Summary: The Council delayed processing Mr B’s housing application and review and wrongly closed his application twice. It also failed to properly deal with his complaints and failed to action Mr B’s request for a review of its housing priority decision. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr B, and backdate his award date. It will also make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council delayed assessing his housing application and then wrongly closed it. The Council later allowed Mr B to re-join the housing register, but he does not consider it gave him sufficient housing priority.
2. Mr B says that because of the Council’s failings, he remains living in a property where he is not safe, and which is unsuitable for his uncle’s health and mobility needs. He says the Council’s actions have caused avoidable distress and frustration.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future 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 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

The Council’s housing allocations schemes

6. The scheme introduced in January 2023 places applicants in a priority band from Band A (highest priority) to Band D (lowest priority). The previous scheme placed applicants in a priority band from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 4 (lowest priority).
7. Band A is awarded when the applicant needs to move urgently due to an extreme risk of violence or harassment. In the previous scheme, applicants who qualified for this award would be placed in Band 1.
8. Band B is awarded when the applicant needs to move on medical or welfare grounds (including grounds relating to a disability). In the previous scheme, applicants who qualified for this award would be placed in Band 2.
9. Band C is awarded when the applicant is homeless but is owed no housing duties. In the previous scheme, applicants who qualified for this award would be placed in Band 3.
10. The date the applicant joined the housing register, or the date they were awarded a higher band, is used to prioritise between applications within the same band.

Key events

11. In June 2021, Mr B made a homelessness application to the Council. The Council decided that Mr B was homeless, but he did not have a priority need. This meant that the Council did not have a duty to secure accommodation for him.
12. Mr B applied to join the Council’s housing register in December 2021. The Council advised Mr B that he had not completed one section of the form and asked him to do so, and to then resubmit the form.
13. In March 2022, Mr B made the necessary amendments and also added his friend, Mr X, to his application. He stated that he had an exceptional need to move, and he provided a copy of a restraining order and non-molestation order against a member of his family, both of which expired in 2021.
14. The Council assessed the application in April and accepted Mr B onto the housing register. It decided he qualified for a Band 3 homeless award, and he had a need for a two-bedroom property. It said that the information he had provided did not demonstrate that his need to move was exceptional.
15. On 25 April, Mr B requested a review of the housing priority decision. He explained how his living situation was putting him at risk of being assaulted or abused by a member of his family. Mr B said that he was trying to renew the restraining order.
16. Mr B submitted a change of circumstances form to the Council on 24 November. He added his uncle to his application, who has health and mobility needs.
17. On 26 January 2023, the Council considered the request Mr B made in April 2022 for a review of his housing priority. The Council decided to close the review because there had been a change in Mr B’s circumstances and his application was awaiting assessment.
18. The Council assessed Mr B’s application on the same day. It wrote to Mr B asking why Mr X needed to move with him. It explained that people who are not reasonably expected to live with an applicant are only added to an application if there are demonstrable extenuating circumstances. It said that it would close Mr B’s application if he did not provide this information within 10 working days.
19. Mr B emailed the Council on 30 January explaining why Mr X needed to live with him and his uncle. The email had not been added to Mr B’s case by the time his application was assessed on 13 February. The Council decided to close Mr B’s application because it believed he had not provided the information requested in its letter of 26 January.
20. Mr B then made a formal stage one complaint to the Council about its decision to close his application. He also sent a copy of his response to the request for information to the housing registration team and the housing reviews team.
21. In the Council’s response to Mr B’s complaint, it explained that it had been unable to find his response to the information request and asked that he send it again. Mr B then sent a copy of his email to the complaints team.
22. A few days later, Mr B discovered that the Council had closed his complaint. He then made a further complaint that the Council had closed his complaint without considering the evidence he had provided.
23. Mr B’s email of 30 January was added to his case on 23 February. His application was then re-opened. The Council asked Mr B to complete a mobility form with details of his uncle’s mobility difficulties and for evidence from the police of his exceptional circumstances.
24. On 9 March, Mr B sent the completed mobility form to the Council along with an email from the police which stated that the Council could request information from it directly.
25. The Council wrote to Mr B on 13 March asking for copies of identification documents, such as passports and birth certificates. The letter warned that his application may be closed if he did not provide the required evidence within ten working days. Mr B says he did not receive this letter.
26. The Council decided to close Mr B’s application on 27 March because it had not received the evidence requested in its letter of 13 March. However, the officer did not write to Mr B to tell him that his application had been closed.
27. The Council responded to Mr B’s stage two complaint on 30 March. It listed the evidence requested in its letter of 13 March and said that his application had been closed because the evidence had not been provided. The Council said that if he wished to reapply to join the register, he would need to provide the requested evidence alongside a new application.
28. Mr B provided the required evidence the following day. He said that he had not been asked to provide it previously and that he should not have to begin the application process again.
29. The Council acknowledged receipt of the evidence and told Mr B that it would re-open his case and he did not need to submit a new application.
30. A mobility assessment was carried out on 6 April. It was decided that Mr B’s uncle needed a property with ramped or level access and a level access shower.
31. On 19 April, the Council decided that Mr B qualified for a Band B disability award and he needed a three-bedroom property.
32. Mr B disagreed with the award and requested a review. The review has not yet been carried out.

Analysis

Application delays and closures

33. Mr B requested a review of the Council’s decision to award Band 3 in April 2022. Government guidance suggests eight weeks as a reasonable timescale for completing reviews. The Council did not consider Mr B’s request until January 2023, 39 weeks later. This delay was fault and would have caused Mr B significant frustration. However, I do not consider it likely that the Council would have increased Mr B’s housing priority if it had carried out the review without delay.
34. Mr B submitted a change of circumstances form and added his uncle to his application on 24 November 2022. We expect councils to assess such changes within six weeks. The Council did not complete its assessment until 19 April 2023, 21 weeks later. This delay was fault.
35. When Mr B submitted the change of circumstances form, he provided details of his uncle’s health and mobility needs. The Council did not ask Mr B to complete the mobility referral form until 23 February 2023, 13 weeks later. This delay was fault.
36. The Council wrote to Mr B in January 2023 asking why Mr X needed to move with Mr B and his uncle. The Council accepts that it should have asked about this when Mr B originally added Mr X to his application in March 2022.
37. Mr B responded to the Council’s letter asking about Mr X on 30 January 2023, but the Council did not add his email to his case until 23 February. This was fault and resulted in the Council wrongly closing Mr B’s application. It also put Mr B to avoidable time and trouble resending his email and making a complaint.
38. The Council wrote to Mr B on 13 March asking him to provide copies of identification documents. Mr B says he did not receive this letter and the Council has not provided any evidence to show that the letter was emailed to Mr B. On the balance of probabilities, I consider it unlikely that this letter was emailed to Mr B. In reaching this view I have taken into account Mr B’s prompt responses to all other information requests, and the Council’s records which show that the same officer forgot to send another letter to Mr B after recording that she had sent it. The Council’s probable failure to send this letter resulted in the Council wrongly closing Mr B’s application for a second time. This would have caused Mr B significant frustration and distress.
39. If the Council had not wrongly closed Mr B’s application and if it had not delayed assessing his application, I consider Mr B would have been awarded Band B by 19 January 2023.

Complaints

40. The Council’s stage one response to Mr B’s complaint stated that it had been unable to find his response to the request for information made on 26 January. At that point, Mr B had sent his response twice to the email address provided and he had correctly included his reference number and name in the subject field as requested. Mr B had also sent a copy to the housing team which carries out reviews.
41. In the Council’s response to Mr B’s complaint, it asked that he provide a copy of his response to the information request. Mr B immediately provided it, but the Council did not re-open his complaint and provide a further response. This was fault and put Mr B to the avoidable time and trouble of making another complaint.
42. When the Council responded to Mr B’s stage two complaint, it failed to acknowledge that Mr B had responded to the Council’s request for information on 26 January and that therefore his application should not have been closed. Nor did it acknowledge that it should have re-opened his complaint when he provided the evidence it requested. This was fault and would have added to Mr B’s frustration.

Housing priority decisions

43. I have found no fault in the way the Council decided that Mr B qualified for Band 3 in April 2022.
44. I have also found no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided that Mr B’s mobility difficulties meet the criteria for a Band B disability award.
45. On 23 February 2023, the Council asked Mr B to provide evidence of his exceptional need to move. Mr B contacted the police and sent a copy of its response to the Council. The police advised that the Council could make its own request for information. The Council did not attempt to contact the police and instead decided that Mr B did not meet the criteria for an exceptional need to move award. I consider the Council should have either contacted the police itself, or told Mr B that he needed to return to the police to obtain the required evidence. It did not do so; this was fault. As a result, Mr B has been left with uncertainty as to whether his priority would have increased if the Council had obtained evidence of the risks associated with his living situation.

Review

46. Mr B requested a review of the Council’s decision to award Band B on 19 April 2023. He also told the Council that it had given him the wrong registration and award dates.
47. The Council dealt with Mr B’s concerns about his registration and award dates but failed to deal with his request for a review. This was fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

48. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions:
• Apologise to Mr B for the failings in this case and make a payment of £400 to recognise the frustration and distress caused by these failings. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance when making the apology.
• Backdate Mr B’s Band B award to 19 January 2023.
• Review its housing priority decision.
49. Within eight weeks of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions:
• Investigate why Mr B’s email of 30 January 2023 was not added to his case until 23 February 2023, and take action to ensure correspondence is immediately added to cases in future.
• Explore whether the Council’s systems can evidence that a letter has been emailed to an applicant, and if it can, that it provides details to officers who may need to check such evidence.
• Review its procedures to ensure that when an applicant suggests they are at risk of violence, the Council attempts to obtain evidence of this itself, or tells the applicant how to obtain the required evidence.
• Investigate why the request Mr B made for a review of the Council’s housing priority decision on 19 April 2023 was not processed, and take action to prevent such failings in future.
• Discuss this case with the complaints officers involved to ensure it properly responds to complaints in future.
• The Council has previously provided action plans to show the action it is taking to reduce delays in processing housing applications and reviews. In August 2023, the Council also provided a report showing how long it was taking to process new housing applications and reviews, and how this had changed over the last year. The Council has agreed to provide an updated action plan and an updated report to show whether delays are reducing, and if not, it will explain the reason for this. The report will include how long it is taking to process change in circumstances forms.
50. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

51. 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.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman