Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Miss M’s complaint against the Council about delays dealing with her requests for reviews of its decisions on her housing application. A letter failed to properly explain whether she was entitled to refuse 1 or 2 offers of accommodation. It also failed to give reasons why she did not qualify under the main allocation scheme. The actions the Council took, and the agreed action, remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss M complains the Council failed to:
1. Promptly carry out reviews of its decisions on her application for housing, including its decision to remove her from the housing reserve list following her refusal of an offer of accommodation;
2. Explain she was on the reserve list under its local lettings policy or inform her it had accepted her application;
3. Take account of her being on holiday when making an offer of a property;
4. Properly explain how many offers she could refuse without it affecting her application;
5. Take account of her family’s welfare and her medical conditions; and
6. Process her application according to its allocation policy.
2. As a result, these failures caused her ongoing stress, anxiety, and worry.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have not investigated any complaint Miss M might have about the Council’s actions that took place before January 2018. The paragraph at the end of this statement explains why. References to events in 2017 are given by way of background to put the complaint in to context.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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)

Back to top

Housing allocation scheme (2018)

7. The Council’s housing allocation scheme states:

• It awards priority based on an applicant’s housing need due to homelessness, housing conditions, overcrowding, medical need, social welfare grounds, and under-occupation. (paragraph 5 a)
• There are 4 Levels of housing need: Level 1: for applicants who do not have a housing need but will be considered under the local letting plan for low demand properties; Level 2: this includes those with low medical need, those who need to move on social welfare grounds, and overcrowded conditions; Level 3: this includes those with medium medical need, those needing to move on social welfare grounds with an urgent need to move; Level 4: this includes those with high medical needs, homeless applicants, and those needing to move on social welfare grounds with an exceptional need to move. Level 5: this is for social housing tenants granted a management move by their landlord and includes those needing decants for short periods, as well as those who are awarded exceptional priority to move in urgent circumstances not covered by the other levels. (appendix 2)
• Medical need assessment and their priority includes: Low medical priority; this is for those where the current accommodation is not suitable because of some impact on mental health, unable to use the toilet at night, and age related reduced function, such as the use of stairs; Medium medical priority: this includes where the accommodation is not suitable due to the degree of difficulty in using stairs and the only toilet is upstairs, required recommended adaptations are not feasible, its condition is contrary to medical advice; High medical priority: this includes where the accommodation is unsuitable because of a terminal illness with prognosis of less than 12 months, no access to essential facilities.

8. Where an applicant is awarded Level 1 priority, they receive one suitable offer of accommodation. (paragraph 6.2)
9. The Council may operate Local Lettings Plans to meet certain objectives for accommodation of specific types and/or in geographic locations. It may be used to meet several objectives including: creating mixed, balanced, and settled communities; making the best use of certain accommodation that make it appropriate for certain types of applicants; to address concentrations of deprivation or anti-social behaviour. (paragraph 8)
10. A review request of a decision must be made within 21 days of the decision about their application; the review officer may make further enquiries and interview applicants and others; the review should be concluded within 8 weeks of the review request or as soon as reasonably practicable afterwards; the decision is communicated in writing to the applicant with reasons. (paragraph 9.2)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered all the information Miss M sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent her. I sent a copy of my first draft decision to Miss M and the Council. After considering the Council’s response, I made some minor changes to make the extent of the fault clearer. I sent a copy of the revised draft decision to Miss M and the Council.

Back to top

What I found

12. Following the sale of her former house due to health reasons, Miss M went to live with her parents in their 2-bed bungalow. Miss M suffers from various health conditions. She wants to live in her own accommodation near to her parents who can give her support.
13. The following are key dates in her complaint:

2017

• July: Miss M applied to join the Council’s housing register;
• December: The Council sent Miss M a letter telling her she did not meet the criteria to go in the main allocation pool but, she was on the reserve list for low demand properties. It explained it could be anywhere in the borough and she would be limited to one offer. If she refused, she would be removed from the reserve list and it would cancel her application. It gave a link to the housing allocation policy and explained she could make written representations within 21 days. Miss M emailed the Council the same day thanking it for adding her to the housing list;

The Council contacted her mother as it could not contact Miss M. This was about an offer of accommodation (property 1). Her mother said Miss M was abroad. As her parents had no power of attorney, they could not sign for the tenancy.

2018

• January: The Council offered Miss M accommodation (property 2), which she refused as it was too far from her parents’ house. She asked the Council about options as she wished for a review of the suitability of the offer.

The Council wrote to her again explaining it had cancelled her application. It said anyone who refused 2 offers of accommodation must wait 12 months before re-applying. While she was under the Local Letting Plan, this still applied to her. It told her of her right to ask for a review of the decision. She asked for a review of its decision (review 1);

• May: The Council received her stage 1 complaint (complaint A). The Council wrote to her with its review 1 decision which upheld its decision to cancel her application;
• June: The Council sent its stage 1 response (complaint A). It did not uphold her complaint as she could receive an offer anywhere in the borough and had completed the review;

The Council received her stage 2 complaint (complaint A);

July: The Council sent its stage 2 response (complaint A) and told her it could accept a late review request of its decision to put her on its local lettings scheme. Miss M sent a review request (review 2);

• August: An officer visited her to inspect her accommodation;
• November: The Council introduced its current housing allocation policy. This now meant it could accept a person without a housing need into the main allocation scheme. She was likely to have priority Level 1 and would receive 2 offers;

2019

• February: Miss M sent a second housing application;
• March: The Council completed the review (review 2) which upheld its decision;
• April: The Council awarded her Level 1 banding for ground floor accommodation on her application but, said her application would remain unverified until it offered her a property. Level 1 banding is for those with no assessed housing need but, the Council will consider them under the Local Letting Plan for low demand properties.

The Council received a stage 1 complaint (complaint B). An officer reviewed the evidence and decided she did not need ground floor accommodation. The case was referred to an independent medical advisor (IMA) who recommended no medical priority. Miss M asked for a review of her banding (review 3);

• May: The Council sent its stage 1 response (complaint B). This considered how it dealt with her first application and the delays with her reviews. It apologised for the failings it found, including poor service about her reviews. It noted she waited from January 2019 to May for a response to review 1. She waited from July 2018 to March 2019 for a response to review 2. It accepted she was not kept informed about progress during these delays. It also accepted information given to her in its January email about two refusals and cancellations was wrong;
• June: Further evidence was sent to the IMA. The Council completed review 3 and upheld the decision to award her Level 1 banding. Miss M replied to the stage 1 response with a further complaint (complaint C) saying she felt her medical conditions were not properly considered;
• July: The Council sent her its stage 1 response (complaint C). This explained her medical evidence was reviewed by the IMA. It did not uphold her complaint;
• August: The Council received her stage 2 complaint. This appeared to be for complaint B as she referred to delays with reviews on her original application and the offer of property 1;
• September: The Council sent her its stage 2 response;
• December: The Council offered Miss M her current property which she accepted.

I now consider Miss M’s complaints:

Complaint a): Reviews

14. Miss M complains the Council failed to promptly carry out reviews of its decisions when challenged.

Analysis

15. I make the following findings on this complaint:
1. The Council, when responding to her formal complaint, accepted it delayed dealing with her requests for reviews of its decisions on her application. It delayed dealing with her review request 1 between January and May 2018 (4 months).
2. It delayed dealing with review request 2 from July 2018 to March 2019 (8 months).
3. As the Council also accepted, it failed to keep her informed about what was happening during these periods.
4. I am satisfied the delays caused Miss M an injustice. While the eventual outcomes of the reviews upheld the decisions, the delays and lack of information about progress caused her distress and frustration. It also caused some inconvenience, loss of confidence with the Council, and uncertainty as during these periods, she was unsure whether the Council would change its decisions.

Complaint b): Reserve list

16. She complains the Council failed to explain she was on its reserve list or told her it accepted her housing application.

Analysis

17. I make the following findings on this complaint:
1. While Miss M says she was not aware of being on the Local Lettings Plan, or told it had accepted her application until recently, I am satisfied this was not the case.
2. This is because I have seen a letter the Council sent her in December 2017. It is headed, ‘Application for Housing-Local Lettings Scheme’. It told Miss M she did not meet the criteria to be placed in the main allocation pool. It told her she was now on the reserve list for a, ‘low demand property’. It also told her of her right of review of this decision. What the letter failed to do was explain why she failed to meet the criteria.
3. When it wrote to her again the following month, the Council again failed to explain again why she did not meet the criteria for the main allocation pool. It also failed to explain why she came within the Local Lettings Plan (reserve list). As these failures took place in January 2018, I am satisfied they are within the period covered by this investigation. I am also satisfied these failures amount to fault.
4. The failures denied her full information about these decisions which she might have wanted to challenge. I took account of the Council’s offer in July 2018 in response to her claim she was unclear about appeal rights with the Local Lettings Plan. The Council said it would consider any appeal she wished to make even though the 21-day period had passed. On balance, therefore, I am satisfied its offer to hear a late appeal about this decision remedied any injustice caused by the fault.

Complaint c): Holiday

18. Miss M argued the Council failed to take account of her being on holiday when it offered her a property. She did not return to this country until the middle of January 2018.

Analysis

19. I have not investigated the Council’s action before January 2018 which means I have not considered the offer of property 1.
20. I found no fault on the Council’s offer of property 2 which she rejected when she returned from abroad. The letter she sent the Council on 18 January was sent when she was back in the country.

Complaint d): Number of offers

21. Miss M claimed the Council failed to explain how many offers she could refuse before it affected her application.

Analysis

22. I make the following findings on this complaint:
1. In May 2019, the Council apologised for a confusing letter it sent her in January 2018. This had told her that under the allocation policy, an applicant refusing 2 offers of suitable accommodation must wait 12 months before re-applying. It also explained as she was considered under the Local Lettings Plan, which allows for one offer, the main allocation policy rule still applied. In its apology, the Council confirmed she was only entitled to one offer after all.
2. I consider it took too long for the Council to correct the confusing and contradictory information given in its earlier letter. This is fault.
3. I am satisfied this error and the delay correcting it caused Miss M injustice. The contradictory information caused confusion as she wondered whether the Council considered property 1 as a refusal after all. She was also left with some uncertainty about whether it had cancelled her application correctly.

Complaint e): Welfare and medical

23. Miss M argued the Council failed to take account of her medical and welfare needs when it assessed her housing application. For the avoidance of doubt, I have not investigated any complaint about how the Council assessed these needs before January 2018. This means I have not looked at her first application.
24. When the Council closed her first application, she was unable to re-apply for 12 months. By the time she re-applied in February 2019, the Council had a new housing allocation policy. Miss M’s application explained how she lived in her parents’ 2-bedroom bungalow along with a nephew who spent weekends there. It explained she did not get on well with her father who is her mother’s carer. She disclosed receiving counselling and her various health problems.
25. Under the new allocation scheme, the Council awarded her Level 1 banding in April. An officer reviewed her medical evidence and found no need for ground floor accommodation. It sent her medical evidence to its independent medical adviser (IMA) who agreed with the Level 1 decision.

Analysis

26. I make the following findings on this complaint:
1. For the second review decision in March 2019, an officer visited Miss M at home and found no evidence of her accommodation being unsuitable for her needs. She had her own room and access to bathing facilities. The officer decided her desire to live independently did not meet the criteria for qualification on the main allocation scheme.
2. In April, it awarded her Level 1 priority which meant it unlikely she would succeed as properties are normally matched and offered to applicants with higher priority. While deciding she had no housing need, the Council allowed her on to the scheme under the Local Lettings Plan. She had the right to challenge this decision.
3. The same month the IMA was asked to consider Miss M’s medical evidence in support of her application. I have not seen a complete copy of the IMA’s assessment.
4. In June, the IMA looked again at Miss M’s medical evidence. The IMA found nothing to prevent her from continuing to live with her parents on medical grounds in their property. The Council’s letter to her the same month confirmed taking this into account as well as the medical evidence provided and information from a previous application. The Council confirmed her banding was correct.
5. I found no fault on this complaint. The evidence shows the medical evidence was considered both by the Council and the IMA. I am also satisfied the Council properly asked the IMA for advice and took this in to account when reaching its decision. The Council took account of her evidence about the family dynamics. The Ombudsman may not challenge the merits of a correctly taken decision.

Complaint f): Processing

27. Miss M believes the Council failed to process her application correctly.
28. Taking all the evidence I have seen in to account, I found no fault in the way the Council processed her application, except for the delays in dealing with her requests for reviews.

Agreed action

29. I considered our guidance on remedies.
30. I took account of the Council identifying the delay dealing with her review requests and the apology it gave her. In response to my initial draft decision, it confirmed reviews are now completed within 8 weeks unless it needs additional information which is not received in time. Applicants are kept informed when there is a delay.
31. The Council will, within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint, carry out the following:
1. Send her a written apology for its failure in January 2018 to explain; why it did not accept her under the main allocation scheme; why she was placed on the reserve list.
2. Pay Miss M £200 for the distress caused by the fault (uncertainty, loss of confidence, confusion, and inconvenience).
3. Take steps to ensure: the reasons for the delays with the correction of information about the number of offers she could refuse are identified and addressed so they are not repeated on future cases; officers are reminded of the need to give accurate information in letters about an application.
32. In addition, the Council’s response to my initial draft decision said it should have completed its review by now of all letters sent to housing applicants in preparation of the introduction of its new IT system to maintain and manage the housing register and new housing allocation scheme. Due to increased demands on its housing options team, because of COVID-19, this was not started. It estimates it will carry out the review of all letters by 1 April 2021 at the latest. We ask the Council to confirm to the Ombudsman within 7 days of completing this review that it has been done.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I make the following decisions on Miss M’s complaint against the Council:

• Complaint a): fault causing injustice;
• Complaint b): fault causing no injustice;
• Complaint c): no fault;
• Complaint d): fault causing injustice;
• Complaint e): no fault; and
• Complaint f): no fault.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

34. Usually, we do not investigate ‘late’ complaints. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. Miss M complained to us in October 2019 which means we would usually only look at the Council’s actions from October 2018.
35. I exercised discretion to look at the Council’s actions from January 2018 because of the long delays that took place on her review requests.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman