Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed carrying out reviews of her housing banding between 2021 and 2023 and failed to properly consider medical evidence when it refused to change the banding from Silver to Gold. There was no fault in how the Council carried out the reviews and considered the evidence Miss X provided when it decided not to change her banding to Gold. However, it failed to carry out any of the three reviews in line with timescales set out in its policy. It agreed to pay Miss X £100 to recognise the frustration and time and trouble the delays caused her.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council delayed carrying out reviews of her housing allocation banding between 2021 and 2023. She said the Council further failed to properly consider her medical evidence in refusing to change her banding from Silver to Gold.
2. Miss X said the matter has caused her distress, uncertainty, time and trouble and meant she spent longer than necessary in an unsuitable property before being securing a suitable one in March 2023.

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. 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)
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. I spoke to Miss X about her complaint and considered information she provided.
7. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter.
8. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Housing Allocations

9. 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))
10. 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))

Decisions and review rights

11. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:
• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
12. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9)). Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

The Council’s allocation policy

13. The Council’s allocations policy says the Council will assess each application to decide the household’s housing need. The Council then places the household into one of five bands:
• Emergency band: Urgent priority;
• Gold band: High priority;
• Silver band: Medium priority;
• Bronze band: Urgent/High/Medium priority but with reduced preference;
• Low need band: No priority.
14. The policy says the gold band is suitable for high medical needs directly relating to the applicant’s accommodation or need for accommodation as determined by a Housing Options team leader or manager, or by the Council’s assessment panel.
15. The policy says medical priority is only awarded where an applicant needs urgent re-housing due to a strongly evidenced, serious and enduring medical condition or disability, which is severely and permanently affected by their current accommodation.
16. The policy gives examples of severe medical need for the gold band which includes where:
• the applicant is housebound through mobility issues and moving to alternative accommodation would alleviate this;
• the applicant’s life is at risk;
• the applicant is unable to move around their current accommodation and cannot access kitchen or bathing facilities;
• a member of the household is severely disabled and needs substantial adaptations to help meet their needs but these cannot be carried out in their current accommodation.
17. The Council’s policy says applicants unhappy with a decision can ask for a review within 21 days of the decision. It says the decision will be reviewed by a Housing Options team leader or manager, or in complex cases an assessment panel. It says reviews will be carried out within 56 days of the request being received. It says the Council may extend the timescales in exceptional circumstances.

Homelessness

18. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)

19. If a council is satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they owe the applicant the ‘prevention duty’. This means the council must help the person to ensure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation.

What happened

20. Prior to 2021 Miss X lived in a property which she rented from a private landlord. Miss X had previously shared the property with her partner, however after that relationship broke down she applied to the Council’s housing register so she could bid to move into an alternative property. Records show Miss X is diagnosed with depression, anxiety and has disabilities which affect her mobility.
21. Records show Miss X was initially placed into the Council’s low need band however in 2020 following a review she was placed into Silver.
22. This complaint looks at Miss X’s review requests from mid-2021 onwards where she believed she should be placed into Gold band. Records show Miss X was assisted with her review requests by a solicitor from a housing and homelessness charity.
23. In July 2021 Miss X asked the Council to reassess her banding based on medical evidence that her health had deteriorated since the previous decision.
24. Miss X complained to the Council in October 2021 as she had not received a review decision. The Council responded in November 2021. It apologised for the delay, which it said was due to services being busy, which had led to delays in panels being held.
25. The Council issued Miss X’s review decision in December 2021 after the panel met in November 2021 to consider the request. The panel notes show it discussed and considered Miss X’s mental health, information from her occupational therapist (OT), her medical conditions and also information about anti-social behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour. The panel’s decision was Miss X should remain in Silver with the eligibility to bid for ground floor properties. The Council’s letter outlined Miss X’s right to ask for a review of the decision.
26. In January 2022 Miss X submitted a review of the Council’s decision not to upgrade her banding to Gold. The Council’s medical assessment panel considered Miss X’s review in May 2022. The Council considered Miss X’s medical conditions including her depression and mobility issues. It took account of a recent OT report and other information on its systems. It noted Miss X required a ground floor property but also noted Miss X refused a ground floor flat in January 2022. It recorded Miss X required a level access shower room and added an accessibility rating to her application but decided she should remain in Silver banding.
27. The Council notified Miss X of its decision in June 2022. It said the delay in reviewing this request was due to a change in computer systems which affected its ability to process reviews within target times.
28. Miss X submitted another review request at the end of June 2022 on the basis the Council had not properly considered her latest medical assessment, affordability and issues around ASB. Miss X told the Council that Silver banding leaves her without a chance of moving.
29. The medical assessment panel considered this review in November 2022. The Council considered the criteria for Gold banding was not met. It noted Miss X’s own actions or inaction in bidding for properties was prolonging the situation around being unable to move.
30. The Council wrote to Miss X in November 2022 with its decision. It outlined why Miss X’s medical issues and individual circumstances did not meet the criteria for Gold banding. For example, it said Miss X was not permanently house bound and there was no evidence her life was at risk. It said she could bid on ground floor properties with level access bath facilities through Silver banding for her medical needs. It told Miss X she did not have a further right of review.
31. In December 2022 Miss X’s solicitor wrote to the Council with a letter before claim for judicial review proceedings. The letter claimed the Council had failed to correctly follow its policy by not upgrading Miss X to Gold banding.
32. In January 2023 Miss X’s landlord served her with a Section 21 notice which informed her they were evicting her from the property. As such Miss X was now threatened with homelessness. Upon becoming aware of this the Council reviewed Miss X’s housing application and upgraded her to Gold banding. The Council wrote to Miss X in February 2023 informing her of its decision which it said was due to impending homelessness.
33. In March 2023 Miss X was successful in bidding for a new property and moved in soon after.
34. Miss X remained unhappy and complained to us. She complained the Council’s decision to upgrade her to Gold banding was due to homelessness and not her medical situation.

My findings

35. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
36. The Council considered three review requests from Miss X between 2021 and the end of 2022. Each time it considered Miss X’s medical issues, disabilities and reports about the affordability of her property and ASB. It decided each time that Miss X should remain in Silver banding and did not meet the criteria for Gold banding. It explained why this was the case in its decision letters to Miss X, referring to relevant parts of its allocations policy. There was no fault in how the Council decided not to upgrade Miss X to Gold banding.
37. When Miss X received a section 21 eviction notice this meant she was threatened with homelessness. In line with its policy it upgraded Miss X to Gold banding because of the threat of homelessness, not because of Miss X’s medical evidence.
38. Although there was no fault in how the Council considered Miss X’s review requests, they were all subject to delays and none of them were complete within the 56-day timescale outlined in the Council’s policy. I do not accept staff shortages, busy departments or upgrades to computer systems as exceptional circumstances. The delays in completing Miss X’s reviews were fault. It caused Miss X frustration and time and trouble. The Council confirmed its computer system issues are resolved and it is increasing staff capacity to meet timescales going forward. This being the case I have not made a further service improvement recommendation.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to pay Miss X £100 to recognise the frustration and time and trouble caused to her by the delays in carrying out her housing banding reviews between 2021 and 2022.
40. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I completed my investigation. There was no fault in how the Council considered Miss X’s housing banding. I have found fault for delays in carrying out the reviews and the Council agreed to my recommendation to remedy the injustice that caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman