Summary: Miss F complained about the way the Council handled her housing register application and has given her an incorrect priority banding. We find the Council at fault for the way it handled Miss F’s housing register application. The Council has already taken suitable action to remedy the injustice caused to Miss F, so we have not made further recommendations.

The complaint

1. Miss F complained the Council:
• Were negligent in dealing with her housing bidding account and left her account suspended for extended periods of time.
• Ignored important information included with her housing application.
• Delayed in issuing a stage two complaint response.
• Delayed in issuing the compensation payment following the stage two complaint outcome.
• Has incorrectly awarded her band 2 priority when she is eligible for band 1 due to being medically overcrowded.
• Has left her mutual exchange account under review since 2019.
  
  Miss F says she believes she has missed out on securing suitable accommodation due to faults by the Council. She also says her family’s mental health has been impacted and she is fearful of leaving her home. Miss F would like the Council’s actions to be investigated, her bidding account upgraded to band 1 priority and compensation to reflect the pain and suffering she has experienced.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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

4. I have investigated the Council’s handling of Miss F’s housing application from March 2022.
5. I have not investigated Miss F’s complaint about her mutual exchange account as this is a matter for the Housing Ombudsman.
6. I have not investigated the delay in the Council providing the financial remedy following the stage two complaint response. The Council have now paid the remedy and further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I discussed the complaint with Miss F and considered the evidence she provided.
8. I considered the Council’s complaint responses and published allocations policy.
9. Miss F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

10. 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))
11. 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))

12. The Council’s published allocations scheme explains the Council assess each applicant’s circumstances and places them in one of four bands, bands 1-4. Priority is accorded by a priority star system as well as the date of registration.
13. Priority stars are awarded in the following circumstances:
• To people owed a statutory homelessness duty.
• To people living in unsanitary or statutory overcrowded housing or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions.
• To people who need to move on severe medical or welfare grounds.
• To people who need to move to a particular locality in the district of the authority where failure to meet their needs would be detrimental to their health and wellbeing and cause severe hardship.
• To working households.
• To applicants who are undertaking a voluntary contribution to their local community in accordance with the allocation scheme.
14. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
15. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

What happened

Housing application

16. Miss F applied to join the Council’s housing register in February 2019.
17. Miss F contacted the Council about her application in March 2022. Following advice from the Council, Miss F completed a change of circumstances form and added her children to her application.
18. The Council assessed Miss F’s change of circumstances in June 2022 and requested more information to support the application. The Council suspended Miss F’s application from this date while it awaited further information.
19. Miss F attended an appointment in September 2022 to provide the information. However, she did not provide all the information needed to support her application. The Council contacted Miss F in November 2022 to request the outstanding documents, which Miss F provided the same day.
20. The Council processed Miss F’s updated application in December 2022. This is a delay of three weeks from the point the Council received the requested information.
21. The Council completed an assessment of Miss F’s application in June 2023. Considering medical information which Miss F sent in September 2022, the Council awarded Miss F band 2 priority with a priority star for medical needs. The Council accept there was a delay in the processing of Miss F’s medical evidence.
22. The Council has confirmed Miss F did not miss any housing offers due to the faults identified. All offers made between September 2022 and June 2023 went to applicants who had a higher bidding priority than Miss F.
23. Miss F has provided evidence a women’s aid charity sent an email in support of her wish to move to a new property. The Council told Miss F it had no record of receiving correspondence from the women’s aid charity. It also told Miss F that an email from the charity is not the correct process for requesting an emergency transfer. In line with its allocations policy, the Council advised Miss F to contact her Resident Services Officer who may be able to support the request for an emergency transfer.

Complaint handling

24. Miss F has put in several complaints to the Council about her housing application since August 2023. The Council has completed its complaints process for each of these complaints.
25. In the final stage two response for Miss F’s most recent complaint the Council bought together the faults identified in Miss F’s complaints. It offered an apology and total remedy payment of £600.
26. The Council has paid the outstanding remedy payment.

My findings

27. The Council has admitted fault in the way it has handled Miss F’s housing application. The Council has apologised and made a symbolic payment to Miss F to remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified. The Council’s remedy is in line with our Guidance on Remedies, so we have not made any further remedy recommendations.
28. Medical overcrowding is not part of the Council’s priority banding. Although the evidence confirms Miss F’s son requires his own bedroom due to his medical needs, this does not mean the family meet the statutory definition of being overcrowded. The Council has correctly awarded Miss F’s priority based on her child’s medical needs.
29. There is no fault in the Council not completing an emergency transfer. The process for emergency transfers is set out in the Council’s housing policy and the Council correctly signposted Miss F to her Resident Services Officer to explore this further.
30. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council awarded Miss F’s priority banding.

Back to top

Final decision

31. We uphold this complaint. The Council has already remedied the injustice caused to Miss F.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman