Summary: The Council failed to properly consider medical evidence provided by Mr B when it decided he did not qualify to join the housing register. It also delayed assessing his application and reviewing its decision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr B. It has also agreed to make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council wrongly decided he did not qualify to join the housing register, and then delayed reviewing its decision. He considers the Council’s actions were discriminatory.
2. Mr B says that as a result of the Council’s failings, he remained living in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated Mr B’s complaint about the housing application he made in December 2022. I have not investigated Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision on an earlier application because we have already considered his complaint about this.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• considered the 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

8. Mr B applied to join the housing register in December 2022. He stated that he had a medical need for rehousing and submitted supporting medical evidence.
9. The Council considered Mr B’s application in March 2023 and decided that Mr B did not qualify to join the housing register. It said that the address on the medical evidence did not match his current address and did not show that his current accommodation was having a direct detrimental impact on his health.
10. Mr B requested a review of the Council’s decision. He explained that he used his parents address for confidential correspondence because he was living in shared accommodation.
11. The Council carried out the review in September 2023 and overturned its previous decision. It accepted that it was reasonable for Mr B to use his parents’ address for correspondence and it decided that Mr B qualified for a Band A medical award. The Council backdated Mr B’s registration and award date to 6 March 2023, the date his application was originally assessed.
12. Mr B has since successfully bid on a property and he moved in October 2023.

Analysis

13. When Mr B applied for housing, he provided the address of the shared accommodation where he was living but asked that all correspondence be sent to his parents’ address.
14. The medical evidence Mr B submitted in December 2022 also included his parents’ address. It showed that the medical professional considered his current accommodation was having a detrimental impact on his health. It should have been clear from the date of the letter and the medical professional’s comments that he was referring to the accommodation Mr B was living in at that time, and not Mr B’s parents’ address. I consider the Council failed to properly consider this evidence when it decided Mr B did not qualify to join the housing register.
15. Mr B considers the Council discriminated against him when it made this decision. While I have found no evidence of discrimination, I consider there was fault in the way the Council decided Mr B did not qualify to join the register. It should have accepted Mr B onto the housing register when it originally assessed his application.
16. The Council also delayed assessing Mr B’s housing application and review request. We expect councils to assess housing applications and carry out reviews within eight weeks. The Council assessed Mr B’s application around 12 weeks after he applied and it reviewed the decision around 26 weeks after Mr B’s request for a review. These delays were fault and would have caused Mr B frustration.
17. When the Council carried out the review, it accepted that Mr B’s application should have been made active when it was originally assessed. For this reason, it backdated his registration and award date to 6 March 2023, the date his application was assessed. However, the Council delayed carrying out this assessment. I consider it likely that if the Council had awarded Band A within eight weeks of his application, as it should have done, Mr B would have moved into suitable accommodation in around April 2023. In reaching this view, I have taken into consideration information on the Council’s website about the housing priority and award dates of applicants offered properties. I also note that Mr B was offered the first property he bid on.

Back to top

Agreed action

18. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will apologise and make a payment of £1500 to Mr B to recognise that he was living in unsuitable accommodation for six months longer than necessary due to failings by the Council. The Council should consider our guidance on remedies when making the apology.
19. Within eight weeks, the Council will highlight this case to relevant officers to ensure that when a medical professional gives their view that an applicant’s accommodation is having a detrimental impact on their health, the officer properly considers whether the medical professional is referring to their current address.
20. 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. Following our recent recommendation on a similar case, the Council agreed to provide an updated action plan and an updated report to show whether delays are reducing, and if not, to explain the reason for this.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr 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