Summary: The Council has already accepted fault for significant delay assessing Mr X’s application for social housing and further delay dealing with his complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr X to recognise the injustice caused. The Council was also at fault for failing to follow its published policy in its assessment of Mr X’s medical priority. The Council has agreed to carry out a new assessment and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council delayed assessing his April 2022 application to join the housing register. He also complained about the Council’s further delay dealing with his complaint.
2. Mr X says as a result he experienced avoidable frustration and was unable to bid for social housing for over 18 months.

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 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)
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 investigated

6. Mr X’s complaint covers matters beginning in 2022. Part of the complaint is therefore late. I have exercised discretion to investigate this late complaint because Mr X reasonably allowed a period for the Council to act after telling him it would process his application; the evidence shows significant delays in the Council’s complaint handling; and Mr X did not let the matter rest for any significant period. The passage of time has not affected my ability to reach sound conclusions about what happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the complaint and the information Mr X and the Council provided.
8. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
9. Mr X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

10. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises housing applicants, and its procedures for allocating properties.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
11. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. This means housing applicants can express an interest in available properties. This is called bidding.
12. The Council places applicants who qualify to join the housing register in a priority band from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 4 (lowest priority). This priority is the first factor the Council uses to allocate a property.
13. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band 3 to applicants who are overcrowded, but not statutorily overcrowded and applications with “moderate medical priority”.
14. The Council awards Band 4 when an applicant does not meet the criteria for any higher band.
15. The Council’s scheme says it will ask a medical advisor to consider applications for medical priority. The scheme says applicants “do not have to submit any medical evidence in support of their application. Where required, the Medical Advisor will request the necessary information from the relevant medical professional.”

The Council’s complaint policy

16. At the time relevant to this complaint, the Council’s complaint policy said it would respond to complaints at stage one and stage two of its complaints process within 20 working days.

What happened

17. Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register in April 2022. He lives with his wife and their children. His application said his wife was pregnant and one of his children had medical needs.
18. Mr X called the Council in May to follow up on his application. The Council told him there was a backlog and it would complete its assessment soon.
19. Mr X complained to the Council at the end of June. He said the Council was still telling him there was a backlog.
20. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at stage one of its complaint process in July. It said:
• it had located his application and “due to maladministration this was not processed”.
• it had asked an officer to process his application
• it apologised for the delay and would now ensure the application was processed.
21. Mr X asked the Council to consider the complaint at stage two of its complaints process a week later when the application was still not processed.
22. Mr X chased the Council in early 2023 when he had not received a response to his complaint. The Council wrote to say its investigation was delayed “due to an increase in contact from our residents”. It said it would keep him updated.
23. Mr X chased again in July when he still had not received a response.
24. The Council contacted Mr X in early November 2023. It said it had closed his stage two complaint by mistake and would now investigate it. It said it would send a response by mid-December.
25. A few days later, the Council assessed Mr X’s housing register application. It placed him in Band 4. In December, it asked Mr X for more information to assess his application. Mr X said he had provided this information in April 2022 when he first applied.
26. The Council told Mr X it needed more time to complete its stage two investigation.
27. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at stage two in late January 2024. It said:
• it was sorry for the delay responding to the complaint
• the Council saved his April 2022 application to an earlier application and then closed it by mistake as a duplicate.
• it identified this in its stage one complaint investigation and asked that an officer process the application. However, this did not happen.
• it could not find any of the information Mr X said he provided with his application. It recognised the frustration to Mr X of being asked to provide this again.
• although Mr X asked for a stage two complaint investigation in July, the Council did not register this until mid-August. It then closed the complaint “in error” in late September.
• it was sorry for “the excessive delays experienced in the handling of both your housing application and your stage two complaint”.
28. In March 2024 Mr X provided copies of documents to verify the family’s identity and residence in the borough. He also provided some medical information about one of his children.
29. In June, the Council told Mr X the medical information he provided was insufficient for it to assess medical priority. Mr X asked the Council to consider the information in his previous applications.
30. The Council asked its medical advisor for an assessment in late June. The medical advisor gave advice and the Council sent Mr X a decision in early July. This said Mr X had not provided enough medical information to determine any priority and so his application remained in Band 4.

My findings

31. The Council has already accepted fault for the significant delay processing Mr X’s application. I agree, this was fault.
32. It was further fault not to process the application once the stage one complaint investigation highlighted the mistake.
33. The Council did not process the application until November 2023, over 18 months after Mr X applied. This significant delay caused Mr X avoidable distress and frustration. He also missed out on 18 months of time on the housing register.
34. If it has not already done so, the Council should backdate the application date to April 2022 to put Mr X back in the position he would have been were it not for the fault.
35. As Mr X’s application is in Band 4, it is unlikely he missed out on an offer of housing.
36. The Council has also accepted fault for its further delay responding to Mr X’s complaint. I agree, this was fault. Mr X asked for a stage two investigation in July 2022. It took the Council 18 months to issue its response. This significant delay caused Mr X avoidable frustration and time and trouble pursuing his complaint. This is an injustice to Mr X.
37. The Council asked its medical advisor to consider whether Mr X’s application attracted any medical priority. It said Mr X had not provided enough information. This is not in line with the allocations scheme, which says the Council or medical advisor will request the relevant information directly from professionals. The Council failed to follow its published scheme. This was fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

38. To remedy the injustice to Mr X from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
• Backdate Mr X’s housing application to April 2022;
• Reassess Mr X’s medical priority in line with the allocations scheme by requesting relevant medical information and/or explain to Mr X what information it needs in order to make a proper assessment. Backdate any resulting priority band award;
• Pay Mr X £300 in recognition of the avoidable distress caused by delay processing his application; and
• Pay Mr X a further £300 in recognition of the avoidable distress and time and trouble caused by the delay responding to his complaint.
39. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
40. Since the events in this case, we have made several service improvement recommendations to the Council to:
• ensure it follows through on actions it agrees in response to complaints;
• addresses backlogs in complaint handling; and
• addresses backlogs processing applications for social housing.
41. I have not repeated those recommendations here.
42. The Council should also:
• provide training or guidance to officers to ensure its medical assessments follow the process set out in its allocations scheme; and
• tell applicants what medical information they need to provide in support of applications, if any.
43. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman