Summary: The Council used the wrong dates to prioritise Miss B’s housing application. It also significantly delayed considering a request for a review of its decision and then wrongly decided not to carry out a review. We have recommended and the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Miss B. We have also recommended service improvements.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains that the Council is using the wrong dates to prioritise her bids for housing. She says that because of this, other applicants who have been on the housing register for less time are unfairly prioritised over her.
2. Miss B considers she may have been able to move to suitable accommodation if there had been no fault by the Council.

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
• gave the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. All comments received were considered before this decision was issued.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

6. The Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme sets out the rules for qualifying to join the Housing Register, how applicants are prioritised and how the Council manages the allocation of available properties.
7. The scheme introduced in January 2023 places applicants in a priority band from Band A (highest priority) to Band D (lowest priority). It places applicants in Band B when the applicant’s household is lacking two bedrooms.
8. The previous scheme awarded Band 2 in the same circumstances. It placed applicants in a priority band from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 4 (lowest priority).
9. The award date is the date the applicant is accepted into their current housing Band, with earlier dates taking priority over later dates. Where two or more applicants still have the same priority, then priority is given to the applicant with the earlier registration date.
10. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
11. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:
• Review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process.
• There should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable.
• The review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker.
• Reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

Background and key events

12. Miss B joined the Council’s housing register in February 2020. She was living in a two-bedroom flat with her partner and three children. The Council awarded Band 3 for overcrowding because it considered she was lacking one bedroom.
13. Miss B gave birth to her fourth child in January 2021.
14. The Council reassessed Miss B’s housing priority in July 2021. Due to the age of Miss B’s eldest child, it decided she was lacking two bedrooms. It awarded Band 2, with a need for a four-bedroom property.
15. When the Council needed to carry out works to Miss B’s home, she was temporarily moved to alternative accommodation. When the works were completed, the Council agreed to Miss B’s request to remain living in the property she had been moved to. Miss B was still lacking two bedrooms because both properties had the same number of bedrooms.
16. After Miss B’s tenancy at the new property started, she noticed that she could only bid on two-bedroom properties. Miss B submitted a complaint to the Council about it because she needed a property with four bedrooms.
17. In the Council’s response, it explained that her bedroom need had been manually changed to two bedrooms to enable it to offer her the new property. It said that she needed to submit an application from her new address and that when it was assessed, she would again have a need for a four-bedroom property.
18. Miss B then submitted an application. When it was assessed in July 2022, her bedroom need was changed to four bedrooms. She remained in Band 2 with a registration date of February 2020. But her award date had changed to July 2022.
19. Miss B requested a review of the Council’s housing priority decision because she considered she had been given the wrong award date. The review was completed in November 2022. The Council accepted that it had made an error and it changed Miss B’s award date to July 2021, the date she was originally awarded Band 2. Miss B says she did not receive this letter.
20. In January 2023, the Councill introduced a new Housing Allocations Scheme. It wrote to Miss B to tell her that she had been moved from Band 2 to Band B. Its letter stated that her award date was July 2021 and her registration date was July 2022.
21. Around a week later, Miss B requested a review of the Council’s decision because she considered she had been given the wrong registration date. The Council considered the request in November 2023. It decided not to carry out a review because it said she had made her request late and because it had already considered her concerns about her award date when it carried out its previous review.
22. Miss B says that when she logs on to her account, it correctly shows her award date as July 2021, but her registration date is July 2022, when it should be February 2020.

Analysis

23. In the Council’s response to our enquiries, it said that when Miss B’s application was assessed in July 2022, she should have been given a July 2022 registration and award date because it was a new application from a new address. It says the assessing officer should not have backdated her registration date to February 2020 and the reviewing officer should not have backdated her award date to July 2021.
24. The application submitted in July 2022 should not have been treated as a new application. Miss B remained overcrowded with a need for two extra bedrooms. The change of address should have been treated as a change of circumstances, not a new application. Miss B’s registration date should have remained as February 2020, and her award date should have been July 2021.
25. The Council wrongly gave Miss B an award date of July 2022. This was fault. As a result, Miss B’s priority would have ranked lower on any properties she bid on between July and November 2022, when the error was corrected.
26. While the letter Miss B was sent in July 2022 stated that her registration date was February 2020, the evidence suggests it was, and still is, July 2022 on the Council’s system.
27. I have considered the Council’s records to see whether any of Miss B’s bids would have been successful if she had been given the correct registration and award dates. I am satisfied that Miss B did not miss out on any properties.
28. The Council took too long to consider Miss B’s review requests. Government guidance suggests eight weeks is a reasonable timescale for carrying out reviews. The Council took 16 weeks to carry out the review which Miss B requested in July 2022. This delay was fault. If the Council had carried out the review sooner, it would have corrected Miss B’s award date sooner.
29. The Council took 41 weeks to consider Miss B’s request for a review in February 2023. This delay was fault.
30. The Council decided not to carry out a review because it considered Miss B had made her request late and because it had already considered her concerns about her award date. There was fault in the way the Council reached its decision here. Miss B received a letter on 23 January 2023 which stated that her registration date was July 2022 and advised that she could request a review within 21 days. This was the first time she was told that her registration date had changed from February 2020. She requested the review ten days later, and so it was not made late. The previous review considered her concerns about her award date, not her registration date. The Council should have carried out a review.
31. The Council’s failings in this case have caused Miss B significant frustration and inconvenience.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. I recommend and the Council has agreed to take the following actions within four weeks of this final decision:
• Apologises to Miss B for the failings identified in this case. 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.
• Make a symbolic payment of £250 to Miss B to recognise the frustration and inconvenience she experienced as a result of the failings identified in this case.
• Changes Miss B’s registration date to 13 February 2020 and her award date to 23 July 2021.
33. The Council has also agreed to take the following actions within eight weeks of this final decision:
• Share the learning from the case at the Council’s next “lessons to be learned quarterly session” with all staff.
• Highlights this case to the reviewing officer, to ensure reviews are properly carried out in future.
34. The Council recently provided us with its updated action plan which shows the action it is taking to reduce delays in processing housing applications and reviews, which we are continuing to monitor.
35. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

36. The Council was at fault which caused injustice. The actions the Council has agreed to take will be sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman