Summary: Miss Y complains about the way the Council handled her housing application and its decision about the number of bedrooms to which she is entitled. She says the Council failed to consider the information she provided properly and caused delays. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council causing injustice. It has agreed to remedy this by apologising to Miss Y, carrying out a fresh review of its decision about her bedroom entitlement, and paying her £1,000 to reflect her avoidable time and trouble, and inconvenience of being in unsuitable accommodation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I am calling Miss Y, complains about the way the Council dealt with her housing application. She is unhappy about its decision she and her family are eligible for a two bedroom property only and says the Council:

• ignored her request for a three bedroom property;
• failed to consider her son’s disability, and the evidence provided supporting his need for his own bedroom, properly; and
• caused unnecessary delays in assessing her application and completing the review of its decision.

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)
5. 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

How I considered this complaint

6. I have spoken to Miss Y and read what she has told us about her complaint, together with the Council’s responses.
7. I invited Miss Y and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme

8. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
9. The Council’s allocations scheme is published on its website. It operates a Choice Based Lettings Scheme, called Homemove. Applicants are able to search for available homes and bid for properties in their assessed need.
10. The Council will assess each application to determine the size of property to which the applicant is entitled. A two child family, where the children are the same sex, will be entitled to a two bedroom property, unless there is a medical requirement for an extra bedroom on the basis of medical or disability related factors.
11. The Council’s medical officer must be asked for advice on the need for an extra bedroom over and above that to which an applicant is entitled under this policy.
12. Where a transfer applicant is statutorily overcrowded due to family growth, they will be placed in priority Band A.
13. Once assessed the Council will place the application in the appropriate bedroom, mobility and band category, award a priority date and confirm this to the applicant.
14. Applicants have the right to ask the Council for a review of decisions made under the allocations policy.

What happened

Miss Y’s transfer application

15. Miss X is an existing Council tenant. She lives with her partner and their two children in a one bedroom flat. In 2018 she contacted the Council about their situation. As Miss Y and her family were statutorily overcrowded, the Council initially assessed the transfer application should be placed in Band A. But this was subject to Miss Y providing the further information required to complete the assessment of her application. The Council requested this by email in April 2018.
16. Miss Y responded to the April 2018 information request in June 2019. She called the Council for an update in July. She was told her application was being processed but there was a backlog. Miss Y asked for further updates in August, and in September, when she was told it could take around eight weeks to process applications.
17. The Council then asked Miss Y for more information. She contacted the Council at the end of September and told it she had already provided this. The Council checked and found it had received Miss Y’s information in August.
18. Miss Y called the Council again in October. This prompted another information request by the Council. Miss Y called again later in October. The Council confirmed it had received the information and her application would now be assessed. Miss Y chased for an update in November. She told the Council she was losing the opportunity to bid because of the delay. The Council then asked her for one more document, which it said was the last piece of information required to complete the assessment.
19. On 5 December, Miss Y called to confirm she had provided the information. She was told it would still take a few weeks to process this due to officer backlog. Miss Y asked about her bedroom entitlement and was told it was showing as two bedroom family with two children who can share.

Council’s decision about Miss Y’s housing need

20. On 9 December the Council completed the assessment and notified Miss Y she had been placed in Band A for a two bedroom property. Miss Y contacted the Council the same day to question this. She said she had provided evidence to show they needed an extra bedroom because of her child’s condition.
21. Miss Y sent in further information. On 11 December the Council told her its medical officer would consider her request for an extra bedroom. The medical officer assessed the information on 20 December. She did not agree an extra bedroom was needed. The Council told Miss Y it had decided not to increase her bedroom entitlement.

Miss Y’s request for a review of the Council’s decision

22. Miss Y asked the Council to review this decision. She asked what further evidence she should provide in support of her request. The Council said it could not define exactly what form the evidence should take but it should be directly regarding how her child’s health is affected by sharing a room, and for example could include a doctor’s letter, an assessment or referral from another health professional.
23. The review request was made at the end of December. The Council told Miss Y it should be completed within eight weeks. Miss Y also complained about the way her application had been dealt with. The Council responded to this complaint by confirming the decision was being reviewed and it would let her know when this had been completed.
24. The Council’s medical officer reviewed additional information in January 2020. She did not advise an extra bedroom.
25. Miss Y understood the review was due to be completed on 17 February. On 19 February Miss Y complained to us about the Council’s handling of her application and review request.
26. Miss Y chased the Council about the outcome of the review. On 27 February it told her the reviewing officer was away sick but it hoped the review would be completed as possible on his return.
27. The reviewing officer completed the review and notified Miss Y this had been unsuccessful. In his decision letter of 2 March, the reviewer said:

• the information Miss Y provided in support of her request for a third bedroom was a motor co-ordination report of 21 February 2019, advanced nurse practitioner letter of 2 January 2020, and school Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) letter of 7 January 2020.
• the medical officer had advised there was no information on the Council’s Care First system as to why Miss Y’s child was unable to share a bedroom with their sibling. In order to allocate an additional bedroom, the Council would need a formal assessment stating the medical reasons as to why this was required.
• The report of 21 February 2019 made no reference to a need for her child to have their own bedroom.

Miss Y’s complaint to the Council

28. Miss Y was unhappy about the outcome of the review. She contacted the Council again about her complaint. Following the Council’s stage 2 response, it was established the medical officer had not been given all the information Miss Y had provided for the review. The medical officer was asked to reconsider all the information. On 4 May the medical officer confirmed her view had not changed and she would not advise an extra bedroom.
29. On 5 May the Council’s complaints officer told Miss Y all the information had been considered but the medical officer’s view was unchanged because there was no detailed evidence of why the family needed three bedrooms. The complaints officer confirmed she could not question the assessor’s decision and Miss Y could ask us to investigate her complaint if she was still unhappy with the outcome.

Analysis – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

Delay in processing the application

30. It took the Council six months, from June 2019, when it received the initial information requested from Miss Y in 2018, until December 2019, to complete its assessment of her transfer application. In my view, this is too long. It made further requests for information Miss Y had already provided, and she had to chase the Council a number of times to prompt progress. I appreciate the Council handles a high volume of applications but I consider Miss Y’s application should have been completed within six to eight weeks had it been processed in a timely and efficient way. The Council’s failure to do so is fault, which has caused Miss Y injustice.
31. Had Miss Y’s application been processed properly, it is likely it would have been completed by the beginning of August 2019. Miss Y would then have been able to bid for two bedroom properties, with a Band A priority backdated to 2017.
32. The Council has told us Miss Y was bypassed for a suitable property in September 2019 because it had not completed the reassessment of her new band and backdated priority. My understanding is Miss Y had made a bid for this property and she has told us she would have accepted it had it been offered to her. On this basis it seems she would then have been rehoused in suitable accommodation by October 2019.
33. Miss Y is now in the highest priority banding and has been able to bid for a new, suitable property with her reassessed priority from December 2019. The Council’s records show she has not made any bids since then and she and her family are still in the same accommodation.
34. Taking this into account, my view is the Council’s fault in processing Miss Y’s application caused her to remain in unsuitable accommodation for three months from October until December 2019. But I do not consider it is responsible for her remaining in unsuitable accommodation after December 2019.

Assessment of entitlement to a two bedroom property

35. The Council’s allocations scheme makes it clear two children of the same sex are expected to share a bedroom.
36. Miss Y sent a school SENCO letter of 13 May 2019 with her application information. This referred to her child’s motor co-ordination assessment and said it would be highly beneficial for all family members if they were to have at least a two bedroom property (ideally three). She also provided a report of 11 March 2019 and letter of 7 August 2019 confirming her child’s diagnosis of development coordination disorder, but these made no reference to a need for a separate bedroom.
37. The Council noted, in its March 2020 response to Miss Y, she stated in her self- assessment form of 2 June 2019 her child needed space for their gym ball and their own room as they were disturbing their sibling. But it said the supporting information provided did not confirm her child needed a separate bedroom.
38. If the Council did not consider a request by Miss Y for an extra bedroom before making its decision on 9 December, my view is this did not cause her any significant injustice. It is clear from the information we have the Council considered Miss Y’s request and made a decision about this 11 days later, on 20 December.

Council’s decision of 20 December 2019

39. The Council asked its medical officer to advise on Miss Y’s request for a third bedroom. The medical officer assessed all the evidence provided by Miss Y at that time in support of her request. She did not agree a third bedroom was needed. The Council made its decision on Miss Y’s request after receiving its medical officer’s advice.
40. I do not consider there was fault by the Council in the way it reached its decision on 20 December to refuse Miss Y’s request for a third bedroom.

Time taken to complete the review

41. The Council’s allocations scheme says reviews will be completed within eight weeks “wherever practicable”. The request was made on Friday 27 December. The eight week period included a bank holiday which extended the date to Monday 24 February. The reviewing officer was away sick in late February. The review was completed on 2 March and in the circumstances, I do not consider a delay of a week amounts to fault by the Council.

Information provided to the medical officer in January 2020

42. The Council asked its medical officer to re-assess the need for a third bedroom as part of the review process. But it did not provide her with all the additional information Miss Y had provided in support of her request.
43. This was fault by the Council. But I consider this fault was remedied when the Council asked the medical officer to reconsider her view in May 2020, having presented her with all the additional information available as at January 2020 when she was first asked to re-assess the bedroom need.

The reviewer’s decision

44. The reviewer did not refer to all the relevant information Miss Y had provided for the review. He did not refer to the GP’s letter of 27 December 2019. He did not address the specific points raised in the nurse’s letter of 2 January 2020 and the school’s letter of 7 January 2020 as to why Miss Y’s child needed their own room. My view is the decision letter does not demonstrate the reviewer properly considered all the relevant evidence and this is fault by the Council
45. The reviewer said in his decision an additional bedroom could not be allocated without a formal assessment stating the medical reasons as to why this was required. I think this was wrong. I have not seen any reference in the Council’s allocations scheme to a requirement for a formal assessment, only that the Council’s medical officer must be asked for advice on the need for an extra bedroom. This is fault by the Council.
46. My view is these faults have caused Miss Y injustice. She has lost the opportunity to have the review of her request for an extra bedroom properly considered.

Recommended action

47. The Council has agreed it will, within four weeks from the date of this final decision:

• Carry out a fresh review of its decision in December 2019 not to award an extra bedroom, after giving Miss Y the opportunity to submit any additional evidence
• Clearly explain the reasons for its review decision. If it decides the evidence as to the need for Miss Y’s child to have their own room is not sufficient, it should explain why
• Send us a copy of the review decision
• Apologise to Miss Y for the delay in processing her application and failing to carry out the review properly
• Pay Miss Y £100 to reflect her time and trouble chasing the progress of her application between June and December 2019
• Pay Miss Y £900 to remedy the offer of suitable accommodation she missed out on, which would have allowed her to be rehoused in October 2019. I have reached my view on this amount having taken account of the Ombudsman published guidance on remedies. This suggests a range of between £150 and £350 for each additional month a complainant remains in unsuitable accommodation because of fault by a Council. I consider £300 a month is an appropriate reflection of Miss Y’s difficulties caused by living in statutorily overcrowded accommodation with a disabled child.

48. In addition to the above, the Council has told us its Homemove team will review its process for checking the content of, and sending out, review decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

49. I have found fault by the Council in the way it processed Miss Y’s application and carried out the review. These faults caused Miss Y injustice. I have completed my investigation on the basis the Council will take the above action as a suitable way of remedying the injustice.

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

50. I did not investigate events before February 2019. This is because these took place more than 12 months before Miss Y complained to us in February 2020.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman