Summary: Miss B says the Council delayed telling her she needed to complete a new housing register application, failed to consider her family’s medical needs when awarding her a housing band and failed to respond to her complaint. The Council wrongly closed Miss B’s housing register application, wrongly told her she would need to complete a new application, failed to respond to her correspondence and failed to respond to her stage two complaint. An apology, payment to Miss B, review of this case to identify what went wrong and an action plan to address that, reminder to officers and a review of how complaints are handled is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss B, complained the Council:
• failed to tell her in January 2021 she needed to complete a new housing register application;
• failed to consider her family’s medical needs when assessing her banding; and
• failed to respond to her complaint.
2. Miss B says fault by the Council has caused her significant stress and led to her going to time and trouble to pursue her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a Council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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)
5. 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

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Miss B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
7. Miss B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

8. The Council’s allocations policy (the policy) refers to the requirement under the Housing Act 1996 to provide reasonable preference on the housing register to applicants who have a need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
9. The policy says this category includes an applicant, or member of that applicant‘s household, whose health is being affected by their current property, and where a move to another more suitable property would alleviate their condition or make it easier to manage, and other management action or adjustment to the property cannot alleviate the problem.
10. The policy says where it appears there is a need to make enquiries into an applicant‘s medical condition, the Council will refer the case to an independent medical advisor. The applicant can provide their own medical evidence if appropriate along with a medical/welfare assessment form, which will be sent to the independent advisor.
11. If the medical advisor recommends reasonable preference should be awarded the Housing Choice Team Leader can decide to award either:
• a) Severe medical award where it can be demonstrated that, due to an illness or disability, it is unacceptable for the applicant to remain in their current dwelling, or
• b) Moderate medical award where it can be demonstrated that due to an illness or disability the applicant finds living in their current dwelling difficult and it is clear remaining in that dwelling will contribute to deterioration in their health. Or it would be beneficial for the applicant to move to alternative accommodation but, at present, the applicant can manage in their present dwelling, or
• c) Where appropriate, the medical advisor will also recommend the type of property most appropriate to the medical needs.
12. The policy sets various bands, within which an applicant will be placed. Within each band, applicants are prioritised first by reference to a priority star system. This provides for priority stars which includes for people occupying unsanitary or statutory overcrowded housing (as defined by Part X of the Housing Act 1985) or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions in accordance with hazards identified through the Housing Health Safety Rating Scheme.
13. Band one includes applicants who are statutorily overcrowded as defined by Part X of the Housing Act 1985, and have not caused this statutory overcrowding by a deliberate act.
14. Band two includes applicants who have a severe medical, welfare award or disability (including learning disability) where the current accommodation is unsuitable or it is unreasonable to remain in occupation.
15. Band 3 includes:
• those who are overcrowded but not statutorily overcrowded as defined by Part X of the 1985 Housing Act; and
• applicants with a moderate medical priority where there is clear objective need for a move because they include a person (or persons) whose illness or disability is either made worse by their present living conditions, or where a move to more satisfactory accommodation is likely to result in an improvement in health.
16. There are two legal definitions of statutory overcrowding - the room and the space standards.
17. The room standard is based on the number and gender of people who must sleep in one room. The room standard is contravened in a situation where two people of the opposite sex must sleep in the same room. The exceptions to this rule are:
• cohabiting or married couples, who can live in the same room without causing overcrowding; and
• children under the age of ten, who are completely ignored in the calculation.
18. All living rooms and bedrooms are included in the calculation (this could include a large kitchen). The standard does not limit the number of people of the same sex who can live in the same room.
19. The space standard is based on the maximum number of people who may sleep in a dwelling of a particular size. The permitted number of people depends on the size of the room, the number of living rooms and bedrooms in the dwelling, and the age of the occupants. Children who are under 10 years of age but more than one year old count as half a person.

What happened

20. Miss B had been on the Council’s housing waiting list with a qualifying date of 5 September 2016 and was in band three due to overcrowding. Miss B contacted the Council in April 2019 to report the birth of her son and to request a medical assessment for additional priority. The Council says the form Miss B completed provided Miss B’s name in the space for her new child, albeit with his date of birth. The Council says Miss B subsequently provided evidence to show she only had two children, rather than three, but officers failed to pick that up from the information she provided. As a result the Council suspended Miss B’s housing register application wrongly and asked her to provide evidence of the additional child. The Council also asked Miss B to provide evidence she had lived within the borough for three years. The Council says it should not have asked for that information as the officer dealing with the case had misinterpreted the information Miss B provided. In the meantime the Council referred Miss B’s case to its medical advisers who did not recommend any additional priority. As Miss B did not respond to the request for information about a third child and the length of time she had been resident in the borough the Council closed Miss B’s housing register application. The Council accepts it should not have done that.
21. Miss B contacted the Council again about the failure to provide her with additional priority in January 2021. The Council did not respond to that contact. Nor did the Council respond to contact from Miss B again in April 2021 or contact from her MP in July 2021.
22. Miss B and her MP made further contact with the Council in September 2021. The Council delayed responding to the MP and explained Miss B’s housing register application was closed as she had not provided the requested information. The Council accepts that information was wrong.
23. Miss B put in a complaint in December 2021. The Council responded at stage one in January 2022 and told Miss B she needed to submit a new housing register application as her case was closed. The Council accepts this was incorrect information and the officer dealing with the complaint failed to fully consider Miss B’s file.
24. Miss B complained to the Ombudsman, who referred the case back to the Council to consider at stage two in February 2022. The Council accepts it failed to respond to the complaint at stage two. The Council has now identified the issues in the case and reinstated Miss B’s housing register application with the original registration date. The Council has offered £500 to Miss B to reflect the impact this had on her, taking into account the fact the Council does not consider Miss B has missed out on accommodation as a result of the Council’s errors. The Council has also visited Miss B’s property to measure the rooms and has decided Miss B is not statutorily overcrowded.

Analysis

25. Initially I did not intend to investigate Miss B’s concerns about what happened in 2019 as that is more than 12 months before the complaint to the Ombudsman. I have not investigated any concerns Miss B has about the medical assessment undertaken in 2019 as I see no reason why Miss B could not have complained to the Ombudsman about that at the time. However, I have decided to include in the investigation how the Council dealt with the issues leading up to the closure of Miss B’s housing register application in 2019 given there is no evidence Miss B knew about that until 2022.
26. Miss B says the Council failed to tell her in January 2021 she needed to complete a new housing register application. Miss B says the Council did not tell her about that until January 2022. Miss B is right to say the Council did not tell her she needed to complete a new housing register application when she contacted it in January 2021. In fact, there is no evidence the Council responded to any of Miss B’s communications in 2021. That, in itself, is fault. However, it has now become clear the Council should not have closed Miss B’s original housing register application. There were a catalogue of errors in this case with officers failing to identify Miss B had provided birth certificates to show she only had two children and then failing to identify Miss B was properly registered on the Council’s housing register and had lived in the borough for five years. The Council accepts those faults and that it should not have closed Miss B’s housing register application. As a result, closing the housing register application and asking Miss B to complete a new one is fault, as is failing to respond to her correspondence.
27. It is also clear how the Council dealt with matters in 2021 and early 2022 compounded the errors which took place in 2019. First, the Council failed to respond to various correspondence from Miss B. Then, when the Council considered the complaint at stage one it failed to identify it had wrongly closed Miss B’s housing register application. This was a further missed opportunity to correct the earlier misunderstandings. Failure to respond to Miss B’s correspondence, failure to properly consider the documentary records before responding to the complaint at stage one and then failing to respond to the complaint at stage two is fault. I am satisfied the Council has now corrected those errors by reinstating Miss B’s housing register application in band three with the original registration date. However, those faults combined delayed the reinstatement of Miss B’s housing register application.
28. Miss B also complains though that the Council has failed to consider her family’s medical circumstances when awarding her band three priority. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council has advised Miss B to complete a new application for medical priority if she feels the medical situation for her family has changed since it last assessed her in 2019. The Council’s allocations policy does not require an applicant to complete an application form and the Council can refer the case to the medical adviser if it considers it appropriate. In this case Miss B has explained how her housing is affecting her family and, particularly, her son who has special educational needs. However, the information Miss B has provided is not dissimilar to the information she provided in 2019 when the Council did not award medical priority. The Council also considered the information when it wrote to Miss B in 2022 to explain why it did not consider she had demonstrated a medical need to move accommodation. I have seen no evidence Miss B has provided the Council with medical evidence to support her request for medical priority. I therefore consider it likely to be in Miss B’s best interests to complete an application and provide any medical evidence about how her housing is impacting on her family’s health as it is unlikely a further medical assessment without that information will result in a different outcome. In those circumstances I do not criticise the Council for failing to refer the case to the medical adviser in 2021 or 2022.
29. In reaching the view that the Council has considered Miss B’s banding properly I am aware Miss B says she is living in statutory overcrowded accommodation and should therefore be in band one. I am satisfied the Council has considered this point. As the Council has pointed out, there is a difference between being overcrowded and being statutorily overcrowded. I set out the different tests in paragraphs 16-19. In this case the Council has visited Miss B’s property to measure the rooms and is satisfied she has a two-bedroom need and is not statutory overcrowded as her two children are under 10 and therefore count as half a person. As there is no fault in how the Council has carried out that assessment I have no grounds to criticise it. I therefore cannot criticise the Council for placing Miss B in band three as that reflects the assessment that Miss B is overcrowded but not statutorily overcrowded.
30. So, I now have to consider the injustice to Miss B as a result of the faults identified earlier in this statement. Given I am satisfied the Council is not at fault for placing Miss B in band three I do not consider it likely she missed out on accommodation while her application was closed between 2019 and 2022. That is because the evidence the Council has provided satisfies me it is unlikely an applicant in band three without additional priority stars would have secured accommodation between 2019 and 2022. I therefore consider Miss B’s injustice is limited to her frustration, distress and the time and trouble she has had to go to in pursuing her complaint. The Council has offered £500 and has apologised. I consider that a satisfactory remedy for Miss B, taking into account the fact Miss B did not contact the Council between November 2019 and January 2021.
31. I am concerned though to ensure the Council addresses the learning from this complaint so the same issues do not arise again. I therefore recommended the Council review the actions which took place in 2019 to identify where the problems arose and draw up an action plan to address them. I also recommended the Council send a reminder to those handling complaints to ensure they are aware of the need to consider the documentary evidence carefully before providing a complaint response and review how complaints are monitored to ensure cases which have been moved to stage two receive a response. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. Within one month of my decision the Council should issue a further apology to Miss B and pay her £500.
33. Within two months of my decision the Council should:
• review the actions which took place on Miss B’s housing register application in 2019 to identify where the problems arose and draw up an action plan to address those issues;
• remind those handling complaints to ensure they are aware of the need to consider the documentary evidence carefully before providing a complaint response; and
• review how complaints are monitored to ensure cases which have been moved to stage two receive a response.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman