Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not fairly assess her banding and bedroom needs when she sought a review. We find the Council was at fault for failing to consider all relevant evidence and follow its policy. The Council will apologise for the injustice caused, carry out a new review and carry out service improvements to prevent the fault reoccurring.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council did not fairly assess her banding and bedroom requirements when she asked it to reconsider her housing application in 2022. Further she says the Council has failed to consider whether she is entitled to a direct offer.
2. She says this has caused a delay in her receiving a permanent property and increased the time she has spent in an unsuitable property with repair issues.

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. 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 information provided by Miss X and discussed the complaint with her;
• The Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided; and
• Relevant law and guidance.
6. Miss X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

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)

The Council’s allocation policy

9. The Council’s allocation policy awards bands for each application it receives based on reasonable preference categories. The higher the band the greater the level of priority an applicant receives for bidding.
10. The Council places applicants into either band A, B or C. For Band A, applicants must show one of 14 criteria – including;
• a critical medical need needing an urgent move,
• critical safeguarding circumstances,
• homeless applicants in severe need accepted for rehousing,
• applicants served with a prohibition order and
• applicants with two or more needs from Band B.
11. Band B criteria includes;
• a serious medical need needing a move,
• those severely overcrowded with two less rooms than needed,
• homeless applicants accepted for rehousing,
• notice for improvement has been served and the property cannot be lived in during this time, and
• applicants who have 4 or more needs from Band C.
12. Homeless applicants will be considered in severe need if:
• they have a terminal or life-threatening illness,
• are wheelchair users, are frail and elderly,
• have a severe mental health problem which means they cannot live in temporary accommodation,
• have a critical medical need including critical safeguarding implications, or
• are especially vulnerable and the Council cannot provide suitable temporary accommodation.
13. The Council policy states the Council can look to provide alternative temporary housing if the current temporary housing is detrimental to the applicant’s health.
14. The policy says an applicant is entitled to one bedroom for them and their partner, and one bedroom for any two children of the same sex. It notes children of the same gender, up to the age of 25, are expected to share a room unless there is a medical, behavioural or social reason why they cannot. This will be considered with supporting evidence.
15. The Council policy sets out three circumstances in which it will consider direct lets. A direct let is where the Council offer a property to an applicant without the need for bidding. Direct lets may be offered to applicants in Band A for supported, sheltered or extra care houses. It may be offered in eight specific circumstances such as the applicant needing a specifically adapted home or temporary accommodation becoming a secure tenancy. Also homeless households may be offered a direct let if the Council decides the applicant is unsuitable for auto-bidding due to the specific housing needs.

What happened

16. Miss X lives in temporary accommodation with her four children. She applied for Council accommodation in June 2012 and the Council accepted it had a homeless duty in September 2012.
17. Miss X says she needs a four-bed house with a garden in her current area to meet her needs. Two of her children are diagnosed with autism and another suffers from anxiety and depression.
18. In late December 2021 Miss X asked the Council to reconsider her banding. She provided it with three updated medical forms for her children and provided recent medical evidence and supporting letters from the school and support services involved with her children. The forms explained that her autistic children’s behaviour meant they could not share a bedroom. She also provided details of a visit by the fire service.
19. The Council arranged for a review by a GP medical expert. The GP recommended Band C medical priority, a first-floor maximum property and ‘nil else specific’.
20. In late February 2022 the Council completed its assessment of Miss X’s banding review. The letter confirmed it had considered the health letters, reports, and pictures provided and had concluded Miss X’s case fell into Band B priority. Miss X objected to the decision as she felt she had met the criteria for Band A and was unhappy they had not considered the bedroom needs.
21. The Council reviewed its decision in early July and decided that Miss X was placed in the correct priority band. It stated the Council did not accept that Miss X fell into the category of severe need which would place her in Band A. It accepted that whilst one of her children is autistic and one has anxiety, it did not consider this to be a severe mental health problem that meant they could not live in temporary accommodation. It denied her request for an extra bedroom as it felt Miss X’s children could share.

Findings

Banding priority

22. The Council arranged for a medical expert to decide what medical priority should be awarded to Miss X. The review was considered by a relevant medical expert. It has therefore followed the correct process. However, the Council’s explanation of its decision notes Miss X has one child with autism when in fact she has two. There is some doubt here over the accuracy of the information considered. This suggests the medical expert did not consider all the evidence provided and I consider this to be fault.

Bedroom assessment

23. The Council’s policy says it assigns one room to couples and one room per two children of the same sex. As Miss X has four sons, she is entitled to three rooms based on the Council’s general policy. The policy also states that an extra room is awarded for children where there is a medical, behavioural or social need.
24. Miss X submitted to the Council that her children’s medical conditions meant that two of her children could not share a bedroom because of their behavioural issues. The Council’s appeal review concluded the children could share but provided no information as to how it reached this decision. There is no reference to the medical information Miss X submitted or evidence of the Council’s expert considering this.
25. I would expect the Council to have considered and referenced the behavioural issues and its policy in its decision. And, if minded not to accept it, to have provided a detailed explanation. The Council’s lack of consideration of the children’s behavioural issues is fault.

Direct lets

26. In May 2023 following a query from Miss X a member of Council staff, outside of the housing team, informed her that from their recollection she was entitled to a direct let. The Council’s policy does entitle Miss X to be considered for a direct let as a homeless household. The Council has a duty to consider whether she is unsuitable for auto bidding. Despite Miss X raising the issue of direct lets with the Council I can see no evidence it considered her entitlement. This is fault.

Injustice

27. I have found fault in the handling of Miss X’s housing review. I cannot say the Council should have awarded her greater medical priority or an extra bedroom, as the decision to award points is a matter of professional judgement. Miss X believes she has missed out on the opportunity to bid on larger properties and has likely been less successful on the properties she has bid on. Further Miss X feels the Council should have considered her for a direct let. I cannot say that she has suffered this injustice.
28. She is, though, frustrated at being unable to change her present circumstances. She feels it could have been different had the assessment been done correctly or the Council considered her for direct lets. The Council should remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. The Council will within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused by the faults identified above.
• Carry out a new review of Miss X’s housing application in line with its allocation policy. The Council should back date any extra points or extra bedroom allowance it awards following the review.
• Remind staff to give proper scrutiny to any relevant supporting evidence and explain their reasons for not relying on evidence where they decide not to.
30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to an injustice. I have recommended action to address the injustice caused and prevent recurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman