Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of Ms Y and Mr Z. He complains that Council is at fault for not awarding band A priority under its housing allocations scheme to Ms Y and Mr Z. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to place Ms Y and Mr Z in band B. The Council failed to respond to Ms Y and Mr Z’s complaint of June 2020 which is fault and this caused frustration to them. The Council will remedy this injustice by apologising to Ms Y and Mr Z.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of Ms Y and Mr Z. He complains that there was fault in the Council’s decision not to award band A priority to Ms Y and Mr Z to enable them to move to suitable accommodation. Ms Y and Mr Z consider they should be placed in priority band A due to severe overcrowding, risks to their children and due to Mr Z’s medical conditions which are exacerbated by his living conditions. They consider the Council’s failure to award band A has caused them to live in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
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 have:

• Considered the complaint and the information provided by Mr X;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• Invited Mr X and the Council to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. 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))
7. The Council’s housing allocations policy has three bands – A, B and C and it places applicants in the bands according to their housing need. Band A is the highest priority. The criteria for band A includes applicants who need to move urgently because of a critical medical or welfare need or need to move urgently because there are critical safeguarding circumstances. Band B is for applicants who have a serious medical or welfare need.

What happened

8. Ms Y and Mr Z live in a one bedroom flat with their two young children. Ms Y and Mr Z are also expecting another child. I understand they have been on the housing register since 2007. Mr Z has a number of medical conditions.
9. The Council placed Ms Y and Mr Z in band C with effect from January 2015. In June 2020 Ms Y and Mr Z made a complaint that they had been on the housing register since 2007 and were overcrowded at their current accommodation. They requested band A. There is no evidence to show the Council responded to this complaint.
10. In August 2020 Ms Y and Mr Z’s MP wrote to the Council asking it to review their situation due to Mr Z’s medical conditions and because they were overcrowded. The Council explained Ms Y and Mr Z were in band C which reflected their current circumstances. It advised Ms Y and Mr Z to send any new medical reports to the Council if there had been a change in his medical condition.
11. In September 2020 Ms Y and Mr Z requested a review of their priority band and provided information from Mr Z’s medical professionals about his medical conditions. Ms Y and Mr Z also said they were overcrowded as their property only had two rooms and the combined kitchen and living area presented a danger to their two small children.
12. The Council consulted its medical advisors who considered Mr Z’s medical needs were serious. The Council completed its review and decided Ms Y and Mr Z should be placed in band B. The Council wrote to Ms Y and Mr Z informing them of the decision. In its letter the Council said that in order to be placed in band A, Mr Z’s medical needs would have to be considered critical which is usually considered life threatening because of housing conditions. The Council said that it had not seen anything which indicates this applied to Mr Z or anyone else in the household.
13. Ms Y and Mr Z made a complaint about the Council’s decision not to place them in band A. The Council considered the complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure. The Council did not uphold their complaint. It advised Ms Y and Mr Z that they would be considered seriously overcrowded once their baby had born and would be able to bid on three bedroom properties when they had provided the birth certificate and their housing application had been updated.
14. In response to my enquiries, the Council has said it considers band B is the correct decision as:

• Its allocations policy does not award priority for private rented tenants lacking one bedroom which was the case with Ms Y and Mr Z;
• There was no evidence of safeguarding issues relating to the household;
• It acknowledged Mr Z had great difficulty in leaving the flat due to the stairs but he could use the property with a walking aid, use the bath with a hoist and does not need further adaptations to the property.
• Band A would be a case where someone could not only access the property but not use it once inside.

15. The Council said it recognised Mr Z’s medical condition could worsen and may need a reassessment in the future.

My assessment

16. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to place Ms Y and Mr Z in band B instead of band A. The Council made this decision after reviewing Mr Z’s medical information and seeking advice from its medical advisors. The Council has also explained in response to my enquiries why Mr Z’s circumstances do not warrant band A priority. I am satisfied the Council’s explanation shows it made its decision in accordance with the Council’s allocation’s policy.
17. The Council has not specifically explained why it does not consider the combined kitchen/living room to present such a danger to Ms Y and Mr Z’s children to warrant band A priority. But the Council’s review decision letter to Ms Y and Mr Z states there are no life threatening conditions to anyone in the household. The Council’s response to my enquiries states there are no safeguarding issues. So, on balance, I consider the Council has considered if Ms Y and Mr Z’s housing conditions presented a critical welfare or safeguarding risk to the household when making its decision to place them in band B rather than band A.
18. I acknowledge Ms Y and Mr Z strongly consider they should be placed in band A. But I do not have grounds to question the Council’s decision as there is no evidence of fault in how it reached its decision to place them in band B.
19. There is no evidence to show the Council responded to Ms Y and Mr Z’s complaint of June 2020. This is fault and the Council should have considered their complaint at stage one of the complaints procedure. This will have caused frustration to Ms Y and Mr Z and may have avoided the need for them to contact their MP at that stage. The Council should apologise to Ms Y and Mr Z for this injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

20. The Council will:
1. send a written apology for the frustration caused to Ms Y and Mr Z for its failure to consider their letter of June 2020 as a complaint and respond to it at stage one of the complaints procedure. The Council should take this action within one month of my final decision.
2. review the circumstances which led to its failure to respond to Ms Y and Mr Z’s complaint of June 2020 to identify why it did not respond and, if necessary, review its procedures to ensure it identifies complaints and responds to them in accordance with its complaints procedure. The Council should take this action within two months of my final decision and explain to the Ombudsman the action it has taken to improve its performance in this area.

Back to top

Final decision

21. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to place Ms Y and Mr Z in band B. The Council failed to respond to Ms Y and Mr Z’s complaint of June 2020 which is fault and caused frustration to them. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms Y and Mr Z for this injustice which is a proportionate remedy. I have therefore completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman