Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his housing application. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to notify him of its re-assessment of his application and his right to request a review of its decisions about his priority banding and bedroom need, and refer him for an OT assessment. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Mr X, offering him a review of its decisions, making a payment to reflect the frustration and upset caused, and a service improvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I am calling Mr X, complains about the way the Council dealt with his housing application from November 2021. Mr X says the Council:
1. delayed its re-assessment of his application following notification of his change in circumstances in November 2021;
2. failed to respond to his contact about his application between November 2021 and November 2022;
3. failed to issue decisions on its re-assessment of his application and notify him of his statutory right to request a review of these decisions;
4. made an arbitrary decision to reduce his bedroom need to 0 and his priority banding from A to B without having regard to the medical evidence provided about his bedroom need and priority banding. It also failed to notify him of its decision and his right to request a review;
5. made an arbitrary decision to assess his bedroom need as one bedroom, after being advised about his change of circumstances in December 2022, and failed to consider the medical evidence provided in support of his need for a separate bedroom. It also failed to notify him of its decision and right to request a review; and
6. failed to arrange an up-to-date Occupational Therapist assessment. He was told a referral had been made in December 2022, but has heard nothing further about this.
2. Mr X believes the Council has discriminated against, and victimised, him, following his previous complaint in order to move him to the back of the housing queue. His current accommodation is unsuitable for him and prevents him from leaving his home and accessing the treatment he needs for his condition. This has had a serious effect on his health and well-being.
3. Mr X wants the Council to:

• properly assess his bedroom need as two bedrooms and his priority banding as A and backdate this to the date of the registration of his application to the housing register;
• urgently move him to suitable accommodation;
• apologise for the distress its failings have caused him; and
• pay financial redress for the impact on him of its failings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these.
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. 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)
7. 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

8. I have spoken to Mr X, read his complaint and the Council’s response to our enquiries, together with all the other information Mr X, and the Council provided about the complaint.
9. I invited Mr X and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

The Council’s published scheme

10. 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))
11. The Council’s scheme says in assessing the number of bedrooms required by an applicant:

• Single person households will be assessed as requiring self-contained studio accommodation; and
• One bedroom is required for a couple

12. The Council maintains a separate physical disability queue (PDQ) for people seeking specially designed or adapted property (mainly for wheelchair users) suitable for persons with physical disabilities. All applications are subject to an assessment by, and recommendation from, the Council’s occupational therapy (OT) service.
13. Applicants within the PDQ are placed in one of four bands, A (highest), B, C or D. Priority between applicants in the same band will be determined by time waiting.

Decisions and review rights

14. Housing applicants can ask councils to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

Our role

15. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or an applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
16. We recognise the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.
17. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision.

What happened

18. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

Complaint background

19. Mr X is a social housing tenant and has lived in his current property since 2017. In 2019 he applied to join the Council’s housing register because his current accommodation was no longer suitable for him. The Council accepted Mr X’s housing register application on 7 January 2020.
20. An occupational therapy (OT) report in 2020 referred to Mr X’s medical condition affecting his mobility and his need for a wheelchair accessible property with direct access to a car park. It said he was living with his partner and child, and that he and his partner needed separate bedrooms because of her medical condition.
21. As at July 2021, Mr X was assessed as being in priority band A and needing a three bedroom property. The Council told his housing adviser, in response to their enquiry, he was currently in position 4 in the PDQ.

Notification of Mr X’s change in circumstances: November 2021

22. Mr X’s housing adviser told the Council his partner had left his household. They asked that he retain his position in the PDQ.
23. The Council’s housing register team removed Mr X’s partner and child from his application. He was re-assessed as requiring a studio and remained a housing priority in the PDQ.

Mr X’s contact with the Council: October and November 2022

24. Mr X contacted the Council on 7 October. He said:

• It had been several years since his housing application had been accepted and he had not received a single update from the Council since then. He asked the Council to give him an update now; and
• He noted his bedroom need had been changed from 3 to 0 on the online portal. He had not received any correspondence about this. The Council had made an arbitrary decision without regard to the medical evidence in support of his bedroom need. He wanted the Council to explain this.

25. On 1 November, Mr X complained the Council had failed to reply to his contact of 7 October.

The Council’s response: December 2022

26. On 1 December the Council told Mr X it wanted to check the current details it held for him were accurate and asked about his household composition. Mr X confirmed he and his new partner were living in his home and the housing register application was for them both.
27. In its complaint response to Mr X of 6 December, the Council confirmed:

• details of its contact with him and his housing adviser in the period from 7 January 2020, when it wrote to him confirming the registration of his application, and November 2021, when it was notified about the change in his household. It did not uphold his complaint it had failed to notify him about his application;
• on receiving this information, it had started, but not completed a re-assessment of his application, and had not advised him of the outcome;
• it had added his new partner to the application. The online portal should now confirm that he had been assessed for one bedroom accommodation;
• his application was still registered on the PDQ for accommodation adapted for wheelchair use. There had not been any recent allocations of such accommodation. He had not been overlooked for any potentially suitable vacancies whilst being assessed for a studio flat; and
• his new partner should complete the attached medical assessment form to advise about any medical circumstances they had which should be considered. Once this was received and considered, the Council would advise them of any re-assessment.

28. The Council partially upheld Mr X’s complaint he had not been told about the re-assessment of his application. It said there was currently a large backlog of housing register assessments because of high ongoing demand and staff shortages. It apologised for the delay.
29. Mr X was not satisfied with this response. He told the Council:

• It was clear from the medical evidence he could not share a bedroom and it was unreasonable for the Council to assess he could share a bedroom with his partner;
• An up-to-date OT report should be completed as the previous report was now out of date; and
• The Council suggesting there were no available properties suitable for his medical needs was a breach of its duty of care.

The Council’s final response: December 2022

30. The Council told Mr X:

• It had referred him for a new OT assessment;
• It was not satisfied he could not share a bedroom with his new partner. It had asked for details of his partner’s medical circumstances so this could be assessed; and
• His previous priority band A was based on the assessment of both his and his former partner’s medical circumstances. Based on his current household composition he was assessed as priority band B for one-bedroom accommodation and in position 5 in the PDQ.

The Council’s response to our enquiries

31. The Council has told us:

• It has established the referral for an up-to-date OT assessment for Mr X was not made in December. It has now made the referral; and
• There have been no allocations of studio or one-bedroom properties to any applicants in the PDQ during the period from November 2021 to November 2022.

My analysis – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

Delay and failure to confirm its decision on Mr X’s change in circumstances in November 2021 (complaints a, b and c)

32. The Council has accepted, and I agree, it failed to notify Mr X of the outcome of its re-assessment of his application, following the notification of his change in circumstances in November 2021.
33. It also delayed responding to Mr X’s request in October 2022 for an update on his application.
34. It did not tell Mr X until December 2022 it had decided, in November 2021, to change his bedroom entitlement to a studio and his priority band from A to B. It did not inform him about his right to request a review of this decision.
35. In my view these failures and delays were fault. I have considered below the impact of this fault on Mr X.

Decisions in November 2021 and December 2022 about Mr X’s bedroom need and priority banding (complaints d and e)

36. My understanding is the Council made its decision in November 2021 to reduce Mr X’s bedroom need to a studio in accordance with its allocations policy. It has explained his previous band A award, prior to November 2021, was based on his and his former partner’s medical evidence. It has said it decided to reduce his priority banding from A to B, based on his medical evidence.
37. The Council re-assessed Mr X’s bedroom need as one-bedroom in December 2022, on being told his new partner was now part of his household, in accordance with its allocation policy, and based on his medical evidence. His priority band was still band B. It said Mr X’s partner could submit details of any medical evidence they wanted it to consider in the assessment of the application.
38. I do not consider these decisions were arbitrary. They were made by the Council in response to notifications of Mr X’s change in circumstances and based on its allocations policy and his medical evidence.
39. But it did not tell Mr X about its November 2021 decision until December 2022, and it did not tell him about his right to request a review of its decisions. In my view this was fault. I have considered below the impact of this fault on Mr X.

Impact of the above faults

40. Because of the above faults, Mr X lost the opportunity to ask for a review of the Council’s decisions about his bedroom entitlement and priority banding. And the delays in telling him about its decisions and review rights have caused Mr X frustration and upset.
41. But I do not consider the faults have caused Mr X to miss out on an allocation of a new property between November 2021 and November 2022. The Council has confirmed there were no allocations of studio or one-bedroom properties to any applicants in the PDQ during this period.
42. Mr X did not notify the Council his partner was living with him until November 2022. If, following a review of its decisions, the Council changes Mr X’s priority and bedroom need, the question of whether Mr X has missed out on the allocation of a two-bedroom property in the period from November 2022 can be considered at that stage. If Mr X remains unhappy with the Council’s response, he may then make a further complaint.

Failure to arrange an up-to-date Occupational Therapist assessment (complaint f)

43. The Council has accepted it did not refer Mr X for a further OT assessment in December 2022, as it said it had done in its final response letter.
44. I consider this was fault which has caused Mr X frustration and upset. But I note the referral has now been made and the Council’s OT service has been in contact with Mr X about an assessment.

Agreed action

45. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults and, within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• apologise to Mr X for its failure to notify him of its November 2021 re-assessment of his application and about his right to request a review of its decisions about his priority banding and bedroom need, and its failure, in December 2022, to refer him for an OT assessment. These apologies should reflect the principles about making an effective apology set out here Guidance on remedies - Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman in in our published Guidance on Remedies;
• offer Mr X a review of its decision, in November 2021, to change his priority band to B and, in December 2022, to assess his bedroom need as one-bedroom; and
• pay Mr X £175 to reflect the frustration and upset caused by its failures to notify him of its decisions and about his review rights, and delay in referring him for an OT assessment. This is a symbolic amount based on the Ombudsman’s published Guidance on Remedies

46. And within three months from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• review its allocations policy and procedures for notifying applicants of its decisions on their housing applications and about their right to request a review of these decisions; and
• consider what action it can take to address its backlog of housing register assessments.

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

Back to top

Final decision

48. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above actions as a suitable way to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman