Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to properly consider his housing application. The Council says it may have delayed consideration of the complainant’s application by up to two months, but the onus is on the applicant to provide information in support of housing need and priority. Once it had the necessary information the Council says it increased priority to the highest band. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted with fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council took too long to assess and then review his housing priority banding. Mr X says the Council also failed to properly consider his need for an extra bedroom when it first considered his housing needs. The Council has now awarded Mr X the highest priority banding and agreed his need for an extra bedroom.
2. Mr X says the Council’s delay has been devastating, delaying his chances of gaining a home by a year which impacted severely on his mental health. Mr X wants the Council to improve assessments, so another family does not have to go through the same stress particularly when it involves a vulnerable person.

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 satisfied with a council’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. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
6. The Ombudsman recognises the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. He 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

How I considered this complaint

7. In considering this complaint I have:
• Contacted Mr X’s representative and examined the evidence presented on his behalf;
• Put enquiries to the Council and studied its response;
• Researched the relevant law, guidance and Council policy and procedure;
• Shared with Mr X and the Council a draft decision and reflected on the comments received.

Back to top

What I found

The law & policy

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. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:

• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.

11. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
12. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
13. 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 – the Ombudsman believes 21 days is 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;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline the Ombudsman believes 8 weeks is reasonable.
14. The Localism Act 2011 introduced new freedoms to allow councils to better manage their waiting list and to tailor their allocation priorities to meet local needs.
15. The Council awards priority for housing using a priority banding scheme with Gold banding being the highest priority, silver second.

What happened

16. Mr X has a diagnosis of agoraphobia, anxiety and depression. Mr X has received mental health services since the age of 14 . Mr X says he is vulnerable but has successfully lived in his own home with support. However, in 2017 Mr X says his neighbour began harassing him and creating a noise nuisance. By June 2018 Mr X found this so intolerable he left his home to stay with his mother, Mrs Y, fearing to return home. Mr X says the neighbour put threatening letters through his door and caused disturbance by banging doors and walls.
17. On 15 June 2018 Mr X completed an online housing application. Mr X wanted to gain some independence and move from Mrs Y’s home. The Council’s housing application procedure says applicants should upload evidence in support of their housing application showing their housing need and priority. In July 2018 the Council emailed Mr X outlining the evidence he needed to provide to support his application including evidence of his local connection. Mr X says he had an address in the Council’s area and paid Council Tax so he believes the Council did not need to ask for further information about his local connection.
18. In August 2018 the Council asked Mr X for more information about the harassment he experienced. When the Council asked for a Police crime number it says Mr X provided one, but the Police and housing association could not locate any information attached to this crime number. The Council says the shortage of staff during the summer of 2018 probably delayed Mr X’s application by up to two months. The Council explained it did not have the staff to follow up evidence of harassment with external agencies.
19. Mr X’s mental health nurse wrote to the Council in August 2018 in support of Mr X’s application. He explained Mr X had experienced harassment since June 2017. The letter says Mr X’s neighbour put letters through the door saying Mr X had no right to live there and threatened to report him to his housing association. The letter says although the housing association had closed the harassment complaint the harassment and noise nuisance continued. The letter explains Mr X is a vulnerable adult who has received mental health support since the age of 14. In this letter the mental health nurse refers to Mr X’s weight loss. The mental health nurse gives his professional opinion the harassment caused “significant distress and…directly contributed to [Mr X’s] recent decline in mental health…”
20. In Mr X’s view the letter shows that in August 2018 he had housing and medical needs that warranted an award of gold priority rating.
21. In November 2018 the Council contacted Mr X’s housing association through whom he rents his home. The housing association confirmed it did not have an open harassment case but had dealt with harassment concerns from December 2017 to March 2018. The housing association said mediation had successfully addressed the harassment. However, Mr X had raised further concerns in August 2018 when the housing association told Mr X’s representative he needed to raise the issue with the Council and Police.
22. In December 2018 the Council assessed Mr X’s priority as silver, the second highest priority banding. The Council says the priority awarded reflected the lack of any open harassment cases. It also reflected the lack of evidence of complaints to the Council’s noise nuisance team or confirmation from the Police of any incidents involving harassment of Mr X. The Council says it awarded silver banding on medical grounds alone.
23. Mr X’s mental health nurse wrote again to the Council in January 2019 saying Mr X’s mental health had deteriorated due to living away from his home and he needed a move urgently. The letter explained Mr X had not made further complaints about the harassment due to the threats received. This also meant he could not move back to his home due to fear of reprisals.
24. The Council says Mr X did not challenge the silver banding until his representative contacted his Member of Parliament in 2018. The MP then wrote to the Council in January 2019 saying Mr X believed the silver banding to be wrong.
25. The Council in reply to the MP said Mr X must present a formal banding review and an officer also explained this to Mr X’s representative on 14 January 2019. On receiving the review application, the Council looked at the information presented and responded on 18 February 2019 confirming Mr X’s priority as within the silver priority band.
26. In April 2019 the Council awarded Mr X gold priority banding. The Council says this increase reflected new information received from the housing association in April 2019 and the mental health nurse’s letter of January 2019 explaining why Mr X could not return home.
27. Before it received the letter from the mental health nurse in January 2019 the Council says the information suggested there was no evidence of continuing harassment and noise nuisance.
28. The Council says Mr X first told the Council he needed a second bedroom so a carer could stay with him in April 2019. The mental health nurse supported this application. The Council included an extra bedroom in Mr X’s housing needs following proof of Mr X’s receipt of the higher rate Personal Independence Payment from the Department of Work and Pensions.
29. The Council says it does not have the staff to gather information. It relies on applicants providing information in support of their application for higher banding or a review of that banding. The onus it says is on the applicant. The Council says it told Mr X what evidence he needed to provide to help the Council assess and later review his priority. Officers did proactively contact the Police and housing association to find out more about the harassment and noise nuisance before deciding Mr X warranted an award of silver banding.

Analysis – was there fault leading to an injustice?

30. My role is to consider how the Council assessed Mr X’s housing application and whether it correctly applied its housing allocations policy having considered the information presented. It is not my role to say if Mr X should receive silver or gold priority banding, only whether the Council properly considered his priority.
31. Mr X is a vulnerable adult. That is clear from the information he presented to the Council. The information from his mental health nurse highlighted Mr X’s vulnerability.
32. Staff shortages the Council says may have added as much as two months to the time taken to decide Mr X’s application. It took from June 2018 to December 2018 to decide priority and that is too long. It should not have taken more than four months. The Council should have issued a decision by October 2018.
33. The Council raised enquiries with the housing association which had no record of any further harassment claims since August 2018. The Council followed up with the crime number given to officers but unfortunately this was the wrong crime number. The mental health nurse wrote twice. In August 2018 when he said Mr X continued to experience harassment. The he wrote again in January 2019 when he explained the impact on Mr X’s mental health of continuing to live at his mother’s address because of the harassment at his home address.
34. In the mental health nurse’s professional opinion, the harassment continued to have a harmful impact on Mr X’s mental health. Possibly putting him at risk. However, it was not until much later the Council learned why Mr X feared reporting further harassment. The evidence from the mental health nurse is not direct evidence of harassment. Unless the housing association continued to receive reports of harassment the Council could not base a decision to increase housing priority on the view of the mental health nurse alone. Therefore, without evidence of continued harassment through reported incidents to the Police or the housing association the Council did not increase Mr X’s priority banding.
35. I find the Council at fault for taking too long to decide the housing application priority.
36. We shall never know if, but for this fault, Mr X would have successfully bid on a new home. Mr X limited his area of preference because he needs support. The Council has shown it awarded vacancies falling within that area to applicants with higher priority within the allocations policy. This includes those within the gold priority band who had waited longer. Therefore, I find it is unlikely Mr X would have successfully bid on a new home but he still experienced frustration at the time taken.
37. Mr X needs a second bedroom to house a carer. Before moving to Mrs Y’s home in June 2018 Mr X’s partner occasionally stayed with him to support him. Mr X did not tell the Council about this need until April 2019 so it could not include this earlier in its assessment of housing need and priority.
38. The Council took from January 2019 to April 2019 to review Mr X’s priority rating. It delayed considering a review until it received a formal review request. That added about two weeks to the review. The MP’s letter should be enough for the Council to start the review even if it found it needed to ask for more information. It took longer than the recommended eight weeks for a review although not by a large margin.
39. We shall never know what may have happened but for the delay. However, given all homes allocated during this period on which Mr X could bid went to applicants with higher priority it is unlikely he would have been successful. That leaves Mr X not knowing if he may have been able to successfully bid for a property earlier. I have not seen any evidence he would have gained a property sooner.

Recommended and agreed action

40. To remedy the impact of the faults on Mr X I recommend, and the Council agrees within four weeks of my final decision to:
• Apologise to Mr X;
• Confirm it has backdated Mr X’s Gold Banding to February 2019;
• Pay Mr X £150 in recognition of the time, inconvenience and uncertainty caused.

Back to top

Final decision

41. In completing my investigation, I find the Council at fault in its consideration of Mr X’s housing application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman