Summary: Mr D complains the Council has incorrectly assessed his housing priority. The Ombudsman has found evidence of fault. He has completed the investigation because the Council has accepted fault and offered a remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) complains, via a Representative, about the Council’s decision not to award him additional housing priority for overcrowding and medical need in 2019.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have looked at events from January 2019 onwards.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I have considered the information provided by Mr D’s Representative. I asked the Council questions and examined its response.
7. I have looked at the properties allocated by the Council from January 2019 onwards to see if Mr D lost an opportunity to be rehoused. I cannot share the details of that data as it relates to third parties.
8. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background

9. In 2013 Mr D’s household of five people moved to a one bedroom flat. In 2014 he moved to another one-bedroom property this time with a household of six. In March 2016 the Council placed Mr D’s household into Band 3 for overcrowding.

Events I have investigated

10. In January 2019 Mr D emailed the Council asking if he had been awarded priority star status on his housing application for being a working person and also being overcrowded. The Council replied he had a working priority star and was in Band 3 for overcrowding.
11. On 18 May Mr D emailed the Council stating a friend had called the Council in May and been told Mr D had been awarded a priority star for overcrowding but it was not showing on his bidding account. There is no record of the telephone call Mr D refers to. The Council replied on 22 May. It explained the household was in Band 3 because of overcrowding. They were not in Band 1 for statutory overcrowding because they had moved to a property that worsened their circumstances. Mr D asked the Council to review its decision.
12. In June Mr D sent a change of circumstances form to the Council asking for medical priority for one of his children. The Council asked Mr D for supporting evidence in July which he subsequently provided. At the end of July, the Council sent its final complaint response. This was a long and detailed letter explaining the Council’s allocations policy. The Council told Mr D that whilst he was overcrowded, he had been aware that moving to his current home would make him significantly overcrowded and was therefore considered to be a “deliberate worsening of circumstances”. The Council explained it had the right to have its own qualification criteria for housing and the priority star for overcrowding could only be awarded to applicants who were considered statutorily overcrowded and in Band 1.
13. On 30 August the Council referred Mr D’s change of circumstances case to its Medical Advisory Service. The Medical Assessor considered the information provided by Mr D and found there was no medical requirement for the family to move home. The Council wrote to Mr D explaining the decision.
14. In September 2020 the Council updated Mr D’s housing account to show he has two priority stars.

What should have happened

15. The Council’s Housing Allocations Policy sets out how the Council assesses applicants for housing and awards them priority. The Council places eligible housing applicants into a Band based on their need to move and other circumstances such as medical need. If an applicant is considered statutorily overcrowded, they are placed in Band 1. However, if the Council consider the applicant has worsened their circumstances “by a deliberate act”, they will be placed in Band 3 as overcrowded.
16. Within each Band applicants are prioritised by reference to a priority star system. Priority stars can be awarded for a working household, community contribution or a statutorily overcrowded household. The Council had understood the priority star for overcrowding could only be awarded to applicants in Band 1. The Council has subsequently accepted with the Ombudsman that its allocations policy does not explicitly link that priority star to Band 1 applicants. It does not show that only a Band 1 overcrowded applicant is eligible for a priority star for overcrowding.
17. If an applicant asks the Council to review their priority based on medical need the Council will refer the case along with supporting evidence to a Medical Assessor. The Assessor will consider the evidence and notify the Council if medical priority should be awarded.
18. The Council uses a Choice Based Lettings Scheme. Applicants bid for properties advertised by the Council. An Officer will consider bids and award a property to the applicant with the highest band, largest number of priority stars and then earliest registration date.

Was there fault by the Council

19. Mr D disputes the Council’s decision to not award him a priority star for overcrowding and also disputes the medical priority decision.
20. In respect of the medical decision I see no evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mr D’s case. It has correctly applied its policy and had a right to reach the decision it did. I appreciate Mr D does not accept the Council’s decision. However, the Ombudsman will not question the merits of that decision in the absence of fault.
21. There is fault in the Council’s failure to award Mr D a priority star for overcrowding. The Council has accepted the “precise wording of the allocations policy does not explicitly link the statutory overcrowding priority star to the qualification criteria of statutory overcrowding within Band 1.” This means the allocations policy omits the need for an applicant to be in Band 1 to receive the priority star. This fault meant that Mr D was not awarded a priority star when he was accepted as statutorily overcrowded.
22. I also note the Council took at least a month to update its records to show Mr D’s priority star in 2020. It says it could not award the priority star for overcrowding on its IT system ‘due to system error in retrospectively applying this priority’. It therefore awarded Mr D the priority star for community service so that his account correctly shows his two-star status.

Did the fault cause an injustice

23. The Council failed to award Mr D a priority star before September 2020. I have looked at whether this meant Mr D lost an opportunity to successfully bid for a new Council property. The records show me he did not miss out. Even if he had been awarded an additional star in any category (they all carry the same weight) he would not have been offered a property. The successful applicants with the same banding and two-star priority status all either gained a smaller property than Mr D needs or had additional factors meaning they had higher priority (for example they joined the housing register sooner than Mr D). Whilst the error should not have occurred, I do not see it resulted in a significant outstanding injustice to Mr D.
24. The Council has not been able, for IT reasons, to award the correct priority star to Mr D’s housing account. However, as the stars all have the same weight in respect of bidding for a home, I do not see this disadvantages Mr D.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. The Council has agreed to award the priority star to all households assessed as statutory overcrowded including Mr D. I see it has now adjusted Mr D’s housing records, so he has the correct priority status.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed the investigation and upheld the complaint.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint I did not investigate

27. I have not looked at events prior to 2019 because the Ombudsman expects a complaint to be made to him within 12 months of an issue arising.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman