Summary: The Council delayed assessing Mr B’s housing application and evidence which showed that he needed an adapted property to suit his mobility needs. The Council has agreed to offer Mr B the next suitable property he bids on. 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 the housing register. He says that his current accommodation is affecting his mental health and is not appropriate for his mobility needs.

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 Allocations Scheme which was applicable at the time, placed applicants who qualified 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 uses to allocate a property.
7. The Council used the date the applicant first joined the housing register, or the date the applicant moved to a higher priority band, to prioritise between applicants in the same band.
8. Band 1: So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awarded 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.
9. Band 2: So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awarded 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.

Background and summary of key events

10. Mr B applied to join the housing register in September 2021. He provided evidence to show that his accommodation was affecting his mental health.
11. The Council assessed Mr B’s application and he was accepted on to the housing register in January 2022. He was awarded Band 2 on medical grounds.
12. Mr B disagreed with the decision to award Band 2 and requested a review. He considered he should be awarded more priority because his mental health was deteriorating.
13. Mr B submitted several letters from his doctor to be considered as part of the review. One of the letters referred to Mr B having difficulty climbing the stairs in his property. The Council then arranged for an Occupational Therapist (OT) to assess Mr B’s mobility. The assessment was carried out in May. The OT decided that Mr B needed to move to accommodation which was suitable for Mr B’s mobility needs.
14. The Council carried out the housing priority review in August and decided to uphold the decision to award Band 2. It did not consider the outcome of the mobility assessment when it reviewed its decision.
15. Mr B requested another mobility assessment and it was carried out in September.
16. The mobility assessment which had been carried out in May was uploaded to Mr B’s housing record in September. After considering the OT’s recommendations, the Council decided that as well as qualifying for a Band 2 medical award, Mr B qualified for a Band 2 disability award.
17. The mobility assessment which had been carried out in September was uploaded to Mr B’s housing record in December. After considering the outcome of the assessment, the Council decided that Mr B should remain in Band 2.

Analysis

Delays

18. The Council delayed assessing Mr B’s housing application. We expect councils to carry out assessments within four to six weeks. The Council took around 18 weeks to assess Mr B’s application. This delay was fault. As a result, Mr B missed out on bidding for properties between 18 October 21 and 12 January 2022. He also had less housing priority than other applicants who joined the register between these dates.
19. The Council delayed carrying out the review of Mr B’s housing priority. Government guidance suggests eight weeks as a reasonable timescale for completing reviews. The Council took around 30 weeks to carry out the review. This delay was fault.
20. The Council delayed assessing the mobility report after it was completed in May because it was not uploaded to Mr B’s housing record. This was fault. The report was assessed around 18 weeks after it was completed. As a result, Mr B was unable to bid on adapted properties between June and 21 September 2022.
21. The Council also failed to upload the second mobility report to Mr B’s housing record until around 15 weeks after it was completed. This was fault.
22. The Council has provided evidence which shows that Mr B would likely have been offered a suitable property in January 2022 if there had been no delays in this case.

Housing priority

23. The OT assessments both recommended that Mr B be awarded Band 2 for his mobility needs. As Mr B had already been awarded Band 2 for his medical needs, the OT assessments did not affect his housing priority.
24. I have considered the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme which was applicable at that time, along with evidence relating to Mr B’s medical and mobility needs. I am satisfied that the Council’s decision to award Band 2 accords with the allocations scheme.

Reasonable adjustments

25. Mr B does not have access to email and has difficulty reading and writing. He has asked the Council to contact him by telephone.
26. As a public sector body, the Equality Act 2010 requires councils to consider making adjustments if people with disabilities have problems using their service. If those adjustments are reasonable, the council must make them.
27. I do not know if Mr B’s difficulties with reading and writing are due to a disability and so cannot say whether the Council has a duty to consider making adjustments to the way it communicates with Mr B. However, the Council has added an alert to Mr B’s housing record which notifies staff to his difficulty with reading and writing and includes a request that staff call Mr B. I therefore consider that when the Council needed to write to Mr B, it should also have called him. It did not do so; this was fault.
28. The Council’s records show that Mr B called the Council regularly to find out what was happening with his housing application. If it had contacted Mr B by telephone, he is unlikely to have felt the need to call so frequently.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. The Council has agreed to offer Mr B the next suitable property he bids on. Since issuing our draft decision, the Council has been supporting Mr B to secure a property. It offered a ‘direct ‘let’ bungalow to Mr B in April 2023 but Mr B did not accept it because he did not consider it was suitable.
30. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Amend Mr B’s award date to 18 October 2021, six weeks after he applied to join the housing register.
• Make a payment of £2250 to Mr B for the 15 months between January 2022, when he would likely have been offered a property if there had been no fault, and April 2023, when the Council offered the tenancy of a bungalow to Mr B.
• Make a payment of £200 to Mr B to recognise the frustration and inconvenience he experienced due to the failings identified in this case.
31. The Council has also agreed to take the following actions within eight weeks of my final decision:
• Remind staff of the importance of considering risk alert information to allow reasonable adjustments to be made.
• Arrange training for the housing team on the Equality Act and the public sector equality duty, in order to further consolidate staff learning on equality considerations.
• Investigate why the mobility reports were not added to Mr B’s housing record promptly and take action to ensure reports are always added promptly in future.
32. The Council has accepted that it has ongoing delays in processing and reviewing housing applications. It has provided us with an updated action plan which shows the action it has taken and continues to take to reduce delays in dealing with housing applications and review requests.

Back to top

Final decision

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