Summary: Miss B, complains the Council delayed dealing with her housing application, including deciding the number of bedrooms for which she is eligible. Miss B says this prevented her being able to move into suitable accommodation sooner and caused her avoidable uncertainty and frustration. The Council was at fault because it delayed awarding her the correct housing priority and deciding how many bedrooms the family was eligible for. The delay caused Miss B injustice but did not stop her from being rehoused. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy this injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Miss B, complains the Council delayed dealing with her housing application, including deciding the number of bedrooms for which she is eligible. Miss B says this prevented her being able to move into suitable accommodation sooner and caused her avoidable uncertainty and frustration.

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 cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• Miss B’s complaint and the information her solicitor provided;
• documents supplied by the Council;
• relevant legislation and guidelines; and
• the Council’s policies and procedures.
6. I considered comments Miss B and the Council made on a draft decision before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and Guidance

7. A council that is a local housing authority must have an allocation scheme for deciding priorities and allocating accommodation. The scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants who fall within reasonable preference categories. (Housing Act 1996 s.166A (1,3) and s.167 (1, 2))
8. The reasonable preference categories are:
• People who are homeless and eligible under the Housing Acts 1985 and 1996.

People occupying insanitary or overcrowded housing or living in unsatisfactory housing conditions.

• People who need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
• People who need to move to a particular locality and a failure to move would cause hardship to themselves or to others.
2. Part five of the Housing Act 1985 provides two definitions of overcrowding:
• The room standard will be contravened in a situation where two people of the opposite sex must sleep in the same room. The exceptions to this rule are cohabiting or married couples, who can live in the same room without causing overcrowding. Children under the age of ten are ignored in the calculation.
• The space standard is based on the maximum number of people who may sleep in a dwelling of a particular size. A family with one adult and four children under 10 is entitled to two bedrooms.
3. A council may give 'additional preference' to applicants within the reasonable preference categories, provided they have urgent housing needs.
4. Applicants have a right to ask for a review of a Council’s decision about the number of points they have been awarded. (Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (2012) Allocation of accommodation: guidance for local housing authorities in England)

Council’s housing allocation policy

12. I have set out some key points from the policy below.
13. The Council assesses each application for housing and places the applicant in the appropriate housing needs band (A, B or C):
• Band A includes applicants who need to move urgently because of a critical medical or welfare need, including emergencies and those who need to need to move urgently because there are critical safeguarding circumstances.
• Band B includes applicants who need to move because they have a serious medical or welfare need and those who need to move urgently because there are serious safeguarding circumstances.
• Band C includes applicants who need to move because they have a moderate medical or welfare need and those who are overcrowded because they have one bedroom less than the number of bedrooms to which they would normally be entitled.
14. Applicants who have an urgent need to move because they have a critical medical condition or very serious disability that is being made much worse by their current housing will be placed in bands A or B.
15. Homes will generally be let to the applicant in the highest housing needs band who has been waiting the longest, having expressed an interest in the home and meeting the criteria advertised.
16. When determining the number and ages of the people who may occupy a property, the Council will have regard to the bedroom entitlement. One adult with four children under 10 is entitled to a three-bedroomed property.
17. Applicants can apply for an extra bedroom because of their medical or social needs. Their circumstances will be considered and evidence supporting the need for an extra room will be required.
18. Applicants have the right to ask for a review of certain decisions the Council has made about their application for housing or an offer of accommodation, including decisions about offers of housing.
19. Applicants who disagree with a decision the Council has made must request a review, in writing, within 21 days of the date of the letter that informed them of that decision. Where an applicant has requested a review, the Council is required to respond to it, in writing, within 56 days. This period starts from the date the Council receives the applicant’s request for a review.

What happened

20. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
21. Miss B lives in a two-bedroom property with her four children all of whom are under 10. Their property is on the third floor of a block of flats and there is no lift. One of her children has neurological disabilities and uses a wheelchair, child C.
22. In July 2018, the Hospital C attended wrote to the Council about C’s medical condition and the impact of his accommodation. It explained Miss B had to navigate two flights of stairs with four children, one of whom was severely disabled and there was a risk of injury to Miss B and her children. It advised C needed his own room to accommodate him and his medical equipment and supplies.
23. The Council awarded Miss B band C priority in August 2018. Miss B’s solicitor challenged this decision.
24. C’s Health Trust wrote to Miss B in September 2018 and advised it could not provide a specialist buggy for C because it could not access their home. The Hospital and C’s Social Worker both wrote to the Council to raise concerns about the impact of the family’s accommodation on C.
25. The Council completed a review of Miss B’s housing priority in October 2018 and moved her from priority band C to band A because of C’s medical need for a three-bedroom property.
26. In December 2018, C’s Social Worker sought an urgent housing transfer for the family. She explained the family’s property was restricting and impairing C’s development needs.
27. The Council considered Miss B’s case for a direct match in December 2018. It decided Miss B should be direct matched to a two-bedroom ground floor wheelchair adapted property. The Council told Miss B and sent a decision report in February 2019.
28. In March 2019, Miss B and her solicitor argued that a two-bedroomed property was not large enough for the family. Supporting medical evidence was sent to the Council.
29. The Council completed an occupational therapy housing assessment. The assessment decided a two-bedroom property would not meet the space requirements for a family of five, especially with a child who has neurological disabilities. The assessment said Miss B and her family need a minimum of a three-bedroom property.
30. In May 2019, the Council decided the family was eligible for a three-bedroomed property. In June 2019, it decided to offer the family a direct match to a three-bedroomed property when one became available.
31. Miss B’s solicitor asked the Council to consider whether the family was eligible for four bedrooms. In August 2019, the panel reviewed the decision and decided they were not.
32. In September 2019, Miss B’s solicitor asked the Council to review its decision The Council responded in October 2019 and agreed to complete a new review. Miss B’s solicitors provided the Council with evidence in support of her case.
33. Miss B, with the support of her solicitor, made a formal complaint to the Council about its failure to meet deadlines, respond to correspondence and delay. The Council accepted it did not always respond or respond promptly to Miss B or her solicitor. It apologised for the delays and the impact of these on Miss B. It explained delays were because of workload pressures and difficulties with recruitment. The Council said it did not agree that had Miss B and her solicitor received more timely responses it would have led to Miss B being rehoused earlier. The Council offered Miss B £100 for her distress and inconvenience.
34. In November 2019 Miss B’s solicitor forwarded information from C’s Heath Trust about his needs and the specialist equipment he required to the Council.
35. The Council held a professionals meeting to discuss the case and to gather further supporting evidence for Miss B’s case, especially about her bedroom entitlement and increasing it from three to four.
36. Miss B’s solicitor asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two of the Council’s complaint procedure. It explained it was unhappy with the Council’s stage one response because:
• It gave inadequate reasons for delays.
• It should have managed the team’s workload effectively.
• £100 did not remedy the injustice caused to Miss B by these delays.
37. Miss B’s solicitor challenged the Council’s view the delays did prevent Miss B from being rehoused earlier.
38. Miss B’s solicitor chased the Council six times during December 2019 for the result of the review.
39. The Council responded to Miss B’s complaint at stage two in January 2020. The Council reiterated that it did not believe the delays were justified and apologised. It explained delays were not simply about management function or the workload but because of the lack of staff, budget cuts and recruitment difficulties. The Council advised any delay did not impact on Miss B being rehoused because no wheelchair adapted three or four-bedroomed properties came available between the end of October 2018 and December 2019.  
40. In January 2020, Miss B’s solicitors sought disclosure of the review decision because it was overdue. Miss B’s solicitor chased the Council a further three times before the Council provided the result of her review.
41. The Council decided Miss B was not eligible for a four-bedroom property and upheld its decision to offer Miss B a three-bedroomed property. It listed the evidence it considered when making its decision and the factors it considered. The Council explained medical evidence showed it was not essential for C to have his own room because his needs could be met in a shared bedroom if it was large enough to accommodate two children and his medical equipment.
42. The Council advised no wheelchair adapted three- or four-bedroom properties became available between October 2018 and December 2019 and reports the average waiting time for a three-bedroom property for all households in band A in 2019/20 was four years and five months.

Analysis

43. In July 2018, the Hospital C attended asked the Council to review the family’s housing. The Hospital raised concerns about the suitability and location of the property and advised C needed his own room.
44. The Council awarded Miss B band C housing priority in August 2018. Two months later, it reviewed its decision and awarded Miss B band A because of medical need for a three-bedroom property. The Council had information about the family’s circumstances in August 2018 and these did not change between August and October 2018. Therefore, the Council should have awarded Miss B band A priority in August 2018, not doing so was fault by the Council.
45. In March 2019, Miss B asked the Council to consider her eligibility for a larger property. The Council assessed the families housing need and decided Miss B and her family needed a minimum of a three-bedroom property. The Council’s decision was a week late, this was fault.
46. Miss B’s solicitor asked the Council to review the case and consider whether the family would be eligible for a four-bedroomed property in June 2019. In July 2019, the Council decided Miss B was not. The Council reviewed its decision in August 2019 and upheld its decision. Miss B’s solicitor sought another review in September 2019. In January 2020, the Council upheld its decision the family were not eligible for four bedrooms. The Council should have taken a maximum of 56 days to make this decision, it took twice this which was fault.
47. In its complaint response to Miss B, the Council accepted it did not always respond or respond promptly to Miss B or her solicitor and apologised. It offered Miss B £100 for the distress and inconvenience she experienced.
48. The Council’s two-month delay in awarding Miss B band A priority reduced the time she spent on the waiting list to be rehoused, which negatively affected her housing priority. The Council also delayed deciding she was eligible for a three-bedroomed property by one week. Although these delays were fault by the Council, they did not stop Miss B from being rehoused because no suitable properties became available during the period of delay.
49. The delay between September 2019 and January 2020, created uncertainty for Miss B. It did not affect her housing priority or eligibility because the Council did not change its decision that she was not eligible for a four-bedroom property.

Agreed action

50. Within one month of the final decision, the Council will:
• Backdate Miss B’s band A priority award to August 2018.
• Honour its offer to pay Miss B £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the Council’s faults.
• Remind staff in the housing department that the Council is required to respond to an applicant’s review request, in writing, within 56 days.
51. The Council should provide the Ombudsman with evidence these actions have been completed.

Back to top

Final decision

52. I have completed my investigation and uphold Miss B’s complaint. Miss B has been caused an injustice by the actions of the Council. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman