Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council has dealt with her housing case. She also complained about the Council’s delay and lack of communication with her. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mrs X’s housing needs. But it was at fault for its delay and poor communication with Mrs X. This has caused Mrs X distress, uncertainty and time and trouble chasing the Council for updates on her housing case. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about how the Council has dealt with her housing case. In particular the Council’s:

• failure to recognise the length of time she has been waiting for social housing
• failure to acknowledge and properly consider the evidence she submitted to the Council in support of her housing allocation case
• delay and lack of proper communication with her.

2. Mrs X says the matter has caused her significant distress, affected her well-being and she has been put to time and trouble chasing the Council for updates on her housing case. She says the Council’s failure has led to overcrowding, her family continues to live in unsuitable accommodation, and it has worsened the risk of harm within her household.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated the Council’s alleged failure in connection with the exercise of its administrative and statutory functions.
4. I have exercised discretion to investigate matters from 2019. This is because I needed to consider the whole period to carry out a meaningful investigation.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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)
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 have discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered the information she provided. I also considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
9. I sent Mrs X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and considered the comments received before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and Guidance

10. Every local housing authority must publish an allocation 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))
11. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others

(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

12. The Ombudsman normally will not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
13. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We normally will not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

The Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme

14. The Council does not own any housing stock. It works in partnership with housing associations operating in the county to address housing need through the allocation of social housing.
15. The Council operates a choice-based letting system. This means housing applicants can apply / bid for available properties through the major housing associations working in the county.
16. Applications are assessed for bedroom need and prioritised by band, and, within that band, by effective date.
17. Under the Council’s previous housing allocation scheme, it used a colour banding system (Green, Amber and Red priority bands). The green priority band was awarded to applicants with the most urgent housing need while the red priority band was awarded to applicants with the lowest housing need.
18. Under the Council’s current housing allocation scheme, it uses an alphabetical banding system. The Council places applicants who qualify to join its housing register in a priority band according to their housing application assessment. The bands are from ‘Band A’ (applicants having the most urgent need) to ‘Band E’ (applicants having no housing need recognised in the housing scheme but wish to apply to the local housing associations for social housing).
19. Medical needs are considered on the basis of information provided to in-house staff and referrals made to independent medical professional services for more in‑depth review of cases, where appropriate.
20. Accessible housing refers to housing which has been constructed or modified to enable independent living for persons with disabilities.

What happened

21. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
22. Mrs X lives with her four children in a 3-bedroom property. Two of Mrs X’s children have medical health conditions which means they cannot share a bedroom. Child 1’s medical conditions include cerebral palsy with associated learning disability which directly impacts on his ability to control aggression. Child 3 has Attention-Deficit / Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
23. In February 2019, the Council registered Mrs X under an Amber priority band for overcrowding on medical grounds. The Council found Mrs X had a need for a 4‑bedroom property under its housing allocation scheme.
24. In March 2019, Mrs X requested a review of her banding priority. She said the Council should have placed her under a higher banding based on her children’s medical conditions. Mrs X submitted evidence to show the impact two of her children’s disabilities was having on her family’s mental health and wellbeing. The supporting documents stated Child 1’s moderate intellectual disability and Child 3’s ADHD condition. The medical expert’s supporting letter explained Child 1’s complex needs presented challenging behaviours which could potentially put Child 1 and Child 3 at risk if conflict between the two children continued to worsen. The letter further recommended the Council to consider a 4‑bedroom property for Mrs X to safeguard Child 1 and the family.
25. In June 2019, the Council issued its review outcome letter to Mrs X. It said it considered the medical evidence she submitted to show the two children could not share a room. The Council found Mrs X remained in Amber Band on medical grounds in line with its scheme. It advised Mrs X of her further right to appeal its decision.
26. In July 2019, Mrs X asked the Council if it considered all her supporting documents including the doctor’s safeguarding letter. The Council said it considered the letter which stated, “…could potentially be at risk” and “….to safeguard I would recommend a 4‑bedroom property”. It maintained Mrs X remained under the Amber Band. The Council failed to explain this to Mrs X or respond to her question.
27. In May 2020, the Council informed Mrs X its housing allocation scheme was due to change in June 2020 following a review of its previous scheme. The Council explained its colour banding would be replaced with an alphabetical banding. It explained Mrs X’s priority band would automatically be amended, she would retain her original registration date and that applicants would be able to bid for two properties at any one time.
28. In June 2020, the Council changed its banding system to Bands A – E.
29. In 2020, under the Council’s new banding system, it placed Mrs X into Band B for overcrowding, and she remained eligible for a 4-bedroom property. The Council advised Mrs X of her appeal right if she remained dissatisfied with its decision.
30. In early March 2021, Mrs X put in a bid for a property which she said was suitable for her family. The Council said the property was advertised in error, so it withdrew the property.
31. In mid-March 2021, Mrs X’s family social worker (FSW) informed the Council about Mrs X’s children’s medical issues. The FSW questioned if the Council had awarded them the correct priority banding and asked if Mrs X’s family needed to be put onto the accessible home register (AHR). The Council replied to the FSW, it requested further information regarding Mrs X’s family’s needs and their potential need for AHR.
32. Mrs X wrote to the Council, expressing her frustration with how long she had been waiting on the Council’s housing register. She explained the impact their overcrowding situation and her children’s medical conditions were having on her entire family’s mental health and the need to move into suitable accommodation.
33. At the end of March 2021, the FSW chased the Council for update on the AHR for Mrs X’s family. She provided the Council with details of Mrs X’s children’s health conditions and additional information about the family’s accommodation needs. The FSW said the family had been waiting a long time for a 4‑bedroom property. The Council issued a holding letter stating Mrs X’s case needed further investigation and it would issue its response as soon as it could.
34. Mrs X’s FSW wrote to the Council again about the 4-bedroom property that Mrs X put in a bid for in early March which fell through. The FSW said during a telephone call, the housing association informed Mrs X, the Council gave the property to another family with children who has a disability. The FSW suggested this was because the Council did not record that two of Mrs X’s children had disabilities. She said Mrs X had provided the Council with her children’s medical reports when she first joined the housing register. The FSW said she had also recently informed the Council of Mrs X’s children’s disabilities and a need for AHR to be considered for the family. The FSM asked the Council to clarify the matter and how it would support Mrs X’s family to get a suitable accommodation because 4-bedroom properties were difficult to get.
35. The Council said it was unable to make comments on Mrs X’s bid which fell through. But it confirmed the Council held information about Mrs X’s children’s emotional / behavioural needs but not any physical need for an accessible home. The Council said it could consider the option for an AHR report via Adult Social Care but said it would not change Mrs X’s priority band. It said it would contact Mrs X to discuss the AHR option.
36. In early April 2021, Mrs X provided the Council with her supporting letter and evidence of her children’s medical conditions. This included Mrs X’s children’s learning disabilities and Child 1’s cerebral palsy condition. Mrs X raised concerns about her family’s housing need with her MP who contacted the Council on her behalf.
37. On 4 May 2021, Mrs X chased the Council for an update following its March 2021 holding letter. She asked if the additional information and medical evidence she submitted to it were useful.
38. On 25 May 2021, the Council replied to Mrs X’s MP. It confirmed Mrs X’s priority Band B with a need for an additional bedroom was awarded correctly in line with its housing scheme. The Council explained how its bidding system worked and the lack of availability of 4-bedroom properties. It suggested Mrs X should contact the landlords Allocation Team directly when properties she was interested in got advertised. The MP shared the Council’s response letter with Mrs X.
39. The Council contacted Mrs X and apologised for its delay in responding to her. It confirmed it had considered the information Mrs X provided to it and in line with its housing scheme, she remained under Band B. But the Council said it was considering if Mrs X could be added to the AHR waiting list. This was to provide support for applicants who require additional specifications within a house to enable household members manage in a more appropriate manner.
40. Mrs X wrote to the Council disputing her Band B award despite her children’s medical evidence she submitted to it in support of her application. She asked the Council to explain how it considered her case and awarded her Band B priority. Mrs X said the Council did not respond to her request.
41. On 28 May 2021, the Council contacted Mrs X. It discussed the AHR with her and got her consent for an occupational therapy (OT) referral. The Council made the OT referral and in June 2021, the assessment was completed.
42. In July 2021, the OT report was issued. The Council added Mrs X to the AHR register and she remained on priority Band B. The OT report placed Mrs X under Category 1 / Serious Mobility Issues (terminal illness, serious neurological conditions, exceptional / accumulative circumstances). The report stated Mrs X would benefit from an accessible / adapted re-housing. It supported a move as it was unlikely Mrs X’s property could be adapted to meet her family’s needs and resolve the overcrowding in the household.
43. On 22 July 2021, Mrs X made a formal complaint to the Council. She complained she had been on the housing waiting list, since 2019. She said the Council failed to acknowledge and properly consider her children’s medical evidence in support of her housing application. Mrs X complained the Council failed to acknowledge the seriousness of her children’s disabilities and the impact it has had on her family’s housing need. She complained about its poor communication with her. Mrs X also complained about the Council’s delay in carrying out the OT assessment and that it failed to issue any follow-on correspondence to her after the OT report was issued in July 2021. Mrs X asked the Council to consider her application again and find a suitable 4-bedroom property for her family based on medical grounds and overcrowding.
44. On 24 August 2021, the Council issued its response letter to Mrs X’s complaint. It apologised for its delay in responding to her complaint. The Council maintained it awarded Mrs X the correct banding, Band B, in line with its scheme. It said the Mrs X’s band reflected her need to move to a 4-bedroom property due to overcrowding. The Council explained there had been nineteen 4-bedroom properties since Mrs X joined its housing register of which Mrs X put in bids on 2 of those properties. It noted Mrs X had been added onto the AHR. The Council acknowledged the shortage of 4-bedroom properties and the difficulty applicants were having in securing such properties. It explained it owns no social housing properties but works with housing associations operating in its county. The Council advised Mrs X to keep bidding for suitable advertised properties and to contact it if she needed any advice as regards the AHR.
45. Mrs X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response. She made a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

46. I note one of Mrs X’s complaints is about the Council’s failure to recognise the length of time she has been on its housing waiting list. While the Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far exceeds the supply of properties in many areas, the crux of the issue here is whether the Council properly considered Mrs X’s housing application, in particular in 2019.
47. The Ombudsman role is not to decide what banding priority councils should award applicants. Our role is to decide whether the Council followed guidance and considered relevant information when it made its decisions in relation to Mrs X’s housing case. In this case, evidence shows the Council considered the information Mrs X provided to the Council in support of her housing case both in 2019 and 2021.
48. In 2019, the Council awarded Mrs X an Amber priority band under its previous allocation scheme and a similar priority, Band B in 2020 when it changed its banding system. Mrs X’s priority award was for overcrowding based on medical grounds. Evidence shows the Council did not have information about Mrs X’s children’s physical disabilities in 2019, so the Council could only make a decision on the information Mrs X provided to it. Therefore, I do not find fault by the Council for not recording Mrs X’s children’s physical disabilities or for not making OT and AHR referrals sooner. There was also no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to put Mrs X in Band B in 2021 as it reviewed her banding based on the information she provided to it. The Council made a referral to OT and it considered and added Mrs X onto the AHR following the OT report. Mrs X remained in Band B. I find the Council’s assessments of and decisions on Mrs X’s housing application were considered in line with guidance and the Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme.
49. As regards Mrs X’s property bid in March 2021, there are two conflicting accounts as to why the property was withdrawn. I acknowledge how Mrs X must have felt when this happened given she felt it was a suitable property for her family. However, there is insufficient evidence available for me to make a decision as to why the property was withdrawn.
50. There was fault by the Council when it delayed informing Mrs X of its decision about her review request in 2019. Mrs X disputed her banding priority award and requested a review in March 2019. The Council failed to issue its decision letter to Mrs X until June 2019 upholding its original Amber Band award. This was approximately a 3-month delay. Again, in July 2019 Mrs X asked the Council if it considered all the supporting documents she submitted to it, this included a doctor’s safeguarding letter. Although the Council said it considered the safeguarding letter and Mrs X remained under the Amber Band, the Council failed to respond to Mrs X’s question. This was fault. Similarly, in March 2021, Mrs X’s FSW’s requested the Council to consider the AHR option for the family. Evidence shows, Mrs X and the FSW chased the Council for updates on the AHR request. And although the Council issued its holding letter in March 2021, it failed to consider Mrs X’s family for AHR until May 2021. These caused Mrs X uncertainty, distress, anxiety and time and trouble chasing the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following within one month of the final decision:

• apologise in writing and pay Mrs X £100 financial remedy in recognition for the poor standard of service and poor communication provided to her
• by training or other means remind staff of the importance of issuing review request outcomes and responding to applicants’ queries in a timely manner.

Back to top

Final decision

52. I find evidence of fault by the Council leading to injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman