London Borough of Islington (23 002 076)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s delay in providing a decision about his medical priority review application. We find the Council at fault which caused Mr X uncertainty and distress. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mr X to remedy the injustice caused.
The complaint
- Mr X complains the Council delayed the outcome of his medical priority review application between November 2021 and April 2022.
- Mr X says he therefore missed the chance to bid and secure a suitable property in the above period. He says he remains in overcrowded accommodation with his family which caused him uncertainty and distress.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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)
- Our published Principles of Good Administrative Practice requires Councils to provide effective services, take timely decisions, advise service users of any delays and maintain proper and appropriate records.
- We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
- 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)
What I have and have not investigated
- Mr X’s complaint is about issues going back to November 2021. He approached the Ombudsman in May 2023. This is more than 12 months after he became aware of the Council’s actions. However, I note Mr X had to complete the Council’s complaints procedure and contacted the Ombudsman immediately after receiving its final response. I have therefore exercised discretion to investigate matters from November 2021 onwards.
How I considered this complaint
- During my investigation I spoke to Mr X to discuss his complaint and considered information he provided. I also made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
- Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Background
- The demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. To manage the demand, every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. Most councils operate a housing register, which records the details of those waiting for housing. All housing allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
- Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
What happened?
- Mr X is disabled and uses a walking aid. He lives with his four young children and wife in a two-bedroom property. One of Mr X’s children is also disabled with severe mobility issues.
- Mr X said his family is overcrowded and he sleeps in the living room to accommodate his children’s needs. He said this affects his physical and mental well-being.
- Mr X needs a three-bedroom property with step free access or a lift. He initially applied for medical priority on the Council’s housing register but was not awarded any points.
- In November 2021, Mr X applied for a review of the Council’s decision with supporting evidence. Mr X said he did not receive a response or further update from the Council but remained patient.
- In April 2022, the Council sent Mr X a review outcome letter. It awarded him additional medical and welfare points, which meant he was now eligible to bid for three-bedroom properties.
- Mr X said he has not been able to secure a three-bedroom property since the award. Mr X believes they were allocated to other applicants while the Council was considering his review.
Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response
- In January 2023, Mr X complained to the Council about the issues he has raised with us.
- In response, the Council said:
- There was a delay in the review process due to a backlog of cases which was now cleared. And because its tenancy records were not updated after the review was completed. It apologised and said it had escalated this issue with its tenancy management team to prevent recurrence.
- Upheld Mr X’s complaint about a delay in updating his household records between November 2021 and April 2022. However, it said it was unable to determine whether Mr X had missed out on suitable properties in this period.
- Offered £200 compensation for the delays and any inconvenience caused.
- Unhappy with the Council’s response, Mr X did not accept the offer and approached the Ombudsman in May 2023.
Our enquiries
- The Council provided a schedule containing two suitable properties, which Mr X would have been eligible to bid for between November 2021 and April 2022. It said if Mr X had placed a successful bid, it would have conducted a further medical suitability assessment before making an offer.
- Mr X was provided with a copy of the above schedule. He confirmed that subject to viewing the properties and passing the suitability assessment he would have accepted both properties.
Analysis
- The available evidence says the Council properly processed Mr X’s November 2021 medical review but delayed updating its records to reflect the outcome. This meant Mr X did not receive a decision until April 2022. This was fault. The Council accepted there was delay and apologised.
- Although during the period of delay, Mr X missed the chance to bid on two properties, I cannot say, even on balance, whether he would have secured either of them. This is because the bids would have been subject to a further medical assessment, and I cannot say what the outcome of that assessment would have been. In addition, Mr X would have had to visit the properties to confirm if he would have accepted them.
- Mr X is left with uncertainty about whether the outcome would have been different, but for the fault, which is an injustice to him.
Agreed action
- The Council has apologised to Mr X and offered £200 compensation for its delay. This is a partial remedy which does not fully reflect the extent of injustice to Mr X.
- Within a month of my final decision the Council should:
- Write to Mr X and apologise for its delay in updating Mr X’s housing records and failing to keep him informed about the reasons for the delay and any uncertainty and distress caused to him.
- Make a symbolic payment of £400 to Mr X in recognition of the uncertainty and distress caused to him. This is based on our guidance on remedies and considers Mr X’s personal circumstances. This payment should be the total amount as it includes the Council’s previous offer.
- Remind relevant officers of the importance of updating the tenancy records without delay when decisions and/or review decisions are made.
- The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
- I find fault which caused injustice to Mr X. I have made recommendations to address the injustice and prevent recurrence of the fault.
- I have completed my investigation.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman