Summary: There was significant delay by the Council when it took 17 months to review its decision to remove Ms B from its housing register. It eventually decided to reinstate her application. The Council’s complaint handling was also very poor. The Council has allocated more resources to deal with its backlog of housing review requests. It will also apologise to Ms B and pay her £350 in recognition of the distress, uncertainty and frustration its failings caused her.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains that the Council:
• wrongly decided to remove her from its housing register;
• took far too long to deal with her review request;
• did not respond to her contact or keep her informed of its actions;
• said that it would move her to band C but did not in good time; and
• took too long to deal with her complaint to the Council about this.

Ms B says that as a result of the Council’s shortcomings she has been living in unsuitable accommodation.

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. 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

4. I considered the information provided by Ms B. I considered the information provided by the Council including its file documents. I also considered the law and guidance set out below. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement and I have taken these into account.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s housing allocation policy

5. 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))
6. The Council’s Housing Allocations policy places applicants in one of four bands from A to D. Amongst other criteria, the Council will place an applicant in Band C if there is a minor mobility reason to move. The Council will place an applicant in Band A if there is a need to move because the housing is having a severe and immediate effect on the medical conditions of the applicant.
7. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:

• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.

8. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
9. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says that review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process.
10. The Council’s Policy says that wherever practicable, it should complete the review within eight weeks of it being requested.

What happened

11. Ms B lives in a Council flat on the third floor accessed by stairs as there is no lift. She has a terminal lung condition, as well as other physical problems meaning that her lung capacity is limited, she has required regular hospital admissions, and she finds using the stairs difficult. Ms B also has significant mental illness including anxiety and depression. Ms B lives with a family member who also has a disability.
12. Ms B applied to join the Council’s housing register as she needed a more accessible property. The Council assessed her application, decided that she had a minor mobility reason to move.
13. In October 2019, the Council decided that as Ms B could manage the stairs to her flat, she had no housing need. The Council removed Ms B’s application from its housing register. Ms B asked the Council to review its decision on 13 October 2019. Under its policy the Council should have completed its review within eight weeks if possible, by 8 December.
14. On 5 December, the Council told Ms B it was still working on the review and it had new evidence. Ms B asked the Council what the new evidence was, as she had not sent any new information to it.
15. Ms B had been chasing the Council for a decision on its review. In January 2020, an advocate started to deal with the Council on her behalf. In February, the advocate made a formal complaint to the Council that the review was taking too long. It had already been 18 weeks since Ms B had requested this. The advocate also asked the Council for the new evidence it had mentioned in December.
16. In April, the Council told the advocate, that it was still working on the review and could not say what the new evidence was, but Ms B could make a Subject Access Request to get all the information from her file.
17. By November 2020, the Council had still not reviewed the decision, or given a substantive response to the advocate’s complaint. The advocate made another official complaint to the Council about its lack of response.
18. In February 2021, Ms B’s social worker telephoned the Council to say that, in December, Ms B had fallen and sustained multiple fractures. The fractures were inoperable and she could no longer manage the stairs.
19. In March, the Council responded to the advocate’s official complaint. It upheld the complaint and apologised to Ms B. It advised that it had completed the review of its decision to remove Ms B from the housing register. It had reinstated her to Band C, backdating this to 13 December 2018, when it had first admitted her to the register.
20. Ms B told the Council that she had expected to be in Band A, because she could no longer manage the stairs. The Council looked again at her application and placed her in Band A with effect from April 2021.

Was there fault by the Council causing an injustice to Ms B?

21. There was significant fault by the Council. It took a total of 73 weeks to complete its review and reinstate Ms B to Band C, meaning the review was 65 weeks, or 15 months overdue. This is far too long.
22. As of November 2021, the Council had 312 outstanding review requests and 286 will not have a response in time. The Council has initiated a Homeless Transformation Programme. It has allocated another officer to help clear the backlog and was training new staff.
23. There is nothing on the file to suggest there was new evidence for the review in December 2019. But in any case, the Council should not have told the advocate to make a Subject Access Request to discover what new evidence it had in its review.
24. In response to my enquiries, the Council has given details of properties that Ms B would have been eligible to bid on had the Council completed the review on time. During the period of delay, several properties became available but all were let to applicants with a higher priority than Ms B, except one. This property was not in one of Ms B’s preferred areas.
25. It seems then that the Council’s delay in reinstating Ms B to the housing register did not mean that she missed out on a suitable council property. However, the delay caused her distress, frustration, uncertainty and outrage. The Council’s failures also had the potential to impact on Ms B’s ability to make good decisions about her housing as she waited for the Council to make a decision.
26. There was significant fault by the Council in its complaint handling. It failed to respond substantively to the advocate’s first complaint about delay, and took four months to respond to his second complaint to it. The Council’s poor complaint handling added to Ms B’s distress and frustration.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. Ms B has suffered distress, uncertainty and frustration. In order to remedy this, the Council has agreed that within one month of this decision it will show the Ombudsman it has:
• Apologised to Ms B; and
• Paid her £350 as a symbolic gesture of the distress its failings caused her.
28. In reaching this recommendation, I have taken into account the particular impact on Ms B given her poor mental health and physical disability, her chronic and terminal illness, and the significant length of the delay.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation. There was maladministration causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman