding review rights, the Policy says applicants had the right to information about decisions and rights of review of decisions made relating to their application. This included:

• the right, on request, to be informed of any decision about the relevant facts of their case which has been, or is likely to be, taken into account in considering whether to make an allocation to them
• the right, on request, to review a decision mentioned above, or a decision to treat them as ineligible or not qualifying for an allocation
• the right to be informed of the decision on the review and grounds for it.

20. Applicants or their representatives should request a review in writing within 21 days of being notified of a decision.
21. The Council will consider the review within 56 days of the request. A longer period may be agreed with the applicant.
22. The Council will notify the applicant of the outcome of the review including the reasons if the original decision is confirmed.

What happened

23. Mr X has several health conditions, which significantly affect his mobility and may be considered disabilities. Until October 2022, Mr X was living in a one-bedroom property where he says he was housebound because of a lack of suitable accommodations and step-free access to the property.
24. In August 2021, the Council sent Mr X its decision on his banding under its Housing Allocations Policy. It awarded Mr X Band 2 based on medical reasons. It said, based on the mobility assessment carried out by an Occupational Therapist, their recommendations showed Mr X’s property met his mobility needs and he did not require an adapted property or he had a low level of need for one. For these reasons, the Council said it was not possible to award Band 1 on emergency medical grounds.
25. In September, the Police contacted the Council regarding Mr X’s allegations of serious anti-social behaviour that he was experiencing. The Police gave the Council the relevant crime reference numbers and information about the issues reported by Mr X. The Police said it supported a moved for Mr X “to prevent an escalation of these issues or any further impact on his well-being and any further demand to this location.”
26. In late September, Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision to award him Band 2.
27. Several days later, the Council wrote to Mr X after considering his Change of Circumstances instead. It decided to uphold its previous decision to award Band 2 based on medical grounds and added Band 2 priority based on the threat of abuse, violence or harassment. It said this was because it did not consider Mr X had a very urgent need to move on medical grounds. It said his registration date was 16 September 2020.
28. In early October, a Council Officer in the Housing Department completed an exceptional need request form following the Police contact in September.
29. The next day, the Reviews Team confirmed it had received the Housing Department’s review request.
30. In late October, Mr X chased the Council for an update on his review request. A Council Officer told him he would receive a response and to allow time for the review.
31. In early December, Mr X chased the Council for an update on the review. A Council Officer told him there was no update and to allow more time.
32. In early January 2022, the Council made Mr X an offer of accommodation (Property A).
33. Several days later, Mr X asked the Council for more information about Property A. He said that he had concerns about risks of flooding at the property.
34. Towards the end of January, after Mr X refused the offer of accommodation, a Council Officer told Mr X that he was able to appeal the decision to the Reviews Team.
35. Following the call with the Officer, Mr X sent a review request to the Council.
36. In late February, Mr X sent the Council a Change of Circumstances form.
37. In mid-March, Mr X chased the Council for an update on his review request. A Council Officer said there was no decision yet because of a backlog of reviews.
38. Mr X separately requested a review of the Council’s banding decision because he believed he should be in Band 1, not Band 2, because of exceptional housing needs. Mr X said he would send supporting evidence.
39. In early April, with the assistance of a housing charity, Mr X completed the Council’s review request form about his banding. Mr X’s said in the form that:

• Mr X was not able to manage the steps at the rear and front of his property. This meant he was housebound and relied on his sibling to clean his property, do any shopping for him and provide meals. Mr X said that being housebound had worsened his existing mental and physical health conditions. He said that he had experienced thoughts of ending his life because of the situation;
• An Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment showed Mr X was unable to stand during the visit to show how he mobilised. This assessment showed Mr X was not able to leave the property as he was unable to manage the external steps;
• although some adaptations to his property had been made before and since he moved there, these have not provided sufficient adaptations to meet his needs. He said, for example, he was not able to use the bath lift that was fitted so it was removed and he still struggled to access the bath; and,
• Mr X’s situation should be referred for a medical assessment because he had stated that he had a serious medical condition or disability that was being made substantially worse by his housing. Mr X said he had shown that he was housebound and his life was at risk because of his housing situation as he was experiencing thoughts of ending his life. Mr X said this showed he should be placed in Band 1 as these requirements, under the Council’s Housing Allocations Policy, had been met.

40. Mr X separately sent two emails attaching supporting evidence connected with his review request of the offer of accommodation. This evidence covered the concerns Mr X had about flood risks and included a letter from the Environmental Agency about possible flood risks in Property A’s area.
41. In mid-May, Mr X chased the Council for an update on his review request and asked to make a complaint about the delays.
42. The same day the Council sent its stage one complaint response. It apologised for the delay in completing his review. It said its Reviews Team was experiencing significant delays because of the high volume of reviews received. It said the Team was working through the backlog in date order and had received training. The Council explained the process for requesting a stage two response, but said this would not quicken the process for completing the review.
43. In late May, Mr X chased the Council for an update on his two outstanding review requests.
44. In late June, Mr X requested a stage two complaint response. He said it had been over six months since he first submitted a review about the offer of Property A.
45. Mr X separately chased the Council for an update on his banding review. He said he had provided photos of the numerous steps at the front and rear of his property that he was unable to manage. He said he was in a desperate need to move to more suitable accommodation.
46. In early July, Mr X chased the Council for an update on his review requests.
47. The Council sent Mr X its stage two complaint response. It apologised for the delays in completing the reviews. It said because of an “unprecedented volume of review requests, we are exceeding this timescale … We are looking to improve this service by increasing our resources and training a number of additional officers.”
48. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.
49. In late August, the Council sent Mr X the outcome of its two reviews. It apologised for the delays in carrying out the reviews. Regarding the banding review, it said:

• it had decided to overturn its previous decision and award Mr X Band 1. It backdated Mr X’s priority date to November 2021, which was the date of the OT report; and,
• it had considered the reasons why Mr X did not wish to be rehoused in a tower block, which were connected with a previous assault Mr X had experienced while living in one. But, it said the medical evidence did not show that this property type was unsuitable because of his existing mental health conditions and that Mr X would be at risk of harm due to the accommodation type itself. The Council decided, rather, based on the evidence, properties such as flats (ground floor or lift assisted), bungalows or maisonettes (ground floor) would be appropriate for Mr X’s needs. It said such level access properties were suitable for Mr X and encouraged him to bid on these.

50. In September, the Council made a new offer of accommodation to Mr X, which he accepted. Mr X moved into the property in October.

Analysis – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

Review of the Council’s offer of accommodation

51. Mr X complains the Council failed to make a timely decision on his request from January 2022 that the Council review its offer of accommodation. He said the accommodation offered was a flood risk and he had provided evidence from neighbouring properties and the Environmental Agency supporting this (part a of the complaint).
52. Mr X requested a review of the offer on 25 January 2022.The Council’s 2018 Housing Allocations Policy says it will consider the review within 56 days of the request. This means Mr X should have received the Council’s decision by 22 March 2022. But, the Council sent Mr X the outcome of the review over five months later in late August. This significant delay is fault.
53. In the Council’s complaint responses to Mr X, as well in answer to questions I asked it, the Council accepted there were delays in the reviews. It apologised to Mr X for this, which I find partly remedies the significant frustration and uncertainty Mr X was caused during the delay. But, I do not consider this fully remedies the injustice Mr X experienced and I have taken this injustice into consideration when recommending a financial remedy for Mr X below.
54. In the Council’s review letter from August, it said:

• it had decided to overturn its decision to treat Mr X’s rejection of Property A as a refusal. It said, in a letter to Mr X from the Council from March 2022, the Council told him he was entitled to two offers of social housing. It said, although the Council incorrectly told him he was entitled to two further offers after Property A, it had exercised its discretion to disregard Mr X’s refusal of Property A. It confirmed Mr X was still entitled to two offers; and,
• regarding the alleged flood risks to Property A, the Council said the evidence Mr X provided in support of this showed the Environmental Agency thought the risk of flooding was low and it did not have any records of flooding in Property A’s area. For these reasons, the Council said it did not consider the property unsuitable as it did not present a genuine flood risk.

55. I do not find fault in the Council’s decision-making here. The Council considered the evidence provided by Mr X, but decided this did not show the property was unsuitable and provided reasons for this. Without evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision, I cannot question whether it was right or wrong. Ordinarily, this would have meant Mr X had only one further opportunity to receive an offer of accommodation from the Council following such a refusal. But, the Council decided to exercise its discretion and disregard the refusal given it had incorrectly previously told him he was still entitled to two offers. It is positive the Council took such action.

Review of Mr X’s banding

56. Mr X complains the Council failed to award him the correct banding for his housing register application. The Council had placed Mr X in Band 2. Mr X believes he should be in the higher band, Band 1, due to his significant medical and health needs, which are being made worse by his current property and are putting his life at risk (part b of the complaint).
57. The Council has accepted there were delays in carrying out the review of Mr X’s banding. To assess the injustice Mr X experienced because of this fault accepted by the Council, I need to consider when the period of delay occurred and whether, on balance, it is likely Mr X missed out on an offer of accommodation during the delay.
58. In my view, based on the Council’s case records, in September 2021, Mr X said he was not happy with his Band 2 award and made what should have been treated as a review request of the Council’s decision. He said he considered he met the “exceptional need to move” criteria because of serious anti-social behaviour he was experiencing. Council case records from as early as September 2020 show Mr X had previously shared information with the Council, as well as supporting evidence from a medical professional and victim support officer, about the alleged serious anti-social behaviour. He provided a Police crime number and provided further details of the anti-social behaviour. The OT report from February 2021 provided brief details of the impact on Mr X of the ongoing anti-social behaviour and said Mr X would benefit from a private access on entry to support his needs.
59. The Council decided to treat this information as Mr X telling it about a change of circumstance. It sent Mr X a decision letter several days later upholding its banding decision, but added that Mr X had a need to move due to the threat of violence or harassment (in addition to the need to move because his property was unsuitable for severe medical reasons or due to disability). But, I have seen no evidence the Council explained to Mr X that it had treated his review request in this way instead. This is fault. Mr X was caused frustration, confusion and put to time a trouble chasing the Council for the outcome of his review. This was all the more so because Council Officers said he would receive a decision about this review in time, but the Council was experiencing delays in processing such reviews.
60. In early October 2021, a Council Officer in the Housing Department completed an exceptional need request form following the Police contact in September. The Officer said “[c]onsidering this supporting information from the Police in conjunction with the previously submitted medical/mobility evidence it is requested that [Mr X’s] application [is] reviewed with a view to providing a Band 1 award.” The Officer noted that Mr X was not able to move to private rented accommodation and had explored mutual exchange options.
61. The next day, the Reviews Team confirmed it had received the Housing Department’s review request. The Team flagged that the Police should submit a specific referral if it considered there was an immediate risk to Mr X’s life that would lead to a Band 1 award.
62. But, I have seen no evidence that the Council completed the review or followed up with the Police to check whether it considered there were any immediate risks to Mr X’s life. This is fault. The Council’s 2018 Housing Allocations Policy said that any banding decisions about the need to move due to the threat of violence or harassment should be based on information from the Police about the potential threat (for example, whether there was an immediate threat making it unsafe for the applicant to remain at home) combined with a Council-approved risk assessment by the referral agency. Based on the evidence seen so far, the Council failed to follow up with the Police, as the referral agency, on this following its contact in September. This is fault. I am not able to confidently say whether, if the Council had acted in accordance with its Policy, this would have led to a higher banding for Mr X, but Mr X missed out on an important risk assessment of his situation by the Council working with the Police.
63. If the Council had progressed the review request from October, then it should have sent Mr X the outcome of this review by 30 November 2021. But, the Council did not send its review decision until almost nine months later at the end of August 2022. This significant delay is fault.
64. In my view, if the Council had completed the review by 30 November 2021, it is likely that Mr X would have been awarded Band 1. This is because the OT report from November 2021, which was the key document that led to the Council overturning its banding decision in its review decision letter from August 2022, was produced before this deadline. I would have expected the Council to have considered this report before issuing its decision. By awarding Mr X Band 1 based on emergency disability-related needs in August 2022, the Council accepted Mr X’s accommodation was unsuitable because he had difficulties accessing bathing facilities and was housebound due to being unable to manage the stairs inside and outside the property. I find that Mr X missed the opportunity to be re-housed in suitable accommodation and sooner than October 2022 because of the fault here. He was put to time and trouble making a further review request, with the assistance of a housing charity, in early April 2022.
65. The Council told me the average wait time for applicants, with the same Band 1 priority as Mr X, to receive an offer of accommodation was around three months and one week from the award date. This means it is likely that Mr X would have received an offer of accommodation by early March 2022 instead of October 2022. This meant Mr X was in unsuitable accommodation for seven months because of the delay. Where a complainant has had to remain in unsuitable accommodation because of fault in the housing allocation process, the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies says financial redress is likely to be in the range of £150 to £350 a month. I consider a monthly payment at the highest end of this payment range, at £350 per month, is fair and justified in Mr X’s case. When recommending this payment I have taken account of the following factors:

• Mr X was housebound and unable to use key habitable rooms in his property, including his bedroom meaning he was having to sleep on this sofa; and
• the vulnerabilities the unsuitable accommodation caused Mr X as a Disabled person. In situations like Mr X’s where a Disabled person could not access bathing facilities we would usually require a remedy at the upper end of the range.

66. Mr X complained the Council failed to award him additional priority to bid on ground floor properties. But, based on the Council’s case records, Mr X’s bidding history and the Council’s response to my questions, it is my understanding that Mr X was able to bid on ground floor properties during the period investigated. This was because an OT Report from February 2021 said Mr X needed a property with both internal and external level access. In July 2022, the Council explained to Mr X that if he was successful with a bid, the allocation officer who was shortlisting the property would then look into the property and see whether it met Mr X’s disability-related needs based on the information held, including any OT recommendations. This is inline with the Council’s 2018 Housing Allocations Policy, which shows bids were considered in this way rather than awarding additional priority for ground floor and level access properties. I do not find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

67. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise in writing to Mr X for the fault causing injustice identified in relation to part b of the complaint above, including the time and trouble he was put to;
2. make Mr X a payment of £300 for the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the delays in the review process and missed opportunity to have his allegations of serious anti-social behaviour risk assessed by the Council in conjunction with the Police; and,
3. make Mr X a payment of £2,450 in total for the seven months he was left in unsuitable accommodation.
68. I have considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies when recommending the above payments.
69. We have recently issued several decisions recommending the Council makes key service improvements in carrying out housing allocations reviews. This included a decision from June 2023 where the Council agreed to provide an updated action plan to deal with the backlog of reviews (stating how long it is currently taking to process housing applications and reviews and providing a report to show how the time it is taking has changed over the last year). If delays have not significantly reduced, it will explain the reason for this. I have considered these and do not propose duplicating recommendations around service improvements the Council has already agreed to. These need time to take effect. I have limited my service improvement recommendations to the following, which the Council has agreed to:

• within three months of my final decision, the Council will review its latest housing allocations policy and any relevant guidance to staff to make sure the process and evidence requirements for assessing banding based on the need to move due to the threat of violence or harassment are clear. This should include clear directions on when and what information should be confirmed with the Police about the potential threat and, if relevant, the circumstances when a risk assessment by the referral agency should be carried out. The Council has agreed to include information on the Home-Choice website to advise applicants that the housing assessment for exceptional need is informed by a risk assessment that is completed by the Police. The Council should circulate any updates made following the review of its Policy to relevant members of staff; and
• within three months of my final decision, the Council will circulate a reminder to relevant members of staff that all valid review requests, including those made by Council Officers by completing an exceptional need form, should be treated as such and progressed in line with its Housing Allocations Policy.

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

Back to top

Final decision

71. I have completed my investigation.
72. I have decided to uphold parts a and b of Mr X’s complaint. This is because I have seen evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice.
73. The Council has already accepted fault in relation to part a of the complaint and provided an apology for the delay, which partly remedies the injustice. But, the above recommendations are suitable ways for the Council to fully remedy the injustice identified in relation to both parts of the complaint, which it has agreed to.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman