Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly consider her housing application and supporting evidence, told her wrong information and failed to deal with her application for a Discretionary Housing Payment. Mrs X also said it has prevented her from moving to suitable accommodation. We find fault with the Council for misfiling Mrs X’s Discretionary Housing Payment application however this did not cause a significant injustice. We do not find fault with the Council for how it considered Mrs X’s housing application.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council:

• Failed to properly assess her housing application.
• Did not take her child’s medical issues into consideration when deciding on her priority bands.
• Told her the wrong information leading to her being sanctioned due to housing arrears.
• Failed to consider and deal with her Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) application.

2. Mrs X says she is living in unsuitable and overcrowded accommodation. She says the Council’s failure to deal with her applications properly has caused her distress, affected her and her family’s mental and physical health, and caused frustration and confusion.

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)
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information provided by Mrs X and the Council. I also considered the law and guidance set out below. Both parties now can comment on this draft statement. I have considered the comments received before issuing this final decision statement.

Back to top

What I found

Councils Housing Allocation Policy

7. The Council’s allocations policy manages four priority bands. These are

• C – Community contribution and homelessness prevention.
• H – homelessness.
• M – Medical and health assistance.
• R – reasonable preference.

8. The Council keeps a housing register of people who want to be considered for subsidised housing. The allocation scheme operates in accordance to the statutory provisions contained in the Housing Act 1996 (as amended)
9. Household composition determines the number of bedrooms in a home that an applicant can be awarded. The Council uses the bedroom standard recommended by the Secretary of State. This allocates a separate bedroom for:

• A married or co-habiting couple,
• A person aged 16 and over,
• Two children of the same sex up to the age of 16 and
• Two children aged under 10 years regardless of sex.

10. Extra bedrooms maybe allocated in exceptional circumstances (an extra bedroom maybe needed for a disabled child) who would normally be expected to share a bedroom. A senior officer must approve this.
11. Applicants should actively seek a property. If an applicant is not placing regular bids the Council may suspend their application. The Council will contact the applicant within seven days to explain their reason for not bidding.
12. Applicants with current rent arrears equivalent to a minimum of eight weeks rent will be considered ineligible for an offer of a property.
13. Applicants found to be ineligible will be suspended from the register for six months. The application will be reviewed and reassessed after this time and another suspension maybe applied. If after a further six-month suspension period, an applicant is still found to be ineligible they may be removed from the register.

Discretionary Housing Payment

14. Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) are only payable to applicants in receipt of housing benefit. As stated in the title these are discretionary as is the amount and period of payment. They are used to help applicants meet housing costs.
15. The Council aims to deal with DHP applications within 30 working days.

What happened

16. Mrs X made a housing application to the Council in 2018. The Council placed her on its register shortly after. Since then, her family has grown, and circumstances have changed.
17. The Council assessed Mrs X’s application and placed her in priority band R. However, it recognised there was a housing need on the grounds of overcrowding, and she could bid on a three bedroomed property.
18. Mrs X presented a medical report to the Council in 2019 explaining her eldest child suffered with ADHD. The application presented supported the need for the child to have a separate bedroom. The Council considered the new information and decided it would not change the priority banding as no medical needs were identified.
19. Mrs X says she fell into arrears in late 2020. Under the Council’s housing allocations policy an applicant cannot bid for a property if they have arrears equivalent to eight weeks rent. The Council suspended Mrs X from bidding on properties.
20. In 2021, the Council reviewed Mrs X’s suspension and decided it should continue for a further six months.
21. Mrs X says a housing officer told her on the telephone that she could bid even though she had arrears. The Council has no record of this conversation and so cannot say what was or was not said by either party. Mrs X says due to the Council’s failure to tell her the correct information she bid for a house. The Council suspended her bidding because of her arrears and did not restore her to the housing register until she had brought down her arrears.
22. In early 2022, Mrs X submitted a change of circumstances form. The Council considered this and amended her application to allow her to bid on four bedroomed homes.
23. Mrs X continued her search for housing and found suitable properties in the private sector. Mrs X pursued this alongside her social housing application. To help her with the rent she applied for a discretionary housing payment (DHP) in May 2022. Mrs X chased the Council for a reply to her DHP application when she did not receive a reply.
24. Mrs X complained to the Council in May 2022. She said:

• She had a disabled child that needed their own space.
• Her current living conditions were unsuitable and overcrowded.
• The Council had sanctioned her after giving her wrong information about her right to bid whilst in arrears.
• Her account had been restarted following the sanctions causing her to lose her priority.
• She was willing to take a three bedroomed house.

25. The Council responded in May 2022. It said:

• It had reinstated her housing application in September 2021 as her rent arrears were now under the eight-week threshold.
• It asked Mrs X to supply further medical information about her child’s disabilities so that it could consider carrying out an assessment on her household.
• It recognised Mrs X was frustrated at not resolving her housing situation but could not consider moving her to an unsuitable three bedroomed house.

26. Mrs X remained dissatisfied and requested her complaint be reviewed.
27. In its Stage Two response, the Council said:

• It had correctly followed its allocations policy.

• It made an error by placing Mrs X’s DHP application in the wrong place but was now assessing it.
• It had reconsidered the medical evidence Mrs X submitted in 2017 and 2019 and decided this did not change her priority banding. It asked Mrs X to supply further medical information for it to consider.

28. Mrs X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman in June 2022.
29. Mrs X said due to the delay in assessing her DHP application she believed she had lost the opportunity to bid on the house for which the family was eligible. The Council said the bidding process for social housing was independent of her application for a DHP to assist with privately renting.

The Council’s reply to my enquiries

30. The Council responded to my enquiries in September 2022. It said:

• It had considered her housing application and allocated her to Band C.
• It considered she was living in overcrowded conditions and had allowed her to bid for four bedroomed properties.
• It had assessed the submitted medical evidence in 2019, however, it had decided there was no evidence Mrs X’s accommodation was unsuitable on medical grounds as she did not need to move to an adapted home. It did not change Mrs X’s priority banding.
• It had sent Mrs X’s DHP to the wrong department.
• It met its timescale of 30 working days when assessing Mrs X’s DHP.
• It had asked Mrs X to provide it with further information to consider her DHP applications. However, it says she did not supply this.
• It now had a document management system in place to prevent the error happening again.
• It had no record of any conversations between the telephone advisor and Mrs X which are only held for six months.

Analysis

31. The Council accepts Mrs X’s family are living in overcrowded conditions. It awarded the family priority to bid for a four bedroomed property. I am satisfied the Council has considered Mrs X’s medical evidence in support of her application but did not find evidence that would change her priority banding. The Council invited her to provide further medical evidence in May 2022 which it said it would consider. Therefore, I find it properly considered her applications.
32. The Council’s housing allocations policy clearly states where there are significant arrears it will suspend an applicant’s right to bid on homes even if they are eligible until those arrears have been reduced. I have no reason to doubt Mrs X’s recollection of the telephone call with the housing officer and the Council cannot provide a record of the call. However, the Council applied its published policy, and I cannot find fault in that.
33. The Council accepts that it misfiled Mrs X’s DHP application. This was fault. The Council’s introduction of a new document management system may prevent a repetition of this fault. I am satisfied the Council dealt with the application within its 30-day target. It also requested further information from Mrs X before it could make its decision. Mrs X did not supply this information due to the properties in the private rented sector no longer being available. Therefore, I do not find the misfiling of the DHP application caused any significant injustice to Mrs X.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I find the Council was at fault for misfiling Mrs X’s DHP but find this did not cause a significant injustice to Mrs X. Also, I do not find fault with the Council for how it considered Mrs X’s housing application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman