Summary: The Council delayed assessing and reviewing Miss B’s housing application and did not always explain its housing priority decisions. The Council has agreed to apologise, backdate Miss B’s housing registration date and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains that the Council has delayed processing her housing application, has not given her enough housing priority, and has failed to carry out a review of its housing priority decision.
2. Miss B says that because of this, she remains living in accommodation which is overcrowded and is affecting her son’s health.

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 B is awarded when the applicant needs to move on medical or welfare grounds. In the previous scheme, applicants who qualified for this medical award would be placed in Band 2.
8. Band C is awarded when the applicant’s household is overcrowded due to lacking one bedroom. In the previous scheme, applicants who qualified for this overcrowding award would be placed in Band 3.
9. 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.

Overview

10. Miss B lives in a two-bedroom maisonette with her partner and two children. She applied to join the housing register in November 2019, shortly after her second child was born.
11. The Council wrote to Miss B about her application in July 2020. It said that the Council’s records showed that she had children living with her, but they had not been included on her application. It asked Miss B to add her children to her application and to then resubmit it for assessment.
12. Miss B added her children to her application that day.
13. In September 2021, Miss B complained to her councillor about the time it was taking the Council to assess her application. The Councillor contacted the Council on her behalf.
14. The Council then wrote to Miss B about her application. It said that she had indicated that a member of the household had a medical condition which was being made worse by her current accommodation. The Council explained that a medical award would only be granted if evidence was provided to show that a long-term medical problem was being made worse by the current accommodation, and that it would be improved if she moved to more suitable accommodation. It asked Mrs B to provide a supporting letter from a medical practitioner.
15. Miss B submitted evidence about her son’s health condition in September and October 2021. The Council then accepted Miss B onto the housing register on 11 October 2021. It awarded Band 3 because it considered the family was lacking one bedroom. It decided that the criteria for a medical award had not been met because the medical evidence did not show that the accommodation was having a direct impact on her son’s health.
16. Miss B submitted a letter from her doctor in July 2022. The Council assessed the evidence and then wrote to Miss B to advise that it had decided not to change her housing priority. It explained that the further evidence provided did not show that, in the opinion of a medical professional, the accommodation was having a direct detrimental impact on her son’s health.
17. Miss B requested a review of the Council’s decision in September 2022. She explained how the accommodation was affecting her son’s health and said that her doctor had written the supporting letter because he agreed that the accommodation was affecting her son.
18. The Council introduced a new housing allocations scheme in January 2023. Miss B was moved from Band 3 to Band C.
19. In February 2023, Miss B provided a copy of a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions which showed that Miss B had been awarded Disability Living Allowance for her son. Miss B also submitted a change in circumstances form indicating that a member of the household had care and support needs.
20. The Council decided again that Miss B did not qualify for a medical award and should remain in Band C.
21. The Council then closed Miss B’s review.

Analysis

22. Miss B submitted her housing application on 2 November 2019. We consider councils should assess applications in four to six weeks. The Council did not start its assessment until July 2020, and it did not complete its assessment until October 2021, almost two years after Miss B applied. This delay was fault.
23. The housing priority decision letters sent in October 2021 and September 2022 detail the housing needs Miss B selected on her application, and why the Council did not consider she qualified for those awards. However, the letter sent on 16 March 2023 did not do so; it was a standard template which just provided Miss B’s housing award along with general information. It did not show that it had considered the further information Miss B had provided, or the additional housing need she had selected on her change in circumstances form. As the Council then also closed Miss B’s review, she was left feeling that the Council had failed to consider the information she provided in her review request, the additional housing need or the further evidence she provided. This was fault and would have caused frustration and uncertainty to Miss B.
24. However, I have considered the Council’s records and I am satisfied that it did consider the additional housing need and the further evidence. I have found no evidence of fault in the way it determined Miss B's housing priority. The medical evidence provided does not show that a medical professional considers the accommodation is having a detrimental impact on Miss B’s son’s health.
25. Miss B requested a review of the Council’s housing priority decision on 17 September 2022. Government guidance says that eight weeks is a reasonable timescale for completing reviews. The Council did not consider Miss B’s request for a review until 27 March 2023, 27 weeks after Miss B requested the review. This delay was fault. I do not consider the delay caused any significant injustice to Miss B because the review did not result in a higher band award.
26. If there had been no fault by the Council, it would have asked Miss B to add her children to her application and provide supporting medical evidence shortly after she applied to join the register in November 2019. I consider Miss B would have done so promptly and she would likely have joined the housing register by 28 December 2019.
27. I do not consider it likely that Miss B would have been offered a property by now if there had been no delays. This is because Miss B is only bidding on one area of the city, and no three-bedroom properties in that area have been awarded to anyone in Band 3 or C in the last year.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will apologise to Miss B for the failings in this case and backdate her housing registration and award date to 28 December 2019. 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 in making the apology.
29. Within eight weeks of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions:
• Remind officers that where an applicant has indicated they have a housing need, and it is decided to not make a band award for that housing need, the reasons are included in the housing priority decision letter.
• 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 circumstance forms.
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 and uphold Miss B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. 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