Summary: Miss D says the Council failed to correctly assess her housing needs. We have found evidence of fault by the Council. We have completed the investigation and upheld the complaint. The Council has agreed to our proposed remedy including paying redress to Miss D.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) says the Council failed to correctly assess her household’s housing needs in 2023. She also says the Council delayed responding to her review requests.

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 future 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 spoken to Miss D and considered the information she provided. I asked the Council questions and examined its response.
5. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. Miss D applied to the Council for housing on 21 November 2022. Her family had expanded because she was now a permanent carer for two children who had been in care. She explained the circumstances to the Council and uploaded supporting documentation through January 2023. On 30 January the Council awarded Miss D band D status. On 2 March Miss D, via Citizens Advice, asked the Council to review the banding decision. She said she was overcrowded, and the Council should consider the social and welfare needs of the household. The Council should also consider medical priority. She enclosed a letter from a Social Worker which set out the circumstances of the children joining the household. On 27 March a Senior Housing Solutions Officer acknowledged the review request and told Miss D she would receive a response by 22 May.
7. On 2 May Miss D chased up the Council about the review outcome. On 19 May the Council asked Miss D how long the children would live with her, and Miss D confirmed it was a permanent arrangement. On 24 May the Council apologised to Miss D for the delay in sending a review decision, it gave an extended deadline of 30 June. On 9 June the Council asked Miss D’s GP for information to assess her medical banding. On 27 June Miss D told the Council the youngest child was outgrowing their cot and there was insufficient room in the property to properly meet their sleeping arrangements. On 7 July the Council told Miss D it was waiting for information from the GP. The Officer asked to carry out a home visit. A chaser email was then sent to the GP. Miss D replied the same day. Her GP had told her it had not received a request for information from the Council. She gave dates for a home visit. On 12 July the Council carried out a home visit, and no-one was home. I note this visit was done without agreement with Miss D and not on a date she had given as suitable.
8. On 2 August the Council chased up the GP who confirmed it had now received the request. On 22 August Miss D asked the Council what was happening with the review. It is unclear when the Council received the information from the GP. It referred the case to the Medical Adviser on 25 August and updated Miss D. On 30 August the Medical Advisor assessed the evidence provided and did not recommend any additional priority. The property was “medically suitable”. On 22 September the Council sent Miss D the review decision. It said she was correctly placed in band D. It had taken account of her evidence including the Social Worker’s letter. It recognised the household were overcrowded but there was no medical priority. It also said it had considered the social and welfare needs of the household. It had awarded an additional bedroom for overcrowding for the two children. There was no evidence the current home was unsuitable, or the children would have not been allowed to live there.
9. On 27 October Miss D submitted her second stage review request. She added medical information and pointed out the Social Worker’s letter specifically referred to the family needing a larger home and that “living in an overcrowded home could have a significant impact on the family”. She asked why the Council had disregarded this. The Council initially gave a deadline for replying of 21 November. On 8 November it extended the deadline to 1 December. The Council issued its second stage review decision on 1 December. It upheld the previous decision. It reiterated that social and welfare need had been considered and the family had been given an additional bedspace need in recognition of their overcrowding. There was no evidence of any exceptional circumstances.
10. I started my investigation on 1 July 2024. Soon afterwards the Council acknowledged it had been at fault in failing to consider the social and welfare needs of the household. It awarded the household band C status and backdated it to the start of 2023.

What should have happened

11. When a person applies to the Council to join the housing register, they will submit evidence to support their application. The Council will then assess the applicant’s housing need in line with its Allocations Policy. It awards an eligible applicant a band, there are five bands with A being the highest. Band C is an applicant with a high need to move, band D is an applicant with an identified housing need.
12. The Allocations Policy sets out how it assesses overcrowding. It calculates the number of rooms needed compared the number of rooms in the household (excluding bathrooms and kitchen). Severe overcrowding is where there is a lack of at least three rooms and other factors affecting the overcrowding.
13. The Council can also assess if an applicant should receive additional banding priority on medical grounds. The applicant must have evidence their condition is “affected by their housing circumstances”. The Council refers evidence to a Medical Advisor for advice. The Council will review the advice and evidence and then decide if the applicant should receive additional housing priority.
14. Under the social and welfare needs section of the Allocations Policy the Council should assess a household’s social and welfare needs “when there is an identified housing need not addressed in the banding assessment criteria”. This includes exceptional circumstances of a household giving care and support. The Council told me when carrying out assessments involving children who have been in care it will consider evidence from GPs, Social Workers and professionals working with the children so “the whole circumstances of the case” are assessed.
15. Where an applicant has two reasons to be in the same band the Council can consider “composite” housing need. The applicant would need one of the reasons to be overcrowding or medical need. If the Council accepts they have a composite need they are moved into the next band up.
16. An applicant will bid for properties advertised by the Council. The Council will usually award the property to the applicant with the highest priority.
17. Where an applicant disagrees with the band the Council awards they can ask for a review of the decision. They can have an initial review and a second stage review. In both cases the review should be completed within eight weeks, this can be extended where the Council has difficulty obtaining information.

Was there fault by the Council

18. The Council failed to adhere to its Allocations Policy and fully consider the social and welfare needs of the household. Miss D explained the circumstances leading to the housing application from the outset and provided the Social Worker’s letter. I have seen no evidence of the Council assessing that crucial information in line with procedures from January 2023 through to the second stage review response in December. Instead, the Council incorrectly said that it had accepted the family were now overcrowded and that was mixed in with its reasoning about why there was no additional social and welfare need. This is a serious error by the Council and concerning that three Officers made the same mistake at each stage of assessing the case. The Council has now recognised it was at fault in this matter. It accepts there was a focus on overcrowding by Officers and “a holistic assessment was not made”. It also says that it did not give sufficient consideration to the “specific social and welfare needs in our decision” and that it should have obtained up to date information from professionals involved with the children.
19. There was also delay progressing the initial review. The Council should have issued its decision by 22 May 2023, but it took until 22 September: a significant delay of four months. Most of that delay was avoidable. The evidence shows me the case was with an Officer for six weeks with no action being taken at the outset. After Miss D chased up the Council in May it still took the Officer until 9 June to ask the GP for information. A home visit was requested in July, four months after the review request was submitted. There were some issues obtaining information from the GP, but those delays could have been minimised had the Officer sought to actively progress and monitor the case. That did not happen, and it often fell to Miss D to chase up the Council and prompt activity.
20. I have not seen evidence of fault in how the rest of the housing application and reviews were considered including overcrowding and medical need. The Council followed the correct process including an assessment of the evidence.

Did the fault cause an injustice

21. The failings by the Council resulted in the family missing an opportunity to successfully bid for one suitable property during February 2023 to June 2024. Had the error not occurred the family may have been successful in securing a suitable property in June 2024. In addition, they were caused unnecessary time and trouble.

Back to top

Recommended action

22. The Council has offered to pay Miss D £800 towards moving expenses once she is successful bidding for a new home. It has already updated the household’s banding to band C. I welcome this action by the Council, however the level of injustice caused to Miss D’s family meant additional redress was required. The Council has now agreed to:
• Pay £200 for time and trouble incurred by Miss D because of the Council’s failings.
• Pay £600 for the period the family have had to remain in unsuitable accommodation since the June 2024 when they lost an opportunity to successfully bid for a property.
• Where a complainant has missed out on a property because of fault by the Council the Ombudsman can ask that a direct offer of the next suitable property available is made. That applies to this case; therefore, the Council will make a direct offer to Miss D for the next suitable property that it has to let.
• Provide training for relevant Officers about assessing social and welfare needs in line with the Allocations Policy. This should be completed within two months of the investigation ending.
23. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman