Summary: Miss X complains about the way the Council handled her housing needs. She says this caused stress and anxiety, and meant she was off work sick and lost wages. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault for the way it decided Miss X’s housing allocation banding. The Ombudsman has not investigated the other parts of Miss X’s complaint because they are too old or are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Miss X, complains about the way the Council handled her housing needs. Specifically, she complains that:
1. the Council failed to provide appropriate housing support in 2016 when she first applied to be on the housing register;
2. the Council wrongly assessed her as Band C for the housing register;
3. a Council officer acted inappropriately; and,
4. the Council discriminated against her.
2. Miss X says this has caused stress and anxiety, meant she lost wages and was off work sick, and has been made homeless because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated part b of Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s banding decision from January 2020 onwards. The Ombudsman will not comment on the Council’s earlier banding decisions as we do not consider it would be proportionate to expand the investigation to this extent.
4. The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating parts a, c, or d of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
6. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
7. 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)
8. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)
9. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered the information and documents provided by Miss X and the Council. I spoke to Miss X about her complaint. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.
11. I considered the relevant legislation and policies, set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

12. Councils must have an allocation scheme to determine priorities and set out the procedure it will follow when allocating housing. Each council’s allocations scheme will be different but in general most will award 'reasonable preference' to allocations by awarding points or placing an applicant in a certain priority band. Applicants have a right to request a review of a council’s decision about the number of points or band they have been awarded.

The Council’s housing allocation policy

13. The Council updated its housing allocations policy in November 2020. I have investigated the Council’s decisions that were made under the previous (2013) policy, as this was the relevant policy in place at the time of the decisions complained about.

The Council’s 2013 housing allocation policy

14. This policy sets out four housing priority bands:
• Band A for urgent housing need
• Band B for serious housing need
• Band C for reasonable preference
• Band D for general housing need
15. The policy says applicants owed a main housing duty fall into Band C.
16. The policy says the Council can award greater priority to an applicant by giving ‘additional preference’ to those who meet one of the ‘reasonable preference’ categories (Bands A to D) who also have exceptional or urgent housing needs.
17. The policy says medical or disability priority will be awarded for Band C where “an applicant’s housing is unsuitable and the conditions directly impact and worsen the ill-health or disability, but they are not housebound or their life is not at risk due to their current housing”.
18. The policy does not include medical priority for those in Band B.

The Council’s updated housing allocation policy (from November 2020)

19. In November 2020, the Council updated its housing allocation policy to include a fifth ‘reasonable preference’ band (Band E) for rural housing.
20. Under the new policy, applicants owed a main housing duty now fall into Band B.

What happened

21. Miss X lives with her two young children, one of whom has health problems. Miss X also has health problems. Miss X has been on the housing register for some time under Band C with medical priority.
22. In January 2020, Miss X appealed the banding decision.
23. In February, the Council reassessed Miss X’s application, considering the medical information she provided. The Council told Miss X it awarded her Band C with medical priority because it recognised that she has a serious medical condition which is made substantially worse by her current housing.
24. The Council said it had received medical information about Miss X’s child but said it had no information about how the child’s condition was made worse by the current housing. It said additional priority could only be awarded if there was an urgent need to move for medical reasons.
25. In June, the Council reassessed Miss X’s application, considering new medical information she provided. The Council told Miss X it did not consider she needed an urgent move, given the medical information.
26. The Council said Band A is for those with an urgent need to move “including a terminal condition where a move is necessary to allow care to be provided or where physical or mental health is so severely affected that the medical condition will become life threatening”. It said that because medical circumstances were not included in Band B, Miss X’s application remained in Band C with medical priority.
27. Miss X complained to the Council.
28. The Council’s response said it looked at Miss X’s housing application and was satisfied she was in the correct band according to her circumstances and in line with the policy.
29. Miss X asked that her complaint was dealt with at stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure.
30. In July, the Council sent Miss X its stage two response. It said Miss X had the right to appeal against housing banding decisions.
31. In September, the Council reassessed Miss X’s application, considering new medical information she provided. The Council confirmed that Miss X was still in Band C with medical priority.
32. At this time, Miss X complained to the Ombudsman.
33. In November, the Council updated its housing allocation policy. It told Miss X about the policy update and said that because the Council owed her a main housing duty, her banding had been increased from Band C to Band B.

Analysis

34. Miss X complains that the Council wrongly assessed her as Band C for the housing register (part b of the complaint). She says the Council should have awarded her Band B because she has an overnight carer and because of her child’s medical condition.
35. The Council awarded Miss X Band C with medical priority because it recognised that she has a serious medical condition which is made substantially worse by her current housing.
36. I have considered the housing allocations policy the Council used at the time it made these banding decisions. Given the medical information Miss X provided, the Council could only award her medical priority for Band C. The policy does not allow for medical priority for those in Band B. The Council could not award Band B because Miss X did not meet the criteria to be in Band B.
37. I find that the Council appropriately reassessed Miss X’s housing application when she provided new evidence. I also find that the Council appropriately decided Miss X’s application in line with its policy. For these reasons, I do not find the Council at fault for the way it decided Miss X’s banding.
38. The Council increased Miss X’s banding to Band B in November 2020 because it updated its policy, not because it made a different decision about Miss X’s banding or circumstances. This increase is not evidence that the Council should have placed Miss X in Band B earlier. This is because the Council’s decision was in line with the policy in place at the time. When the policy changed, the Council appropriately reviewed Miss X’s application and increased her banding so it was in line with the updated policy. This is evidence of good practice.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation and I do not uphold part b of Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is no fault.
40. I have not investigated parts a, c, or d of Miss X’s complaint for the reasons given below.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

Housing support in 2016

41. Miss X complains that the Council failed to provide appropriate housing support in 2016 when she first applied to be on the housing register (part a of the complaint).
42. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints that are more than 12 months after the complainant first had knowledge of the problem, unless there are good reasons to do so (see paragraph seven).
43. In this case, Miss X was in communication with the Council at that time. I therefore consider that reasonable opportunities existed for Miss X to have pursued this matter in a more timely fashion, and within the time limits laid down in law. For this reason, I have decided there are no good reasons to exercise the Ombudsman’s discretion and investigate this part of Miss X’s complaint.

Complaint about a Council officer

44. Miss X complains that a Council officer acted inappropriately (part c of the complaint). She says an officer advised her to trick her ex-partner into signing a legal document about child custody.
45. The Ombudsman cannot investigate matters relating to personnel issues (see paragraph eight). For this reason, I have not investigated this part of Miss X’s complaint.

Discrimination

46. Miss X complains that the Council discriminated against her (part d of the complaint).
47. The Ombudsman cannot make a finding about alleged discrimination. This is an issue only the courts can determine.
48. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court (see paragraph nine). However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court.
49. I do not consider it unreasonable to expect Miss X to exercise that right and go to court if necessary. For this reason, I have not investigated this part of Miss X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman