Summary: Mr X complained about the how the Council decided his housing priority. He is unhappy at how long it took the Council to find him a suitable home. The Ombudsman found there was fault in the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s housing needs priority, and the way it communicated its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the how the Council decided his housing priority. He is unhappy at how long it took the Council to find him a suitable home while he was in a care home after being discharged from hospital. The extended period spent in the care home made Mr X’s depression worse and reduced his life savings.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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

4. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• The Council’s Housing Allocations Policy.
• The Housing Act 1996.
5. Mr Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it ranks applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. Councils must follow their published scheme.
7. Councils have some discretion to decide which people deserve priority in their area. However, 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.
8. As part of good practice, the Ombudsman expects to see clear allocations policies and clearly written decisions which explain the information considered and the reasons for the decision. We expect to see evidence councils have considered an applicant’s medical priority and whether there are any exceptional circumstances. Councils should also tell applicants about their right to ask for a review of the decision.
9. The Council is a member of Property Pool Plus, which is a regional choice-based lettings scheme covering five different council areas in and around Liverpool. The scheme aims to ensure councils allocate social housing fairly and objectively to those most in need. The Council will assess applicants according to their housing need and assign a priority band, from A to E. Band A is urgent priority, band E is no priority. There is also a band F for applicant’s whose priority has been reduced due to unacceptable behaviour.
10. The Council has a Housing Options Service which offers help and support to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.

What happened

11. Mr X, at the time in his early 60’s, had an operation to remove the lower part of his leg in April in 2018. He could not return to his home, as it lacked wheelchair access. He agreed to a short-term placement at Walton Manor care home, arranged by the Council.
12. Mr X was discharged from hospital to Walton Manor on 17 May 2018. The Council was to review Mr X’s placement in six weeks.
13. The Council assigned a social care assessor to Mr X’s case with the plan to secure an adaptable property. On 30 May, the assessor made an application to the Housing Options Service on Mr X’s behalf and registered him with Property Pool Plus.
14. Mr X’s caseworker made enquiries with sheltered housing schemes on 7 June 2018, but none were suitable as they lacked wheelchair access.
15. The Council wrote to Mr X on 22 August 2018 to tell him his application to Property Pool Plus was active. The Council placed Mr X in priority band B because it said he had a high health/welfare need.
16. Mr X secured rental accommodation in March 2019 and left Walton Manor.
17. Mr X complained to the Council on 28 May 2019. He said the Council told him he would only have to stay at Walton Manor for a few months, which was wrong. He stayed from May 2018 until March 2019. This caused his depression to get worse.
18. The Council responded on 21 July 2019, after discussing the complaint with Mr X on 18 June:
• It said, after Mr X’s case was transferred to a local social care assessor, its plan was to help Mr X find an adaptable home. The Council referred Mr X to the Housing Options Service and registered him with Property Pool Plus.
• There were no suitable sheltered housing schemes, as they lacked wheelchair access, so the Council placed Mr X on Property Pool Plus in priority Band B.
• The Council reviewed Mr X’s case in January 2019, but no action was taken.
• The Council recognised the time it took to find a suitable tenancy for Mr X. It accepted it should have placed Mr X in housing priority band A, which would have allowed him to bid on homes earlier.
19. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 23 October 2019. He said he was not told it could take a long time to find suitable accommodation.
20. The Council’s failure to place Mr X in priority band A could have impacted the length of time he spent at Walton Manor, and the costs he paid for his care and support.
21. After bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr X sadly died. His complaint was continued by his friend, and executor, Mr Y.

Response to my enquiries

22. The Council told me it was an error of judgement when it placed Mr X in priority band B. It should have placed Mr X in band A (homeless) due to his need to leave residential care. This would have given Mr X more choices when bidding on homes.

Back to top

Analysis

23. I have seen the Council’s allocation priority decision letter to Mr X. It confirmed Mr X’s priority band, and said he had a high medical or welfare need, but it did not explain the decision. It did not say what factors it considered (such as Mr X’s medical condition or homelessness). That is not good practice and was fault.
24. The Council accepts it was at fault for not placing Mr X in priority band A. It also accepts its fault impacted Mr X’s choices when bidding on new homes. The Council reviewed Mr X’s case in January 2019 but did not change his priority. It is regrettable in this case that someone with Mr X’s need, who the Council was struggling to find an accessible home for, did not have their housing priority properly reviewed.

Back to top

Did the fault cause an injustice?

25. I have considered the impact of the Council’s decision not to place Mr X in priority band A. Did this affect the length of time Mr X stayed at Walton Manor, and, as a result, mean he paid more in costs?
26. The Council provided me with a list of homes Mr X made bids for while he was at Walton Manor. Some Mr X missed out on because they were unsuitable for his needs. However, he was unsuccessful in bidding for a suitable home in November 2018, with the successful applicant moving into the home on 2 December 2018. If the Council had given Mr X band A priority, as it should have, he would have had a higher priority than the person the Council allocated the home to. Mr X therefore should have been rehoused by 2 December 2018. This meant Mr X stayed at Walton Manor about three months longer than he should have. The added stress this caused Mr X is a significant injustice.
27. I have reviewed Mr X’s rent, council tax, electricity, and bank statements for the period around the time he moved into his new home in March 2019. His weekly spend on rent and rates was about £169.12. This does not include food costs.
28. I have established Mr X should have been rehoused by 2 December 2018. Between December 2018 and March 2019, Mr X’s weekly fee at Walton Manor was £140.10. Therefore, Mr X did not suffer any actual financial loss.

Agreed action

29. I would normally consider asking the Council to make a payment in recognition of the distress its fault caused.
30. The Ombudsman has produced guidance on remedying complaints where injustice was caused to someone who has since died. This states “where the injustice is less tangible, for example distress, harm, risk, or another unfair impact of the fault, we will not normally seek a substantive remedy in the same way as we might for someone who is still living. We would not expect a public body to make a payment that would enrich a person’s estate.”
31. Based on the above guidance, I do not consider it is suitable for me to ask the Council to make a payment to remedy the distress Mr X suffered.
32. Within eight weeks of my final decision, the Council agreed to review its housing priority assessment process and the way it communicates its decisions to ensure they are fully reasoned and explained. It will then feedback to the Ombudsman on any areas of improvement identified.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation. There was fault in the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s housing needs priority, and the way it communicated its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman