Summary: Mr B complained, for Mrs C, the Council failed to consider Mrs C’s circumstances when it refused her housing application in 2020. Mr B says Mrs C has been unable to access suitable housing. We found fault with the Council for its delay assessing Mrs C’s housing application and providing her with information about how to ask for a Care Act assessment. This delay caused Mrs C injustice and the Council will take action to remedy this.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained, for his sister Mrs C, the Council failed to consider Mrs C’s circumstances when it refused her housing application in 2020.
2. Mr B says Mrs C has been unable to access suitable housing.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I investigated the Council’s decision to refuse her housing application in 2020.
4. I did not investigate the Council’s January 2021 decision not to accept Mrs C’s housing application because she has the right of review. Mr B requested a review in March 2021.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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

8. I considered:
• Mr B’s complaint and the information he provided;
• documents supplied by the Council;
• relevant legislation and guidelines; and
• the Council’s policies and procedures.
9. Mr B and the Council commented on a draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and Guidance

10. A local housing authority, in this case the London Borough of Bexley, must have an allocation scheme for 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))
11. The Housing Act 1996 s.166A sets out the reasonable preference categories, these 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.
12. The Council may give 'additional preference' to applicants within the reasonable preference categories, provided they have urgent housing needs.
13. Councils must tell applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:
• the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
14. The Council must also tell the applicant of the right to ask for a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9)) Reviews should be completed within a set deadline. Eight weeks is suggested as a reasonable timescale. The applicant should told of any extension to this deadline and the reasons for this.
15. The Care Act 2014 sets out councils’ responsibilities to assess the needs of adults in their area. Councils must undertake an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support, regardless of whether the council thinks the individual has eligible needs or their financial situation.

London Borough of Bexley housing allocations scheme

16. The London Borough of Bexley has restricted qualification to its housing register to those who have lived in the borough continuously for the last five years and do so at the point of application.
17. This five-year prior residency rule does not apply to the following:
• members of the Armed Forces and former Service personnel, where the application is made within five years of discharge.
• bereaved spouses and civil partners of members of the Armed Forces leaving Services Family Accommodation following the death of their spouse or partner.
• serving or former members of the Reserve Forces who need to move because of a serious injury, medical condition or disability sustained as a result of their service.
• other categories of applicants i.e. those classed as exceptional cases, those who are referred as social needs cases and those who are accepted as homeless.
18. Examples of exceptional circumstances are when applicants have life-threatening situations where there is an overriding priority on medical or social grounds.
19. The Council will award a medical priority where the housing is unsuitable for severe medical reasons or because of their disability, and where the environment presents critical or substantial difficulties to the person or directly contributes to causing serious ill health. The Council does not give medical priority solely on the existence of a health problem. It is only awarded where the health of an applicant or a member of their household is made significantly worse or prevented from improving by their accommodation and would be demonstrably improved by a move to alternative accommodation.
20. The Allocations Service aims to register applications within 28 days.

Covid-19

21. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced new, and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the Council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published ‘Good Administrative Practice during the response to Covid-19’.

What happened

22. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
23. Mrs C moved into the Council area in October 2019. She moved into a one bedroom first floor flat without lift access.
24. Mrs C made a housing application in February 2020. She said her housing was unsuitable because she struggled to navigate the entrance steps to her front door because of health problems. She said she wanted the Council to consider her for sheltered housing.
25. In April 2020, The Council told Mrs C it was sending her application to its medical team for assessment. It explained she did not meet the five-year prior residency rule and would not be eligible to join the housing register unless she was awarded medical priority. The medical team contacted Mr B and asked for Mrs C’s latest medical information. Mr B sent the Council copies of letters from Mrs C’s doctor and hospital.
26. The Council decided in May 2020, Mrs C did not meet the criteria for its housing register. It wrote to her and told her she did not meet its five-year residency or its exceptional case criteria. It said she was entitled to appeal for a review. The Council included details of two housing associations she could apply to direct.
27. Mr B asked the Council to review its decision. He also asked why the Council had not undertaken a Care Act assessment for Mrs C.
28. In July 2020, the Council asked a private company to complete a medical assessment for Mrs C. The company’s report listed the supporting evidence it considered and Mrs C’s medical conditions. It stated there was nothing to suggest that Mrs C required the use of any permanent walking aids to mobilise or could not walk up and down some stairs. The Council rejected Mrs C’s appeal in August 2020. It said there was no evidence her current accommodation was unsuitable.
29. Mr B complained to the Council. He said it had not contacted Mrs C’s doctor or the hospital she attended as part of its assessment. He complained the Council had not undertaken a Care Act assessment.
30. The Council responded at stage 1 of its complaint procedure in September 2020. It explained it could not share the full details of the case with Mr B without Mrs C’s consent. It said the review officer would have considered all aspects of the case before making a review decision. It advised it had a waiting list of over 7000 households on the housing register and it was only in exceptional circumstances that it waived the five-year residency criteria.
31. Mr B asked the Council to consider the complaint at stage 2. The Council responded in October 2020. It confirmed it followed the correct procedure when it reviewed Mrs C’s housing application. It advised the housing department did not have a duty to request Care Act assessments. It told Mr B how Mrs C could ask for a Care Act assessment.
32. The Council undertook a Care Act assessment for Mrs C in November 2020. The Council assessed her as needing a shower stool. The practitioner wrote a letter of support for Mrs C’s housing application.
33. Mr B complained to the Ombudsman in January 2021.

Analysis

34. The Council assessed Mrs C’s housing application against its published allocations scheme. It considered her application, supporting information and a medical assessment. It found her ineligible because she did not meet the five-year priority residency rule and did not have medical priority. It told Mrs C in writing of its decision and reasons for it.
35. The Council accepted Mrs C’s review request. It sought a medical assessment from a private company. The Council rejected her appeal because there was no evidence her current accommodation was unsuitable.
36. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. I have not seen any evidence of fault in how the Council decided Mrs C was ineligible for its housing register and so I cannot question its merits. These were decisions the Council was entitled to make.
37. The Council’s policy says it aims to register applications within 28 days. In this case it took three months to decide Mrs C was not eligible for the housing register, a delay of two months. If the Council had processed her application within 28 days, this would have happened before the first COVID-19 lockdown in March 2020. The delay may have been exacerbated by COVID-19, but registration of her application was already late. The two-month delay is fault. If it were not for this delay, Mrs C could have asked for a review sooner. The review upheld the Council’s original decision and therefore the delay did not cause significant injustice.
38. The Council was not required to undertake a Care Act as part of its housing assessment. However, when Mr B asked it why it had not done one in May 2020, it should have told him how to ask for one. The Council did not provide this information until October 2020. This six-month delay was fault. If Mr B or Mrs C had received this information sooner, they could have asked for a Care Act assessment sooner. Mrs C missed having access to a shower stool, which made washing easier, for six months because of the delay.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. Within one month of the final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Mrs C for the delays identified in paragraphs 37 and 38.
• Pay Mrs C £200 for its delay providing her with information about how to request a Care Act assessment.
• Remind staff that people who make housing applications may also have care and support needs. Provide guidance to staff about offering people appropriate advice about how to request, or referring them for, a Care Act assessment.
40. The Council should provide the Ombudsman with evidence these actions have been completed.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr B’s complaint. Mrs C was caused an injustice by the actions of the Council. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

42. I did not investigate the Council’s January 2021 decision not to accept Mrs C’s housing application because she has the right of review. Mr B requested a review in March 2021.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman