Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed processing his housing register application. Mr X said he was unable to bid for properties and has lived in unsuitable conditions for longer than necessary. We have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action of an apology, symbolic payment, backdating the outcome of the application and a review to identify any missed bidding opportunities provides a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X complains the Council excessively delayed processing his application to join its housing register from May 2022. Mr X says because of the Council’s fault he was unable to bid for properties for over 18 months and has lived in overcrowded conditions with a family member for longer than necessary. Mr X says this has affected his physical well-being and caused him avoidable uncertainty, frustration, and distress.

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 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)
3. 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)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I read the papers provided by Mr X and the note of his telephone discussion with a colleague. I have also considered information from the Council. I have explained my draft decision to Mr X and the Council and provided an opportunity for comment.
8. We have exercised the discretion available to the Ombudsman to accept a late complaint from Mr X about events from May 2022 as we consider he has provided good reason for not coming to the Ombudsman sooner.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

9. 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)).
10. 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))

The Council’s allocation scheme

11. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties. The scheme uses rehousing bands to give reasonable preference to those as set out above. Applicants are placed into one of four rehousing bands and a priority star system is used to decide priority within each band together with the priority award date.

Key events

12. The following is a summary of key events. It does not include everything that happened.
13. Mr X made an application to join the Council’s housing register towards the end of May 2022. Mr X explained in his application that he lived in a one bedroom flat with a family member and struggled with sleeping on a sofa due to spinal mobility issues following back surgery. The Council sought supporting medical information from Mr X which Mr X provided.
14. Mr X contacted the Council’s contact centre in early June and was advised to send documents to the housing application team. Mr X contacted the Council’s contact centre in October to say he had emailed documents. The Council confirmed there was no record of receiving the documents. Mr X provided some documents to the Council at the start of November.
15. The Council referred Mr X’s application to its independent medical advisor in early December.
16. The Council wrote to Mr X at the start of January 2023 to say it required further documents to complete the registration process for his application to join the housing register and attached a list.
17. The Council also wrote separately to Mr X in January to confirm it had assessed his medical information and concluded he did not have a medical requirement for a move. The Council set out Mr X’s right to seek a review of this decision. Mr X sought an immediate review of the Council’s decision about his medical priority.
18. The Council provided its review decision to Mr X at the end of August. This confirmed the original decision was upheld. The Council apologised for the delay in providing an outcome to Mr X’s review request and for the lack of communication about the delay. The Council set out details of the information it had considered and the reasons for its decision Mr X did not have a medical need to move. The Council noted overcrowding was an issue and currently the application had been assessed as priority Band 3 with an overcrowding priority. The Council highlighted Mr X’s application had not been fully assessed as there remained outstanding information that had been requested in January 2023.
19. I am satisfied there was an unacceptable delay in providing an outcome to Mr X in response to his review request. This is fault. However, I have seen no other evidence of fault in the decision-making process that would lead me to question the review decision itself. The Council has provided good evidence it properly considered all the relevant information and provided cogent reasons for its decision to Mr X. In these circumstances, it is not open to the Ombudsman to question the decision reached.
20. The Council wrote to Mr X at the end of August with a list of documents that were still required to complete the registration process. The Council has no record of receiving this information from Mr X.
21. Mr X complained to the Council at the end of November to say he had applied to join the housing register in May 2022 but had still not received a bidding number despite providing the information requested. The Council provided a response to Mr X in early December. The Council said it would review all the existing documents and request any necessary missing information.
22. Mr X provided further documents to the Council in early December. The Council completed its assessment of Mr X’s application in mid-January and made the account active from that date. There is no evidence the Council advised Mr X of this outcome at the time.
23. Mr X complained again to the Council in January 2024 as he said he was still unable to bid for properties. The Council confirmed it had made the application active in January as Band 3 as set out above and apologised for any distress the delay had caused. The Council explained the delay was due to a backlog of applications.

24. In responding to the Ombudsman, the Council accepted that it could have been clearer about the information required in its original contact with Mr X in May 2022 and provided better communication with Mr X throughout the process. The Council accepted it did not make clear what documents were required until early January 2023. The Council notes Mr X then engaged the review process and did not provide all the relevant documents until early December 2023 despite receiving a reminder about what outstanding information was required at the end of August. The Council also accepted that there was significant delay between Mr X’s review request in January and the outcome at the end of August as the expected timescale is 28 days. There was then a further short delay in processing Mr X’s application following receipt of all the documents in December 2023 until mid-January 2024.
25. In view of the accepted fault, the Council proposed backdating Mr X’s application priority from 15 January 2024 to 10 November 2022. The Council would also complete a missed opportunity exercise from that date to June 2024. I consider in all the circumstances; the Council’s proposal is not unreasonable and provides a partial remedy to Mr X’s complaint. However, I am also satisfied Mr X will have suffered avoidable frustration and uncertainty which requires an additional remedy.
26. The Council has also provided details to the Ombudsman of its action to address the backlog highlighted in this complaint including providing additional resources. The Ombudsman would welcome this action and I have not made a service improvement recommendation accordingly. However, the Council has acknowledged further work is required to address this issue and it is likely we would wish to have further details if the issues remain in any subsequent complaints we receive.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. The Council will take the following action within one month of my final decision to provide a suitable remedy to Mr X:
1. write to Mr X to apologise for the delay in completing the review of his medical priority and the delay in processing his housing application due to poor communication;
2. write to Mr X to confirm the backdating of his housing register application award to 10 November 2022;
3. make a symbolic payment to Mr X of £300 to recognise his avoidable frustration and uncertainty;
4. complete a review of the bidding history from November 2022 to date to identify any missed opportunities for Mr X to have made a successful bid for a property and provide this information to the Ombudsman; and
5. if the above review of the bidding history identifies any such missed opportunity, the Council should advise Mr X and consider a payment for living in overcrowded conditions for longer than necessary in accordance with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
28. It would remain open to Mr X to make a new complaint to the Ombudsman about the outcome of the Council’s bidding history review in due course.

29. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation as I have found fault but consider the agreed action above provides a suitable remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman