Summary: Miss B complained the Council did not give her housing application the correct priority. Miss B says this resulted in her family living in unsuitable accommodation and she feared that her, and her children’s health would suffer because of this. New information became available during the investigation and the Council reviewed Miss B’s housing priority. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation as there is nothing more we can achieve.

The complaint

1. Miss B complained the Council did not give her housing application the correct priority. Miss B says this resulted in her family living in unsuitable accommodation and she feared that her, and her children’s health would suffer because of this.

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. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• Miss B’s complaint and the information she provided; and
• information supplied by the Council.

Back to top

What I found

5. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
6. Miss B and her four sons (all aged under 10) live in a three-bedroom property.
7. Miss B applied to join the housing register in May 2018. The Council assessed her as being in priority band C and allowed her to bid on four-bedroomed properties.
8. In September 2018, Miss B informally asked the Council to review her priority banding. The Council assessed Miss B as being in band C on medical grounds. It said this banding was specifically for conventional four-bedroom properties.
9. In October 2019, Miss B asked the Council to review her housing priority. The Council discussed Miss B’s case with her in November 2019. Miss B explained she needed a two-storey home with four bedrooms to be able to supervise her children effectively and so one of her children, C, could have his own room. Miss B sent extra evidence to the Council by email.
10. The Council wrote to Miss B with the result of its review in December 2019. It decided Miss B should be in band C on medical grounds.
11. Miss B appealed the decision. The Council wrote to Miss B in January 2020 and explained:
• Her children are of the same sex and under 18 years, so the family needed a three-bedroomed property.
• C’s autism was not associated with their housing and it had not been established that he had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
• Miss B’s Type 2 diabetes, stress and exhaustion were not related to her housing.
• If Miss B had maximised her bids, it was likely she would have been rehoused to a suitable four-bedroom property by now.
12. The Council decided Miss B was not overcrowded because the family needed three bedrooms, not four. It said she met the criteria for band C.
13. During this investigation, the following new information was provided by Miss B:
• a letter from the Community Paediatrics Department explaining about C’s visual difficulties;
• a letter from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) stating that C needs to be constantly supervised so he does not cause a danger to himself or others; and
• evidence her health visitor gave to the DWP explaining that C’s behaviours are becoming increasingly difficult to manage.
14. The Council reviewed Miss B’s housing priority considering this new information. It awarded her band B and backdated the award to January 2020.

Back to top

Final decision

15. Miss B provided new information about the family’s circumstances during the investigation and the Council reviewed her housing priority. I have discontinued the investigation as there is nothing more I can achieve.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman