Summary: the Council failed to properly consider Miss B’s evidence when completing a banding review. An apology to Miss B and agreement to carry out a further review is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss B, complained the Council failed to take into account her daughter’s circumstances when considering her request for a banding review.
2. Miss B says the Council’s failure to consider her evidence has caused her significant distress and has resulted in her and her children experiencing violence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Miss B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
6. Miss B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s home choice policy

7. This says applicants eligible for the housing needs register will be placed in one of three priority bands depending upon the information provided on the housing application.
8. Band A includes applicants in exceptional circumstances including those in immediate danger of violence, which is at the discretion of officers.
9. Band B includes those with urgent medical or disability, exacerbated due to current property conditions, with a medical assessment supporting the applicant’s need to be rehoused.

What happened

10. One of Miss B’s children has autistic spectrum disorder and global developmental delay. The Council placed Miss B in band B on its housing register in October 2023 to reflect her daughter’s medical needs.
11. In February 2024 Miss B requested a review of that banding and provided supporting medical evidence. The Council wrote to Miss B in April 2024 to tell her it could not award her band A and considered band B the right band for her situation.

Analysis

12. Miss B says the Council, in considering her request for a banding review, failed to take into account her daughter’s circumstances. Miss B says she believes she should qualify for band A as her current property is having a significant impact on her daughter which is leading to violence from her daughter towards other family members.
13. I have considered the letter the Council sent Miss B telling her about the outcome of the review. The Council did not provide any explanation in that letter about why it did not consider Miss B qualified for band A. The Council accepts it could have provided further detail in that letter. As that letter does not refer to the evidence Miss B provided about her daughter becoming violent towards other family members as a result of difficulties living in her current property I could not say the Council properly considered her evidence in reaching its decision on her banding review request.
14. I also have a copy of the brief notes the officer that completed the banding reviewed kept. Those notes go further than the letter the Council sent Miss B as they say the adaptations required to the current property can be secured in a private rented property as well as in social housing as the adaptations were to manage behaviour. However, there is no reference in that note to the points Miss B raised about her daughter becoming violent to her siblings due to the difficulties living in the current accommodation which is also information the medical professionals provided. As there is no reference in the Council’s assessment to what view it took of that and whether it warranted band A priority I cannot be satisfied the Council properly took Miss B’s evidence into account. That is fault.
15. As remedy I recommended the Council apologise to Miss B and carry out a further review of Miss B’s banding to decide whether it is satisfied there is an immediate danger of violence which would warrant band A priority. The Council should then write to Miss B to explain its decision. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

16. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Miss B for the distress she experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• carry out a further review of Miss B’s banding and then write to her to tell her about the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman