Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application. The Council was at fault. There was delay in the Council completing a medical assessment and poor communication which caused Miss X frustration. The Council has offered a remedy for some of the injustice caused. We further recommend the Council apologises, reminds officers of their duty to communicate decisions about residents’ housing applications, and provides an update on its progress towards more timely medical assessments.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application. She said it delayed assessing her application, did not provide information or consider her medical needs, and its communication has been poor. She would like the Council to offer her a property and ensure other applicants do not have the same experience she has had.

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. We have considered the complaint made by Miss X and the documents she provided.
5. We considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and the documents it provided in response to our enquiries.
6. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on our draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

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 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))
9. Key points from the Council’s allocation scheme relevant to this complaint include:
• an application will be cancelled from the housing register if checks show the applicants are no longer living at the address at which they registered.
• where an applicant receives priority on medical or welfare grounds their effective date will be the date they were granted the award.
• if an applicant moves home and wants to remain on the housing register, they must tell the Council so it can reassess their housing need to reflect their new circumstances.
10. There is no statutory timescale for processing housing applications. However, we would usually expect a council to process a housing application within four to six weeks.
11. We would usually expect councils to process applications for priority awards without undue delay. This means there should not be significant periods of time where nothing is happening on a case while it is supposed to be under consideration.
12. We recognise the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We may 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.
13. Any decisions made about a housing application can be challenged by seeking a review with the council.
14. The Council has a two-stage complaint procedure. Complaints at stage one should be responded to within 15 working days, and complaints at stage two should be responded to within 20 working days.

What happened

15. Miss X applied to join the Council’s housing register in July 2018 due to her declining health and her rented accommodation becoming unsuitable. The Council accepted her application in September 2018. Miss X’s landlord later ended her tenancy and she moved home in December.
16. Miss X contacted the Council in April 2019 and it asked her to submit a new application. In response to my enquiries, the Council said due to the length of time from when Miss X moved to when she told the Council, it changed the effective date of her application to April 2019. There is no evidence the Council told Miss X of its decision to amend the effective date of her application or offered her a right of review about the decision. This was fault and deprived Miss X of an opportunity to challenge the Council’s decision.
17. Miss X told the Council she had medical conditions which meant she needed to move into more suitable accommodation. She completed a medical form at the Council’s request. The form said the Council would write to her if it needed further information.
18. Miss X says in October 2019 she contacted the Council for an update and it told her she needed a letter from her GP and a housing needs assessment from the county council. It took the Council five months from Miss X submitting her medical form to tell her it needed this further information. This is fault. If the Council had acted promptly, Miss X could have requested the letter and needs assessment sooner.
19. Miss X’s GP provided information in January 2020. Miss X says the county council completed its assessment in March 2020 and a copy was sent to the Council.
20. In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council announced it would only be allocating properties in an emergency. The Council told Miss X there was a delay in assessing medical information as its medical panel could not meet due to COVID-19 restrictions.
21. In response to our enquiries, the Council said it was its usual practice to carry out a home visit to verify information included in a housing application. By 2020, there was a backlog of cases waiting for visits, which was exacerbated by restrictions introduced in response to COVID-19. The Council said to keep processes such as medical assessments and housing allocations moving, it eventually decided to complete Miss X’s medical assessment without the benefit of a home visit. The Council said it began offering a reduced housing service in August 2020, and did not return to normal capacity until September 2021. The Council accepts that while the pandemic contributed to some of the delays in Miss X’s case, it was not the only factor as there were existing delays caused by a high workload in the team.
22. In June 2021, the Council’s medical panel considered Miss X’s case and assessed her as being in Band B, the second highest priority band. In its response to my enquiries, the Council accepted this took a long time and the decision was backdated to April 2019 to reflect this.
23. Miss X complained to the Council about its handling of her application. The Council’s response at stage one was issued on time, but its stage two response was several weeks late. In its response, the Council said it had applied its housing allocation policy correctly but said there was a lack of evidence of communication with Miss X about her application. It apologised and offered Miss X £200 to recognise the time and trouble she had been put to in making her complaint, and any distress it caused. I consider this offer remedies the injustice caused by delays in the Council’s complaint handling and by its poor communication.
24. In March 2022, after Miss X had complained to the Ombudsman, she accepted the Council’s offer of a suitable property. I asked the Council whether any other suitable properties had been available since April 2019. I also asked whether it had allocated any of those properties to applicants with a lower priority than Miss X would have had, if she had been allocated Band B at the time. The Council said only three suitable properties became available in this period. It allocated two to applicants in Band B who had been awaiting rehousing longer than Miss X. The third was offered outside of the Council’s allocations scheme to a family in need of urgent relocation due to the condition of their home. Therefore, while there was fault in the Council’s handling of Miss X’s case, I cannot say she would have been rehoused any sooner if these faults had not occurred.
25. In response to our enquiries, the Council says it has introduced a new digital self-service system to managing applications to the housing register, which is relieving the pressure on its housing team. It is also restructuring its housing team to provide a more effective service. The Council says it has reviewed the process for handling medical assessments and will be carrying out further work to ensure assessments are timely and it communicates with applicants.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. Within one month of our final decision, in addition to the financial remedy it has already offered, the Council should:
• apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused by the faults identified in this investigation; and
• remind officers of the need to tell applicants about any changes to their registration and their right to request a review of the Council’s decision.
27. Within three months of the final decision, the Council should provide the Ombudsman with an update on its progress towards improving the timeliness of medical assessments.

Back to top

Final decision

28. Miss X was caused an injustice by the actions of the Council and I have recommended it take action to remedy that injustice. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman