Summary: Mrs Y says the Council is at fault in its handling of her application to its housing allocations scheme, how it determined her priority banding and how it considered her bids for properties. We found fault by the Council because it took too long to consider Mrs Y’s review request of October 2021. However, this did not alter the priority banding awarded to her application or the result of the bids she has placed. We did not find fault in the other matters we investigated. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs Y for the fault we found and so we have ended our investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs Y, says the Council is at fault in its handling of her application to its housing allocations scheme, how it determined her priority banding on the scheme and how it has considered her bid for properties.
2. Mrs Y also complains the Council:

• did not give accurate information about the number of bedrooms in her home when she signed the tenancy;
• is charging her too much rent;
• has not acted to resolve damp and mould in her home and;
• has not resolved a rat infestation in her garage.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. I have investigated Mrs Y’s concerns about the Council’s handling of her application to its housing allocations scheme, how it considered her priority banding on the scheme and how it considered her bids for properties.
4. I have not investigated the complaints set out in paragraph 2. We cannot investigate complaints about the Council’s actions in its role as a manager of social housing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
6. 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)
7. 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

8. I discussed Mrs Y’s complaint with her and considered information she provided.
9. I considered information from the Council, its response to our enquiries and its housing allocations policy.
10. I set out my initial thoughts on the complaint in a draft decision statement and I considered Mrs Y’s and the Council’s comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

11. 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))
12. 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))

13. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
14. The Ombudsman recognises the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. He 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.

The Council’s allocations policy

15. The Council places applicants who qualify to join its housing register in one of five priority bands from the Emergency + Band (highest priority) to Band 3 (lowest priority).
16. Emergency Band: The Council awards this band where:

• the applicant is homeless and are owed the main duty including when they became homeless or the Relief Duty has come to an end and they have been assessed as being in priority need and unintentionally homeless.
• There has a been a Multi-Agency Panel review and urgent rehousing is required.
• A substantially adapted or purpose built property is required
• A substantially adapted or purpose built property is being freed
• A family is freeing a place in a specialist housing scheme
• the applicant is short of 3 or more bedrooms or short of 2 or more bedrooms while living in a one bedroom property.

17. Band 1: The Council awards this band where the applicant is short of 1 bedroom while living in a 1 bedroom property. This band will be awarded when an applicant, or someone in their household, has an urgent need to move on social or medical grounds.
18. Band 2: The Council awards this band where the applicant or someone in their household has a significant need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
19. Band 3: The Council awards this band where the applicant, or someone in their household has a need to move on medical or welfare grounds but which is less than required for Bands 1 and 2.
20. Applicants who think their applications should have priority on medical or welfare grounds need to provide medical evidence. This will be considered by the Council’s medical panel. If the panel makes a recommendation the application will be placed in the appropriate band.
21. If an applicant is unhappy with the medical panel’s decision, they can ask for a review. The Council will send the applicant’s evidence to its independent medical adviser for them to consider.
22. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. It uses the priority banding of an applicant as the first factor when allocating properties. It uses the date the priority band was awarded to prioritise between applicants within the same band.

What happened

23. Mrs Y is a social housing tenant and lives in private rented accommodation leased to her social landlord. She has lived in her home for over two years with her son and daughter who are both aged under 10. Her son has eczema.
24. In October 2021 Mrs Y applied to join the Council’s housing register because she felt her home did not meet the needs of her and her family.
25. The Council refused her application because it said she did not have any housing need.
26. On 5 October 2021 Mrs Y challenged the Council’s decision and provided medical evidence from her son’s doctor. It said that her son needs to live in accommodation with a bath so his eczema medication can be applied properly. Mrs Y’s home only has a shower.
27. On 2 November 2021 the Council’s medical panel considered the evidence. It found she had a low medical need for housing and so it accepted her application and awarded it priority Band 3.
28. On 23 November 2021 Mrs Y wrote to the Council challenging its decision. She said her application should have higher priority.
29. In February 2022 Mrs Y chased up her review request with the Council. It said the delay was because of an increase in requests following the introduction of a new allocations policy. The Council has carried out training for staff dealing with review requests to ensure there is not a reoccurrence of the delay that happened in Mrs Y’s case.
30. On 24 February 2022 the Council’s independent adviser decided not to award any medical priority. It said was mould and damp in Mrs Y’s home does not affect her son’s eczema. It said no information about the accommodation was provided. The Council told Mrs Y that her application would remain in Band 3.
31. On 4 March 2022 Mrs Y asked for the independent adviser to reconsider its decision as her son’s doctor’s letter discussed the need for a bath and so it did provide information about her accommodation.
32. On 18 March 2022 the Council’s independent medical adviser reviewed the medical evidence again but did not recommend Mrs Y’s application have a higher priority.
33. In May officers from Mrs Y’s social landlord visited her home to consider her reports of mould and damp. It found that Mrs Y’s home is a one-bedroom property as the second bedroom was not big enough to be a bedroom.
34. In response the Council updated Mrs Y’s housing application and awarded it Band 1 priority because she was living in one bedroom accommodation with the need for another bedroom.
35. Mrs Y was unhappy and said her application should be in the Emergency Band. The Council said she does not meet the Emergency Band criteria and her application will remain in Band 1.
36. Again, Mrs Y disagreed and said she was homeless because of the condition of her home. The Council asked her to complete a homelessness application.
37. In June the Council issued a not homelessness decision to Mrs Y. It said the condition of her home and the level of overcrowding was not severe enough for her to be found homeless.
38. Mrs Y submitted a new letter from her doctor saying her home was negatively impacting her anxiety. It also said her home was aggravating her son’s eczema and her daughter’s hay fever. A letter from her children’s nursery said her children were often absent because of ill health.
39. The Council considered the new evidence and increased Mrs Y’s applications medical priority to Band 2. However, her application was already in Band 1 for overcrowding and so there was no change to her overall priority banding.
40. Unhappy with the Council’s decisions on her housing application and that she had not successfully bid for accommodation, Mrs Y complained. The Council did not uphold her complaints. It said it had given her application the correction priority banding and allocated the properties she bid in accordance with its allocations policy.
41. Mrs Y disagreed and approached the Ombudsman for help. She said the Council had not given the correct priority to her application and it had discriminated against her and her family.
42. The Ombudsman made enquiries of the Council. In response the Council provided details of 26 bids placed by Mrs Y since her housing application was awarded Band 1 priority. The properties were given to applicants with a higher priority banding.
43. Meanwhile Mrs Y has provided new letters from her doctor reiterating the impact of her accommodation on her mental health and the physical health of her children.
44. In response to my draft decision Mrs Y said she had bid for a property not included in the details provided by the Council. It said it does not have a record of Mrs Y bidding for this property. The property was allocated to an applicant in the Emergency Band and so any bid by Mrs Y would have been unsuccessful.

Analysis

45. We are not an appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which decisions are made.
46. The Council’s allocations policy says medical evidence will be considered by its medical panel and by its independent medical adviser, if the applicant disagrees with the decision made by its panel. The Council followed this process in Mrs Y’s case and it gave her application the recommended medical priority. I do not find fault with the Council’s handling of Mrs Y’s priority banding.
47. However, it did take too long to act on Mrs Y’s request for a review of the decision made by its medical panel in October 2021. I consider a review request should be complete within four to six weeks. The Council took double this time. This is fault. It caused Mrs Y and injustice as it put her to the time and trouble of pursuing a response.
48. The Council acted quickly on being told Mrs Y’s home was a one-bedroom property. It put Mrs Y’s application in Band 1 to reflect she was living in one bedroom accommodation but short of a bedroom.
49. Mrs Y says her application should be in the Emergency Band. I do not agree. She does not meet the criteria for this band.
50. Mrs Y says the Council is at fault because her bids for accommodation have been unsuccessful. The Council’s allocations policy say that properties will be allocated to applicants with the highest priority. All the properties Mrs Y has bid for have been allocated to applicants with a higher priority. I do not find the Council at fault because it has allocated properties in line with its policy.
51. I note that Mrs Y says the Council has discriminated against her and her family because she has not been rehoused despite having a need for alternative accommodation. I do not agree. The Council has allocated the properties Mrs Y bid for to the applicant with the highest priority as per its allocations policy. Therefore, I do not consider there is evidence of discrimination in how it has considered her bids.

Back to top

Agreed action

52. Within in four weeks of my final decision the Council write a letter of apology to Mrs Y for the delay I found in it forwarding her request for a review of its decision on her medical priority.
53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

I found fault by the Council which caused Mrs Y and injustice. The Council agreed to my recommendation and so I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman