Summary: The Council delayed assessing Mrs X’s housing application and delayed reviewing its decision that she did not qualify to join the housing register. It then delayed reviewing its housing priority decision. As a result, Mrs X missed out on the offer of a council property. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mr B made this complaint on behalf of his aunt, Mrs X. Mr B complained about failings in the way the Council dealt with Mrs X’s housing application. In particular, he complained that the Council:
• Delayed assessing Mrs X’s housing application.
• Incorrectly told Mrs X that her housing application would not be affected by her moving to another privately rented property.
• Delayed reviewing its decision that Mrs X did not qualify to join the housing register.
• Did not give Mrs X sufficient priority when it decided that she did qualify to join the register.
• Delayed reviewing its priority decision.
2. Mr B said that Mrs X suffered significant distress and remained living in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary as a direct result of these failings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr B;
• discussed the issues with Mr B;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and Mrs X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs X made a homelessness application to the Council in May 2021. She explained that she had been served an eviction notice by her landlord. Mrs X also applied to join the Council’s housing register.
7. As part of the Council’s duty to prevent homelessness, it offered to pay Mrs X’s deposit and first months’ rent if she found alternative private sector accommodation.
8. Mrs X found alternative accommodation and the Council paid £2000 to her new landlord from its homeless prevention fund.
9. The Council wrote to Mrs X and explained that its homelessness duty to her had ended because she had suitable accommodation available for her to occupy.
10. The Council assessed Mrs X’s housing application in November 2021. It decided that she did not qualify to join the housing register because she was no longer homeless.
11. Mr B requested a review of the decision. He said that the Council had accepted that Mrs X was homeless but that as hostel accommodation was unsuitable for Mrs X’s mental or physical health needs, she had moved to a privately rented property on a temporary basis while waiting to join the housing register. He explained that the property was unsuitable for Mrs X’s mobility needs as she had difficulty using the stairs and accessing the bathroom.
12. Mr B requested a mobility assessment which was carried out in January 2022. The Occupational Therapist (OT) decided that Mrs X needed a stairlift and a level access shower.
13. In March 2022, the Council wrote to Mrs X about her request for a review of its decision that she did not qualify to join the housing register. It said that when she completed the application to join the housing register, she applied as a sole applicant and selected homelessness as her only housing need. It explained that while she had referred to having medical and mobility housing needs in her review request, these housing needs could not be considered as part of the review because they were not included in her housing application and had therefore not been assessed.
14. Mrs X’s case was then referred for an assessment of her medical and mobility needs. Mrs X was also asked to update her housing application because it did not include all members of her household.
15. Mr B had made formal complaints to the Council in February and March about delays and its failure to provide Mrs X with support to complete the application form, considering she was unable to hear or speak.
16. In the Council’s responses, it apologised for the delays and explained how Mrs X could obtain assistance with completing the application form.
17. The Council then assisted Mrs X to update her application with the other members of her household. It assessed her application and decided that she qualified to join the housing register. It awarded Band 2 on mobility grounds.
18. Mrs X made another homelessness application to the Council in May 2022 after she was served an eviction notice. The Council accepted it owed Mrs X the homeless prevention duty.
19. In June 2022, the Council decided that Mrs X also qualified for Band 2 because she was threatened with homelessness.
20. Mr B requested a review of the decision in July 2022. He said that the OT assessment showed that Mrs X had difficulty accessing the bathroom and therefore she qualified for Band 1.
21. The Council carried out the review in November 2022. It decided to overturn the decision to award Band 2. It awarded Band 1, backdated to 10 May 2022, the date Mrs X joined the housing register.
22. In December 2022, Mrs X moved to another private sector property.

Analysis

23. Mrs X submitted her housing application on 9 May 2021 and it was assessed on 29 November 2021. We consider councils should assess housing applications within four to six weeks. The Council took 29 weeks to assess Mrs X’s application. This delay was fault.
24. Mr B requested a review of the Council’s decision that Mrs X did not qualify to join the register on 13 December 2021. Reviews should be carried out within eight weeks. The Council did not commence its review until 28 March 2022, 15 weeks later. This delay was fault.
25. Mr B requested a review of the Council’s decision that Mrs X did not qualify for Band 1 on 15 July 2022. The review was carried out on 2 November 2022, over 15 weeks later. This delay was fault.
26. Mr B considers the Council should have offered Mrs X assistance to complete her application, and if it had done so, the forms would have been completed correctly. I have seen nothing to suggest Mrs X told the Council that she was having difficulty with the application form and needed assistance before March 2022. The Council then told Mrs X how to obtain assistance. I have found no evidence of fault here.
27. Mr B says that Council officers incorrectly told them that moving to alternative accommodation would not affect Mrs X’s housing application. I have not seen any evidence to support this.
28. The Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme states that Band 1 should be awarded where:

“disabled persons (as defined under the Equality Act 2010) have restricted or limited mobility and are limited by their accommodation and unable to carry out day to day activities or have difficulties accessing facilities e.g. bathroom, kitchen, toilet, inside and outside of their accommodation safely and the current accommodation cannot be reasonably adapted.”

29. The Council originally awarded Band 2 but after it carried out the review, it decided to award Band 1. It backdated the award to 10 May 2022, the date Mrs X joined the housing register. Mr B considers the award should be backdated to May 2021 when Mrs X originally applied to join the register. I do not consider the award should be backdated to May 2021 because at that time, Mrs X had not told the Council about her mobility needs, and an OT assessment had not been carried out.
30. If there had been no delays, the Council would have assessed Mrs X’s housing application by 21 June 2021 (six weeks after she applied) and commenced the review by 16 August 2021. If there had been no fault by the Council, I consider Mrs X would have joined the housing register by 13 September 2021 and she would have been awarded Band 1. This would have led to Mrs X being offered a property she bid on in July 2022. As a result of the Council’s failings in this case, Mrs X lived in unsuitable accommodation for four months longer than necessary, between August 2022 and December 2022, and she missed out on the offer of a council owned property.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. Within four weeks, the Council will apologise and make a payment of £1500 to Mrs X. This is to recognise the distress and frustration she suffered because of the Council’s delays, and the four months she remained living in unsuitable accommodation after she missed out on the offer of a council owned property.
32. The Council has accepted that it has ongoing delays in processing and reviewing housing applications. It has provided us with an updated action plan which shows the action it has taken and continues to take to reduce delays in dealing with housing applications and review requests.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mrs X’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy her injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman