Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not complete a review of its decision on his housing allocations banding, which he requested in August 2023. The Council was at fault. It will complete the review and tell Mr X of the outcome, and pay him £300 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty he has been caused by the 15-month delay.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not complete a review of its decision on his housing allocations banding which he requested in August 2023. Mr X said this caused him distress and frustration. Mr X wanted the Council to review its decision, tell him the outcome and to provide a financial remedy for the frustration he experienced.

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 may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, 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. I read the documents Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him on the phone.
6. I considered the documents the Council sent in response to my enquiries.
7. Mr X and the Council 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

Legislation and guidance

8. 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))
9. 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))

10. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))

Haringey’s housing allocation policy

11. The Council’s scheme has three bands. Band A contains the applicants in the highest housing need, and Band C the applicants in lowest need.

What happened

12. At the time of this complaint Mr X lived with his partner and child in a one-bedroom Council property. In 2023 Mr X asked the Council to review his banding for housing allocations based on his medical needs.
13. The Council provided its decision on the application for housing and awarded Mr X Band C priority at the end of July 2023. It told Mr X of his right of review if he disagreed with the decision.
14. Mr X requested a review of the decision at the beginning of August 2023. The Council accepted the request a few day later and said it would provide an outcome in 56 days.
15. In mid-November Mr X made another written request for review and provided supporting evidence. He said the Council had not considered his medical needs. Mr X set out the impact living in the current property was having on his health and provided medical evidence. Mr X also said his family was already overcrowded and they were expecting another child.
16. Mr X did not hear anything from the Council and complained in February 2024. He said the Council had not carried out the review he requested in August 2023.
17. The Council responded within the month and said a staff shortage had resulted in a backlog. It said it would complete the review within the next few weeks.
18. Mr X complained to the Council again at the end of May 2024. He said the Council had not carried out the review in the few weeks it promised in its previous response.
19. The Council apologised for the significant delay. It said the delay was caused by the pressure of increased review requests, homelessness and a lack of housing supply across London. It said it was currently increasing its resources to meet demand and expected to have cleared all existing cases by the end of September 2024. It told Mr X if it issued any priority award to him when it carried out the review, it would backdate the award appropriately.
20. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response Mr X complained to us.
21. On the last day of December 2024 the Council contacted Mr X. It apologised for the very long wait he experienced and asked him for further medical evidence.

Further information and others affected

22. In response to my enquiries the Council told me in January 2025 that 15 people had been waiting for the Council to review a banding decision for between 6 and 12 months, and 30 people had been waiting for a review for than 12 months.
23. In response to my enquiries the Council said for the majority of 2024 it had one reviewing officer and a part time reviews manager and had failed to recruit any suitable staff members. It said it had recently increased its staff to four full time officers and it expected this would provide the additional capacity to meet increased demand and reduce the backlog. It said it anticipated having no cases older than 12 months by April 2025 and no backlog by June 2025 at the latest.
24. The Council said for those affected by the delay it would backdate the priority date for applications where the priority award was increased as a result of a review. It would backdate the award to the date their circumstances changed to justify the increase, or in the case of medical priority, the date they applied for medical priority. If an applicant was awarded band A and was found to have missed out on an offer of accommodation because of delay, it would take steps to remedy any injustice, including, as appropriate, a direct offer of accommodation.

My findings

25. Mr X requested a review of the Council’s banding decision at the end of July 2023. The Council accepted the review request and said it would respond within 56 days. It should have responded by mid-October 2023. To date the Council has still not completed the review. That is a delay of 15 months and is fault. It has caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty. I cannot say what impact this has had on Mr X’s housing situation, as I cannot know what the outcome of the review will be. I have made a recommendation below to ensure the Council completes the review without delay and remedies Mr X’s injustice if the delay meant he missed out on an offer of accommodation.
26. The Council did not keep Mr X updated during the significant delay. It only responded to Mr X when he made complaints and did not proactively update Mr X when it failed to meet the initial 56-day review deadline, or any subsequent timescale it set out in its complaint responses. That was fault and contributed to the frustration and uncertainty Mr X experienced.

Others affected

27. In January 2025 the Council identified 45 other people who have also been affected by the delay identified in this investigation. The Council has set out the action it has taken to reduce its backlog and complete the reviews, and the actions it will take if it identifies any person has missed out an offer of accommodation because of the fault. These are appropriate remedies and I have therefore not made any further recommendations in relation to the other people affected.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. Within one month of this decision the Council will take the following actions:
• Complete the review of Mr X’s housing allocation priority and provided him with the outcome in writing. If the Council changes Mr X’s priority it will take the action set out in paragraph 24.
• Write to Mr X and apologise for the avoidable frustration and uncertainty caused to him by the Council’s fault. The Council will pay him £300 to recognise the same.
• Remind relevant staff to keep people informed where it is likely to, or has, missed a deadline it has set for itself to complete an action as a result of a complaint.
29. The Council will provide us with an update on its progress clearing the backlog of allocation review requests in three and six months following this decision.
30. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
31. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation. I found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy that injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman