Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed processing his housing application and carrying out a medical assessment. He also complained about the Council’s decisions regarding his housing priority and restrictions on certain types of property. We have ended our investigation of Mr X’s complaint. The Council accepted faults in communication, complaint handling, and delays in processing Mr X’s application. It apologised, backdated Mr X’s housing priority, offered a suitable financial remedy, and offered Mr X a review of its decision on property restrictions. Further investigation by the Ombudsman could not achieve any more for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
1. Delayed processing his application to join its housing register and delayed arranging a medical assessment.
2. Failed to properly consider the impact of his housing circumstances on his medical conditions and overall wellbeing when assigning his housing priority.
3. Had in place a restrictive allocations scheme that limited Mr X’s opportunities for properties that would meet his needs.
4. Failed to communicate effectively about this matter.

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. 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.
4. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered information Mr X provided about the complaint.
7. I considered information the Council provided about the complaint.
8. Both Mr X and the Council were able to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

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. 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; and
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

Council’s allocations scheme

12. Mr X’s complaint spans a period in which the Council withdrew one allocations scheme and implemented a new scheme, in April 2024. There are some differences between the two schemes. Relevant to this complaint, the Council’s current scheme says:
1. There are four housing priority bands, with Band 1 being the highest.
2. Applicants awarded Health Priority 1 will be placed in Band 1. Health Priority 1 includes those “with an emergency medical need and who have high risk of significant and immediate harm in their existing home and which cannot be managed.”
3. Applicants awarded Health Priority 2 will be placed in Band 2.
4. There are restrictions on certain types of property, meaning some applicants cannot bid on them. The scheme states:

“The main restrictions are in ground floor flats, independent living schemes, bungalows or adapted properties where, in most cases, we restrict access to people over 60 or who have disabilities that require a certain type of accommodation or facility, although we may also apply restrictions on an individual basis.

5. Further, the scheme states:

“Where we have vacancies in properties with restrictions, we will only consider those applicants meeting the matching rule for that particular vacancy. This means that we may bypass a higher priority applicant if they do not match the property-matching rules.”

13. 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.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of key events

14. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.
15. The Council has set up a company (Landlord Y) that manages its housing stock on its behalf. The Council’s allocations scheme confirms Landlord Y manages applications to join its choice-based lettings scheme and allocates housing priority in most scenarios. Much of Mr X’s contact was with Landlord Y. However, as Landlord Y is acting on the Council’s behalf, the Council remains responsible for its actions. For ease of reference, I refer only to the Council in this statement.
16. In 2023, Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register. Mr X said his application was subject to several delays. He said it took the Council four months to process his application. He said the Council then provided incorrect information for two months, and took a further three months to complete a medical assessment. Following this, the Council wrote to Mr X to confirm he was in priority Band 2.
17. In February 2024, Mr X asked the Council to review his housing priority:
1. Mr X said Band 2 did not seem to be urgent. He regularly came low when bidding for properties. Mr X said his living circumstances were not sustainable, due to the impact on Mr X and his family members.
2. Mr X said he could not properly bathe in his property. He said the Council had not understood his medical conditions. Mr X said he lived in a single room, which suffered from a mould problem. He said this affected his mobility and mental health.
3. Mr X said the Council should reconsider his priority and place him in Band 1.
18. In March 2024, the Council responded to Mr X:
1. The Council said it had reviewed Mr X’s priority, but agreed with its original decision.
2. The Council said it had accounted for Mr X sleeping in one downstairs room and his limited mobility. It said it had also considered his other medical conditions and the relationship with other members of the household. It said it had offered advice about the damp and mould in the room. It said Mr X’s priority would remain Band 2.
19. Mr X approached the Ombudsman.
20. In May 2024, Mr X complained to the Council about it rejecting his bid for a specific property due to age-restrictions. Mr X said restricting bids on certain properties was discriminatory towards those applicants with disabilities. He asked the Council to review the policy. He also said the Council had not responded to previous complaints about this.
21. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint:
1. The Council said its lettings policy confirmed it reserved some properties for applicants over the age of 60. It said it approved these restrictions in 2014, following a public consultation and an analysis of its housing stock profile. The Council said it would be reviewing these restrictions, but it had to allocate properties in accordance with the scheme in place.
2. The Council said it could discount these restrictions where an applicant under 60 had exceptional needs. The Council said it had considered whether this applied in Mr X’s case and decided it did not. This was because:
1. There was a good supply of non-age restricted properties in the locations Mr X wished to move to.
2. Mr X had said he needed a detached property. However, the Council said Mr X had bid on semi-detached properties. The Council said it had not received medical evidence to suggest a detached property was necessary.
3. Mr X had said he needed two bedrooms as he may need overnight care. However, the Council said Mr X did not have current overnight care and there was no current medical evidence to say this was needed. The Council said it was reasonable for Mr X to consider one-bed properties and two-bed properties. It said if Mr X accepted a one-bed property and his care needs later changed, the Council could reflect this change on his application.
4. The Council said one- and two-bed properties in Mr X’s preferred location were in good supply and it anticipated he could be rehoused reasonably quickly.
3. The Council apologised for failing to respond to a complaint Mr X made in March 2024. It said this was due to an administrative error. It had acted to prevent this from happening again.
4. The Council said it had applied its allocations scheme fairly, but agreed it had not responded to Mr X’s complaint. It apologised and offered Mr X a £100 financial remedy in recognition of the inconvenience caused.
22. Mr X escalated his complaint. The Council responded:
1. The Council said it assessed Mr X as being in Band 2 under both its current and former lettings policies. It said Band 2 was correct, based on Mr X’s submissions, but recognised it had delayed issuing its review decision.
2. The Council said under its previous scheme, it awarded Band 1 priority for applicants in emergency need, requiring immediate re-housing. The relevant criteria specified severe medical needs. The Council accepted Mr X had both physical and mental health needs. However, it said Mr X’s medical evidence did not show his home presented a severe risk in the immediate future, or show a severe harmful impact on Mr X’s health. The Council provided some detail about how it had considered Mr X’s supporting evidence, accounting for the facilities in his home. It said Mr X received the lowest personal independence payment (PIP) award, suggesting his mobility needs were not severe. It said Mr X did not meet the other criteria for Band 1 under its old policy.
3. The Council said under its new scheme, it awarded Band 1 priority when applicants had an emergency medical need. This specified a high risk of immediate and significant harm in their existing home, which could not be managed. The Council said the same rationale applied under the new scheme. It said Mr X did not meet any of the criteria for Band 1.
4. While the Council said Band 2 was the correct priority, it said there had been procedural failings. Its previous scheme entitled Mr X to a review by an independent panel, which it had not told Mr X about. The Council had also failed to tell Mr X he could ask for an assessment under homelessness legislation. The Council said it could not say what would have happened in either case, but believed this would not have made a difference. It also said the online advice it provided about mould was inaccessible for Mr X. Further, the Council agreed it missed opportunities to explain to Mr X why it restricted certain properties by age. It said it could have given clearer advice.
5. The Council accepted it delayed registering Mr X’s application by 13 weeks. It said between April 2023 and December 2023, it reviewed all its housing applications to prepare for its new lettings policy. It said this had affected its ability to process applications within normal timescales. The Council said it had prioritised urgent applications during this period, but there had been no suggestion Mr X’s application was urgent. It said it should have updated its online information to explain what was happening, but it had not done this until the end of August 2023. It accepted this delay caused Mr X avoidable frustration. The Council said it had checked and Mr X had not missed any opportunities because of the delay.
6. The Council said Mr X provided medical information in September 2023. It said it had no record it told Mr X he would need to complete a medical assessment form. When Mr X later completed a medical assessment form, in October 2023, the Council said it should have completed the assessment within 10 working days. This did not happen and Mr X chased the Council in November and December 2023. The Council eventually completed the assessment in January 2024. This resulted in Band 2 priority, backdated to October 2023.
7. The Council said the high volume of assessments completed before the new scheme was introduced caused these delays. It accepted its failure to respond to Mr X or recognise Mr X’s complaint. The Council apologised for this. It said Mr X had not missed any housing opportunities due to the delay and confirmed it had backdated Mr X’s Band 2 priority to September 2023.
8. The Council said wait times were affected by the number of vacancies, an applicant’s priority and their choices. It said it could not increase an applicant’s priority based on long wait times. The Council recognised Mr X’s preference for a specific type of two-bed property, but said considering one-bed properties would improve Mr X’s chances of being rehoused.
9. The Council detailed a recent phone call with Mr X, about its decision not to disapply property restrictions. The Council had agreed to a further review of this decision by a senior officer, with Mr X being able to provide further evidence.
10. The Council increased the financial remedy, offering £400 in recognition of its failures in complaint handling, the delays Mr X experienced, and the Council’s communication failures. The Council also explained what steps it was taking to make sure these faults did not occur for others.

Analysis

23. The Council offered detail on the wait times for certain property types and explained what steps Mr X could take to improve his chances of being rehoused. It explained why it adopted restrictions on certain property types and clarified why it did not think it was correct to disapply these for Mr X. I am satisfied the Council has shown it considered its discretion in this case. While I recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s position, the Council would not be at fault for applying its allocations scheme. The Council offered Mr X a review of this decision and the opportunity to supply further evidence, which was appropriate. The Council told the Ombudsman Mr X had not yet supplied this evidence, but the offer of a review remained available.
24. The Council explained in detail how it applied its policy and decided Mr X’s priority was correct, accounting for the evidence it received. The Council accepted it delayed registering Mr X’s housing application. It also accepted delays in conducting a medical assessment. It explained why this happened and what steps it was taking to make sure it did not happen again.
25. The Council accepted procedural faults and communication failures. It explained why these happened and recognised what steps it should have taken instead. It also accepted complaint handling and communication errors.
26. I agree with the Council’s findings of fault and injustice. The Council apologised and offered a financial remedy in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance. It confirmed Mr X had not missed any housing opportunities because of these faults. It also backdated Mr X’s priority and offered a discretionary review of its decision on age-related property restrictions.
27. I believe the remedies the Council offered are suitable. Further investigation by the Ombudsman could not achieve anything more for Mr X. I have ended my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have ended my investigation. The Council acted to address the injustice caused to Mr X and offered a further review of its decision. The Ombudsman could not achieve anything more for Mr X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman