Wycombe District Council (18 018 396)

Category : Housing > Allocations

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 11 Sep 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed in dealing with two housing applications she submitted and then placed her family in the wrong priority banding. The Council has already admitted it was at fault when it delayed in dealing with the second housing application Ms X made. However, this did not cause her a significant personal injustice. The Council was also at fault when it failed to inform Ms X of her right to a review. The Council should review its procedures to help prevent similar faults occurring in the future. There was no fault in the way the Council decided Ms X’s priority banding.

The complaint

  1. Ms X complained that the Council:
    • failed to correctly consider her applications to join the housing register which she made in October 2017 and April 2018;
    • delayed in dealing with the application she made in April 2018; and
    • placed her and her family in the wrong priority banding.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
  3. If we are 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I spoke to Ms X and considered her view of her complaint.
  2. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided. This included applications and supporting information submitted by Ms X to join the housing register, medical assessments, details of waiting times for properties for Band C applicants and the Council’s Housing Allocations Policy.
  3. I gave the Council and Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. A council must have a scheme for allocating social housing within its area. This scheme must lay out the procedures the Council will follow in allocating housing. This will include information on who the council considers is eligible for housing. (Housing Act 1996 (amended), section 166A and 160ZA)
  2. This Council’s Housing Allocations Policy states a person is not eligible to join the Council’s housing register if they:
    • are an owner-occupier of a property; or
    • have current or former rent arrears owed to a registered provider or private landlord unless the Council is satisfied that action is being taken to resolve the matter.
  3. The policy states however that an owner-occupier will be a qualifying person if it is not possible for the person to remain at their current address, for example because adaptations are required and cannot be carried out at the property, and the person does not have sufficient financial resources available to secure other accommodation without the Council’s help.
  4. Some decisions made about a housing application, including decisions on qualification or eligibility, can be challenged by seeking a review with the council.
  5. The date a person is accepted onto the housing register is important. This is because allocations to suitable properties are made to applicants in date order.
  6. Under the Council’s housing allocations policy, applicants are placed in a priority band based on the information they provided with their application.
  7. Applicants with a possible medical condition can complete a self-assessment form. The Council will decide whether any medical priority should be awarded. In some cases, the Council will seek the advice of the District Medical Adviser. The Council has two bands for medical priority:
    • Band B – the current housing is having a severe adverse impact on the applicant or a family member’s health and their health will deteriorate if the applicant is not moved to a suitable property; and
    • Band C – the current housing is having a significant adverse impact on the applicant or a family member’s health, but the adverse impact will be reduced if the applicant is moved to a suitable property.
  8. Section 325 of the Housing Act 1985 deals with statutory overcrowding. The room standard states that there is statutory overcrowding when there are so many people in a property that any two or more of these people who are ten or over and of the opposite sex have to sleep in the same room (other than people living together as partners). Living rooms are considered as bedrooms and kitchens can be considered as bedrooms if they are big enough for a bed.
  9. The space standard looks at the number of rooms in the property over the size of 50 square feet. This says where there are three rooms, this is suitable for five people. Children under one are not counted for these purposes as a person and children under 10 years of age are counted as a ‘half person’.

What happened

  1. Ms X and her partner, Mr P, applied to join the housing register on 2 February 2017. The application stated:
    • they were owner-occupiers;
    • they could not afford to remain in their home;
    • someone in the household had a medical need/disability and their existing home was having an adverse effect on their health;
    • they had previously owned a property and were in arrears by £4,000.
  2. The application form said their son, Z, had a number of disabilities and needed more room to enable him to follow his treatment plans. He was also caused pain when he had to climb the three flights of stairs to their flat.
  3. The Council responded on 2 March 2017. It said Ms X and her family did not qualify to join the register because they were owner-occupiers. The response signposted them to information for dealing with mortgage arrears and possible housing options.
  4. The letter informed Ms X she had 21 days to request a review of the Council’s decision. Ms X did not make a request.
  5. On 12 April 2018, Ms X and Mr P made a second application to join the housing register. This contained additional details about how their housing affected their Z.
  6. Ms X included information about Z from their doctors and a Council Occupational Therapist (OT) who had assessed Z.
  7. The OT report stated there were a number of issues with the current property with regard to sleeping arrangements, bathing, access and lack of garden. Ms X had also provided the OT with additional medical and school reports which indicated Z needed his own bedroom.
  8. The OT stated it was not possible to adapt the property to meet Z’s needs.
  9. The Council requested advice from the District Medical Adviser (DMA) who responded on 15 June. The DMA noted the medical advice submitted by Ms X and recorded a medical banding was justified to allow the family to relocate to a three bedroom property. The DMA recommended Band C priority if the family joined the housing register.
  10. The Council wrote to Ms X on 27 November 2018 and informed her she was ineligible to join the housing register because she and Mr P were owner-occupiers. The letter failed to inform her of her appeal rights.
  11. Ms X made a formal complaint to the Council on 1 December 2018. She said she had had to wait around eight months for a response to her housing application.
  12. The Council wrote to Ms X on 6 December and stated that it had carried out a review of its decision. It said that having taken all the information into account and having sought advice from the DMA, it had decided to make an exception to the Allocation Policy and to allow the family, as an owner-occupier, onto the housing register. The letter said that due to Z’s medical needs the Council would seek a property with level access, a toilet on each floor and with the capacity to accommodate a walk in shower in the future. The Council awarded the family Band C and backdated the registration date to April 2018, which was when Ms X made the application.
  13. In February 2019, Ms X informed the Council she was pregnant. The Council responded and said it had updated her application but due to the age of her children no additional priority would be awarded.
  14. Ms X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.

Council response to Ombudsman enquiries

  1. In its response to my enquiries, the Council admitted it delayed in dealing with Ms X’s second application.
  2. However, it said it had backdated the registration date to April 2018, which was when Ms X submitted her second housing application. The Council said that the average waiting time for a three bedroom property for a family in Band C was three years.

My findings

Council’s handling of Ms X’s housing applications

  1. The Council has admitted it was at fault when it delayed in dealing with Ms X’s second application. It had backdated her registration date to April 2018, which is when Ms X made the second application.
  2. Ms X wants the Council to backdate her registration date to when she made her first application in 2017. This is because she believes the Council wrongly dealt with her application at that time.
  3. Ms X had a right to request a review of the Council’s decision when it rejected her first application. Ms X did not use her review rights but it is reasonable to expect her to have done so. Therefore, the Council had no obligation to backdate the registration date to when she made her first application in 2017. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.
  4. The Council has provided evidence to show the average waiting time for a three bedroom property for a family in Band C is three years. If Ms X’s registration date is April 2018, on balance, she has not missed out on being allocated a property because of the Council’s delays. Therefore, she did not experience a significant personal injustice.
  5. The Council was at fault when it failed to inform Ms X of her review rights when it refused to accept her second application to join the housing register. However, Ms X did not experience a significant person injustice because within ten days, she had complained to the Council who overturned its decision and accepted her onto the register. The Council should review its procedures, however, to ensure applicants are provided with the correct information on their review rights.
  6. Ms X has informed the Council she is pregnant. The Council has said this will not affect her priority banding. This advice is in line with the Council’s allocations policy and the law. There is no fault.

Council allocated Ms X Band C priority

  1. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We cannot substitute our decision for a decision if it has been correctly made by the Council.
  2. When Ms X submitted her second application, the Council requested the advice of the DMA. The DMA’s assessment shows they considered the information submitted by Ms X before making their recommendations.
  3. Once the Council decided in December 2018 that the family qualified to join the housing register, it followed the advice of the DMA and awarded the family Band C priority. There was no fault in the way the Council made the decision.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. Within two months of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to review its procedures to ensure applicants are informed of their rights for a review of decisions made in relation to housing allocation decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There was fault in the Council’s actions but it did not cause Ms X a significant injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendation. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings