Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr D’s complaint against the Council about how it dealt with his application to join its housing register. Had he provided correct information on his application, the Council would have refused it, instead of allowing him on the register and none of the events about which he now complains, would have happened.

The complaint

1. Mr D complains about the Council not applying its own housing allocation policy to his application for housing by:
1. Failing to decide his request for medical priority for his children’s health problems; and
2. Restricting the area within which he can bid for properties under its ‘local area preference’ criteria by limiting it to within a ward’s boundary when the policy says, ‘within the specified area’, which is not defined.
2. As a result, he has been discriminated against, does not have the priority he should have to bid for properties, all of which is causing him a great deal of stress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. 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)

Back to top

Council’s Housing allocation policy (January 2020)

5. The policy sets out the Council’s scheme for deciding priorities when allocating accommodation. It uses a banding scheme to decide an applicant’s level of priority (band). There are 4 bands with band A, the highest, and band D, the lowest.
6. Band A, which is usually awarded for 6 months, includes those who have an urgent need to move on medical grounds or disability. Applicants must show they, or a member of their household, have a diagnosed medical condition and/or disability and have an urgent need to move. The need to move must be because they are living in accommodation unsuitable for them because of their medical condition and/or disability. They also need to show they cannot function independently in their home and/or are unable to manage access to their home or access is very limited. To qualify for this band, these problems cannot be remedied in any way, such as by adaptations for example.
7. Band A also includes those who are severely overcrowded. This is for households who are 2 or more bedrooms short under its bedroom standard. The standard says a married couple need a separate bedroom as does a pair of children aged under 10 years. Accommodation with 2 reception rooms (or parlour) will have one of them counted as a bedroom.
8. Band B, which is usually awarded for 12 months, includes applicants who are overcrowded because they lack one bedroom under its standard.
9. The scheme also has a Local Area Preference which gives applicants an extra 12 months waiting time if they need to stay in their current area because they need to have easy access to a local school or college, for example, to continue their children's education at the current school. A local school is defined as one located within 2 miles of an applicant’s current residence. Applicants awarded additional time will, ‘only be considered for offers of tenancy within the specified area.’

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered all the information provided by Mr D, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent him. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr D and the Council. I considered their response.

Back to top

What I found

11. Mr D lives in a privately rented 2-bedroom house with his wife and 3 young children. The 2 older children have autism, learning difficulties, and behavioural issues. This means he cannot leave them alone in the same bedroom because they fight.
12. Mr D applied to join the Council’s housing register in February 2021. The Council placed his application in a queue:

• April: it received a request to assess his children’s needs;
• May: his representative contacted the Council who asked it to process his application urgently due to the family’s circumstances. The Council replied noting Mr D was waiting for a social worker’s care assessment of the children (the assessment) which it needed to see to assess whether his family had medical needs for saying his property was unsuitable. The Council also asked for information to help show their eligibility to join the housing register;
• June: having received information about eligibility, and carried out checks, it accepted him on to the housing register and placed him in band B. This is because he was overcrowded and lacked one bedroom. Mr D appealed its decision on the grounds of his children’s health

Mr D sent medical evidence to the Council about their health as he believed he should be in band A. This was not assessed straight away because it was waiting for the completion of the assessment;

The Council provided a copy of the assessment which confirmed social care had no further role with the family at this time. Officers dealing with his application did not see this report for 3 months;

• July: an appeal review confirmed the decision to award band B was correct. In the decision letter to Mr D, the Council said a local area preference award would restrict, ‘your bids to a 2 mile radius of the area you wish to live’. Mr D asked the Council to add local area preference to his priority;
• August: a senior officer contacted Mr D about the local area preference. Mr D queried why he was limited to wards and not properties within a 2-mile radius An officer told him it gives the preference according to the wards his address, and the school’s address, are in;
• September: officers received a copy of the assessment, once Mr D agreed they could see it. When it received it, the assessment did not support his request for priority housing;

Mr D sent further medical information to the Council. He sent a copy of two letters from a consultant community paediatrician dated July. The Council agreed to re-assess his application because of this evidence;

The Council confirmed it awarded Mr D extra waiting time on his application under local area preference. It also corrected what it previously told him 3 months earlier. It said he would only be considered for offers of a tenancy within the specified area, which is his ward. Mr D argued this is not what the scheme says which makes no mention of wards at all. The Council apologised for the incorrect explanation about the award in its appeal decision letter;

In addition, the Council also explained it was at this point, information from the assessment revealed Mr D lived in a 2-bed parlour property, not a 2 bed non-parlour property; and

• October: the Council decided to award priority on medical grounds backdated to when it received the first medical application. Mr D needed an extra bedroom and there were difficulties and risks faced by the family with the 2 children sharing a bedroom. It also noted Mr D failed to disclose he was in a 2-bed parlour house when he completed the application initially. Mr D argued the parlour room was too small for use as a bedroom. It decided not to disqualify him for failing to give correct information and placed him in band A with a start date of 3 June 2020. Mr D is now eligible for a 3-bed parlour house or 4-bedroom house because it is not suitable for their sons to share a bedroom.

13. In response to my enquiries about local area preference, the Council explained the phrase ‘within the specified area’ means the ‘area specified to each successful applicant on a case by case basis’. The letter to an applicant confirming the award tells them the wards in which they can bid. As the areas within which they can bid are restricted, the Council awards further time. It explained the 2 mile radius is only part of the test for deciding whether there is a need to stay in a particular area or not. It does not mean the bidding area is within the 2-mile radius of either the school or house as Mr D thought. An applicant can choose not to have the local area preference.
14. It also explained if it had been identified Mr D’s house was a 2-bed parlour property, it would not have awarded him band B for 1 bedroom lacking. It would not have accepted him to the housing register at the time. This is because he would be considered suitably housed before he supplied the medical and occupational therapist evidence.
15. The Council also explained Mr D moved in January 2022 to alternative private accommodation. It will now reassess his application because of this change in circumstances.

Analysis

16. I make the following findings on this complaint:
1. The starting point for this complaint is Mr D’s initial application to join the housing register. The Council says he failed to declare he had 2 reception rooms in his accommodation. This was an important failing because of the Council’s bedroom standard. Had he declared he had 2 reception rooms, under its standard, the Council would not have assessed him as overcrowded by one bedroom lacking. This is because the Council would have viewed one of these rooms as another bedroom.
2. While I have not seen a copy of his initial application, information provided in support of his medical request supports what the Council says. This form shows he only declared one living room. The Council was not at fault for allowing him to join the housing register based on the information provided.
3. Mr D was only allowed to join the housing register because he provided the Council with incorrect information. The events that followed about which he complains flowed from this single failure by Mr D. Had he given the Council the correct information, it is more likely than not the events which followed would not have taken place. This is because he would not have been on the housing register.
4. All the failings he complains about, such as the Council taking until September to see the assessment, were in a period when he would not have been on the housing register. The same is also true about the incorrect information given about how the local area preference worked.
5. On balance, I am satisfied the Council would not have allowed Mr D on to the housing register until October, after he had sent it further medical evidence. Mr D has been put in a better position than if the Council had refused his initial application and he applied again in September with further evidence. This is because the Council awarded him band A but, backdated it to when he first sent medical evidence.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I found no fault on Mr D’s complaint against the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman