Summary: Mrs X complained that she was living in severely overcrowded conditions, which was causing distress to herself and her family. She wanted the Council to inspect her flat and increase her priority on the housing register. We found fault because there was a delay of a year in the Council completing the inspection. We have recommended the Council should apologise to Mrs X, make her a symbolic payment in recognition of her avoidable time and trouble in pursuing her complaint, and backdate the date of her entry to the highest priority band on the housing register.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about delay in the Council deciding whether she is statutorily overcrowded. She said she is living in severely overcrowded conditions, which is causing her and her family distress and frustration. She wanted the Council to complete the overcrowding assessment she had requested, and increase her priority on the housing register accordingly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have considered all the information Mrs X provided and discussed this complaint with her. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s responses.
5. Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on a draft version of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing Allocation Policy

6. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
7. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

8. The Council’s housing allocation policy has priority bands which set out how properties are allocated in its area. Applicants in Band A have the highest priority and those in band D the lowest.
9. This policy includes that households who are severely overcrowded (lacking two bedrooms or more compared to their allowed property size) will be placed in priority Band B.
10. The policy also includes that:
• Applicants will be placed in Band A to alleviate the statutory overcrowding of a Lambeth Council tenant as defined in Part 10 of the Housing Act 1985, except where the tenant has caused the overcrowding by inviting additional persons to live with them, or has chosen to bid for a property that was smaller than their normal allowed property size. This may involve rehousing either the tenant or members of their household separately to reduce the level of overcrowding.

What happened

11. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.

2023

12. Mrs X complained to the Council in February 2023. She said that she was statutorily overcrowded in a Housing Association (HA) property, as her family consisted of eight people (including five children) living in a three-bedroomed flat. Her HA said it could not help, and had advised her to join the Council's housing register. She had tried to do so but had trouble accessing the Council’s online form.
13. The Council responded that Mrs X would be added to the housing register on priority Band B. The Council wrote to Mrs X again in March, detailing the volume of applications that it received and explaining that there was a serious shortage of social housing available. It set out the options for pursuing a change of housing situation, including renting in the private sector. It did not address directly her complaint of significant overcrowding, other than to note that she was lacking two bedrooms.
14. Mrs X wrote to the Council again, asking it to respond to her complaint of overcrowding. The Council replied in May, in similar terms to the March letter.
15. Mrs X complained further, and the Council replied in July, directing Mrs X to complete its online overcrowding form. When she did so, her case was allocated to an Environmental Health Officer (the first EHO).
16. The first EHO contacted Mrs X, advising that he would visit her in August to carry out an inspection of her property. He did so in September, but left the employment of the Council before completing his report. Mrs X was not informed of this change, and her case was not handed over to another member of staff.
17. Mrs X contacted the Council in October, asking for the outcome of the first EHO’s visit. She chased this contact up, but received no response until January 2024.

2024

18. The Council responded to Mrs X in January 2024, at Stage 1 of its complaints procedure. That letter referred to repair issues and temporary accommodation, neither of which applied in Mrs X’s case. It also included an apology for the lack of contact from the first EHO, and confirmed that her case had been passed to a different EHO. The Council reiterated that Mrs X was in Band B and was able to bid on five bedroomed properties.
19. In February, Mrs X asked for her complaint to be escalated to Stage 2 of the Council’s complaints process. The Council replied in March. That letter included an apology for the delay in responding, an explanation that the first EHO had left the employment of the Council, and an assurance that Mrs X’s case had been reassigned to the Council’s Principal EHO to arrange an inspection of her flat.
20. Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman later in March.
21. During the period of our involvement, an EHO carried out an informal inspection of the property in April. In late May, the Council carried out a formal inspection under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Councils use the HHSRS to assess the condition of residential housing. The HHSRS looks at the risks to the health and safety of occupants or visitors to a particular property. The HHSRS calls these risks ‘hazards’. There are Category 1 and Category 2 hazards. Category 1 hazards are the most serious, and Council must, by law, take action in response to these.
22. Category 1 overcrowding, resulting in a space hazard, was noted during the informal inspection in April. This was confirmed during the formal HHSRS inspection in May. The outcome was that the Council issued a suspended Prohibition Order in June 2024.
23. The Council told us that “If Environmental Health make a referral and the referral is accept[ed] and the applicants are successfully verified, the customer would be moved to Band A.”

My findings – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

24. In her first contact with the Council, in February 2023, Mrs X made reference to being overcrowded. This should have resulted in advice from the Council to complete its overcrowding form. That the Council did not provide this advice until July 2023 was fault. It resulted in injustice in the form of a delay of five months before Mrs X submitted the overcrowding form, and became eligible for an inspection.
25. Mrs X had submitted her first contact through the Council’s online complaint form, and included in that a request for an urgent response to her complaint. The Council treated this contact as a request to join the Council’s housing register, rather than a complaint about overcrowding. This meant that the Council did not provide a response to Mrs X’s complaint until she chased. This was also fault.
26. Once Mrs X submitted an overcrowding notification in July 2023, a formal HHSRS inspection should have been completed, resulting in the issuing of a suspended Prohibition Order. The Council should have ensured that any cases left open when the first EHO left the Council were reallocated to another member of staff to complete. That this did not happen was fault, leading to drift and delay in Mrs X’s case.
27. When Mrs X alerted the Council, in October 2023, to the fact that her case had not been completed by the first EHO, it should have taken action to ensure that a formal inspection was completed promptly. That this did not take place until late May 2024, eight months later, was fault.
28. I consider that, had the Council acted without fault at the points I have identified, the formal inspection could have been completed, and the outcome determined, by June 2023, one calendar year earlier.

Back to top

Agreed actions

29. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Mrs X for its failures in response to her communications and her complaints, taking account of our published guidance on remedies (section 3.2) which sets out our expectations on what an effective apology should contain;
• (assuming that the process set out at paragraph 23 is completed successfully), backdate Mrs X’s place on Band A of the housing register to June 2023;
• pay Mrs X £700 to reflect the time, trouble and distress its faults caused her. This is a symbolic amount in line with our published guidance on remedies; and
• provide us with an explanation about how it will ensure that open cases will be reallocated and progressed following the departure of EHOs.
30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have found fault by the Council causing injustice. I have completed my investigation on the basis the Council has agreed to carry out the above actions as a suitable way of remedying the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman