Summary: The Council is not at fault for failing to make an offer of housing. It has followed its policy and given the application a high priority. It has not made an offer due to the shortage of accommodation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains on behalf of his son, Mr X. He says the Council has delayed unreasonably in rehousing Mr X and his mother (Ms Z). He says because of this Mr X’s health has suffered and he may have to leave his specialist school.

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. I considered the information provided by Mr Y and discussed the complaint with him. I asked the Council for information and considered what it said.
5. Mr Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Allocations

6. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  It must make all allocations in strict accordance with the published scheme.  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
7. 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))

8. 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.

9. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
10. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
11. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:

• Council review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as 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; should carry out the
• The review should normally be completed within a set deadline – it suggests 8 weeks as reasonable.

The Council’s Allocation Scheme

12. The Council does not use a choice-based system. It allows applicants to express a preference on the type and location of accommodation they want. It aims to meet the stated preference but says it can override it, if it considers an available property meets the applicant’s assessed needs.
13. The Council gives band A to D to applications it has assessed. It gives priority rehousing status (band A), to an applicant with multiple needs and a critical need to move.
14. The Council puts an accepted application into one of seven “access queue”. These queues are accepted homeless applicants, general needs, older people, disability, support needs, social care needs and tenant transfers. When a property becomes available the Council decides which access queue applies. The Council can override the queues for a very urgent need such as a life-threatening situation.
15. The Council offers properties in date order from the date it awarded the band.
16. The policy says applicants will not qualify for social housing if they are not in a reasonable preference group. (Homeless, in unsatisfactory housing, needing to move on medical or welfare grounds, and people who need to move to avoid hardship).
17. Applicants also do not qualify if the Council considers they are currently adequately housed.
18. If an applicant has reasonable preference but has not lived in Wandsworth continuously for the previous three years, the Council reduces the applicant’s priority to band D. The Council can waive this in exceptional circumstances.
19. 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 rehouse someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published policy.

What happened

20. Mr X is deaf and suffers from autism and other conditions. He is incontinent and suffers from infections if this is not managed properly.
21. Mr X was not doing well at the school he attended in the Borough he and his mother live in. Mr Y does not live with Mr X and Ms Z.
22. Mr X’s parents found a school for the deaf in Wandsworth. This school could also deal with Mr X’s autism. Mr X moved to the school and settled in well.
23. The journey to the school is one and a half hours by taxi each-way, longer in heavy traffic.
24. Mr X struggles with the journey because of his incontinence. He either tries to keep the urine in causing infections or wets himself.
25. In April 2019 Ms Z applied to the London Borough of Wandsworth for housing. She provided medical information about Mr X and a letter of support from Mr X’s Social Worker. The Council declined to register her application as it said she was adequately housed and its external medical advisor had not given any medical priority
26. Ms Z asked the Council to reconsider. On 15 May 2019 the Council registered Ms Z’s application in Band D and placed the application in the general needs queue. It gave the application 25 points on advice from its external medical advisor. The medical advisor also said Mr X should travel a maximum of 45 minutes to school.
27. Ms Z asked for a review of the decision. On 17 June the Council revised its decision, giving 75 points and placing the application in Band C.
28. Ms Z was not happy because of the problems Mr X had on his current journey to and from school. She said the time it took was not in her control as Mr X’s transport was provided by her Local Education Authority (LEA) and made several pick-ups.
29. The Council contacted Ms Z’s LEA for information about Mr X’s school transport. It confirmed what Ms Z said. On 30 July 2019 the Council placed Ms Z’s application in Band A.
30. Ms Z said she needed a house as Mr X could not cope with a flat. The Council said due to its limited housing stock this might not be possible.
31. The Council has provided a list of all two bedroomed properties it let between August 2019 and August 2020. It has only had 12 such properties and only one of these was for the general needs queue. As of August 2020, Ms Z was 9th on the general needs queue.

Findings

32. I understand Mr Y’s frustration, but I have seen no evidence of fault by the Council. It considered information as it became available and dealt with review requests within time limits provided in guidance.
33. Ms Z had had Band A since July 2019. However, the Council has limited properties available and has allocated them in line with its policy. The delay in offering Ms Z a property is not due to any fault by the Council, it is because of a lack of available properties.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have seen no evidence of fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman