Summary: Mr B complained about how the Council dealt with his application for housing. We find there was no fault by the Council in the application of its housing allocations policy. There was fault in delay in assessing the initial application for housing but that did not cause significant injustice to Mr B. The Council has apologised and taken steps to improve its process, and no further remedial action is needed.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complained the Council failed to correctly assess his application for housing since 2018 to take proper account of the mental and physical health of family members. Mr B reports that because of the Council’s actions the family lived in overcrowded conditions for seven years and was not awarded the priority for rehousing they should have been awarded.

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 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).
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 all the information provided by Mr B about his complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and took account of information and evidence it provided in response.
6. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative information – housing allocations

7. 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))
8. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in some specified categories, which include people in insanitary, overcrowded, or unsatisfactory housing, and people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
9. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
10. Under the Council’s housing allocations scheme, applicants for housing are placed in bands (emergency, gold, silver, or bronze) according to assessed housing need. The allocations policy sets out the criteria for each band.

The background to this complaint

11. In 2012 Mr B moved to a two-bedroom flat with his wife and three children. In December 2013 he applied to the Council for re-housing and was added to the Council’s housing register. In recognition of overcrowding, as the family was deemed to need a three-bedroom home, the application was placed in the silver band in line with the allocations policy.
12. In January 2018 Mr B provided medical information to support a request for increased banding. When this information was assessed the Council awarded a sub-banding of bronze to acknowledge ‘low medical’ need. Mr B was notified of the Council’s decision in writing in July 2018 and given the right to request a review if he disagreed. I will return to this point later in this statement.
13. In March 2020 Mr B submitted a letter from his wife’s doctor and asked the Council to review his property for rehousing. The Council considered the information provided but decided it did not warrant a change in banding and so the application remained in silver band with a bronze sub-banding to acknowledge medical issues. Mr B was notified of the decision and of his right to request a review. The Council acknowledged the evidence Mr B has submitted did highlight some mobility needs for his wife, and advised that if Mr B felt this would affect the type of property which would be suitable for the family he could ask social care to complete a housing needs assessment, which housing could then consider in terms of any effect on banding. Such assessment, by an occupational therapist, could also inform the need for adaptations or specific property types to meet mobility needs.
14. Mr B’s home was affected by damp and mould. He pursued this matter with his landlord over a lengthy period, but no solutions were forthcoming. While the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over this matter, the actions of the social housing landlord in this case being for the Housing Ombudsman, the issue of the condition of the property was also relevant to his requests for rehousing. In July 2020 Mr B asked the Council what proof would be needed for reassessment of his housing application based on the condition of his property. The Council advised that he should contact the Housing Standards Team to arrange an inspection of the property and send in any report resulting from this for consideration under the allocations policy.
15. At the end of July 2020 Mr B made a formal complaint to the Council about his banding. He said that he had submitted medical evidence to show his wife’s mental health was being adversely affected by their living conditions, and he expressed concern that the Council was prioritising those with mobility issues over those with a mental health condition. Around the same time, he provided the Council with copies of emails he had exchanged with his landlord about the condition of the property, and he asked the Council to reassess his hosing need taking account of all the family’s circumstances. The Council confirmed all information would be considered as part of the complaint investigation.
16. The Council issued its first-stage response to the complaint after a slight delay.

• In respect of housing banding in 2018, the Council said this reflected medical information submitted in that while the housing situation was a contributor factor to the stress suffered by Mrs B, and that stress impacted her ability to manage her condition, the condition itself was not caused by the housing situation. Later medical evidence submitted noted that stress was a significant and main trigger for Mrs B becoming unwell. The Council’s view was that this did not warrant a change in banding. A third submission from the same medical professional made no reference to housing and noted that there were no concerns about a relapse and that Mrs B continued to have good mental health. Evidence submitted in March 2020, apparently in support of an application for Blue Badge, also made no reference to housing. The Council confirmed that all medical information submitted had been considered, but also noted that it would look again at this in light of Mr B’s ongoing concerns if he submitted more information from Mrs B’s GP about her mobility issues and the impact of this on her needs in respect of housing, and an up-to-date assessment from a mental health professional.
• With regard to Mr B’s concerns about how various medical conditions are dealt with under the housing allocations policy, the Council explained that while many applicants have serious medical conditions, not all of these can be significantly improved by moving to another property: to qualify for an award under the policy the condition must either be caused by, or be made worse by the present housing, and the applicant or household member’s health must also be likely to be improved by moving to alternative accommodation.
• The Council explained how it had calculated the level of overcrowding in Mr B’s home, in compliance with the relevant legislation.
• The Council acknowledged there had been delay in processing Mr B’s application in 2018 and it apologized.

17. Mr B was dissatisfied, and his complaint was escalated to the next stage of the Council’s complaints procedure. Shortly after this Mr B submitted more medical information: this referred to the adverse impact of the family’s current housing on the mental health of his daughter. Around this time the Council also received an inspection report detailing the condition of Mr B’s home. The Council reassessed the application for housing and awarded the gold ‘high medical’ band, from the date of receipt of the latest medical information, and it notified Mr B accordingly. The award reflected the cumulative needs of the household, taking account of all information in respect of medical and welfare needs, overcrowding and the condition of the property. The Council refers to this as a composite housing needs assessment.
18. The Council acknowledged that the published timescale for response at the second stage of the complaint process had been exceeded. It apologised for this but noted that it was important that the reassessment be completed based on the new medical evidence and this had taken priority.
19. The stage two complaint response confirmed again that there had been delay in the assessment in 2018, but noted that the decision itself had been made in accordance with the allocations policy. It set out how the Council met the requirements of the Equality Act 2010, and that no reasonable adjustments had been requested but if a request were to be made it would be considered. It confirmed all information submitted to support banding assessments had been duly considered, and the newest information submitted had resulted in an increase to gold banding.
20. In recognition of the delay in assessment which had occurred in 2018, the Council undertook to implement additional management oversight to ensure assessment decisions are made in a timely manner.

Analysis

21. When banding decisions were made on Mr B’s housing application, these were duly notified to him and he was advised of his right to request a review, which he did not exercise until July 2020. Mr B has explained that he was occupied at this time with his wife’s illness, which he natural prioritised. While he might reasonably have requested review sooner given his view that his wife’s illness was exacerbated by the family’s living conditions, I have exercised discretion to include the earlier period in my consideration of his complaint.
22. Mr B feels his application for rehousing should have been placed in the gold band some years sooner, on grounds of his wife’s mental ill-health. However, it was for the Council to determine what banding should apply based on its consideration of the evidence provided and the application of its published allocations scheme. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority, or question a decision the Council has made, where it followed the right steps and considered relevant evidence.
23. In this case the Council’s decisions on banding were not affected by administrative fault, except in the delay in the original assessment in 2018. However, Mr B was not disadvantaged by that delay because the Council backdated the sub-banding in recognition of the medical information to the appropriate date in January 2018. Further, the Council apologised for this delay and took steps to prevent recurrence.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation on the basis set out above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman