Summary: Mr X complained the Council had not dealt with his housing needs properly and had made mistakes in how his application was handled. We have found fault with the Council’s actions. The Council suggested a fair remedy for the injustice caused by these faults. The Council has agreed to complete the suggested remedy and remind officers of relevant policies and procedures.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council dealt with his housing needs, specifically:

• that his priority date on the housing register had been incorrectly recorded;
• that he had incorrectly been on the three-bedroom housing register waiting list to be considered for permanent housing; and
• that his temporary accommodation was no longer suitable for his family’s needs.

2. Mr X says he has suffered avoidable delay in being rehoused, in addition to distress and anguish. He says his physical and mental health have been affected.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. During my investigation, I identified errors in how the Council handled Mr X’s complaints. I have exercised discretion to include this as part of my investigation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
6. 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

7. I have considered all the information Mr X provided and discussed this complaint with him. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
8. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law, policy and guidance

9. Certain decisions councils make about homelessness carry a statutory right of review. The review decision then carries a right of appeal to court on a point of law. Homeless applicants have a right to ask for a suitability review of temporary accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, s202)
10. Homeless applicants must request a review within 21 days of the decision. However, applicants can ask a council to reconsider its decision about the suitability of temporary accommodation at any time. This might be necessary, for example, if there is a change in the applicant’s circumstances. This new decision is open to review under s202 of the 1996 Housing Act, with a new 21-day timescale. R(B) v Redbridge LBC [2019] EWHC 250 (Admin)

The Council’s corporate complaints policy

11. The Council has a policy for corporate complaints. It states that when a stage one response has been issued, the complainant should contact it within 20 working days if they remain unhappy with the outcome and wish to escalate their case to stage two.
12. The Council’s website shares similar information to the policy, but does not explicitly list the number of days within which a complainant should say they remain unhappy. Instead, the website says the stage one response will explain how to escalate the matter if someone remains unhappy.

What happened

13. In the middle of August 2022, Mr X complained to the Council that he had been on its housing waiting list for a very long time. Mr X complained:
• he was unhappy to still be living in temporary accommodation outside of the Borough;
• he kept being told he was near the top of the list;
• his current property was not suitable and was damp; and
• due to mobility issues, it was too far from the nearest bus stop and away from his family network in the Borough.
14. Mr X said he was convinced the Council was waiting until his son was 19 so it could offer him a one-bedroomed property, rather than a two-bedroomed property in the Borough, as he wanted and needed.
15. At the beginning of September 2022, the Council checked its internal records. It realised it had incorrectly placed Mr X on the band three waiting list for a three-bedroomed property rather than the two-bedroomed list. The Council noted that Mr X should start to receive offers after the error was corrected.
16. A few days later, the Council responded to Mr X’s stage one complaint. In its email, it:
• said it had arranged an appointment for an officer to meet with the property’s managing agents to assess the damp and other concerns;
• informed Mr X it would ask him to complete a form to assess whether he should have medical priority;
• confirmed the waiting list error and said this was why he had received no offers;
• advised he had a priority date of January 2017;
• provided statistics of people who were on the three-bedroomed waiting list;
• said his application was being amended and he should then start receiving offers of housing;
• reassured Mr X he had not been disadvantaged by the revision to his bedroom allocation;
• confirmed estimated waiting times for two-bedroomed accommodation were between 38 and 50 months;
• said that although he had been waiting longer than this, estimations were based on past figures; and
• suggested Mr X may want to consider the private rented sector or a move to another area of the country where the wait for housing may be much shorter.
17. The Council ended its response by confirming it was not upholding Mr X’s complaint, but acknowledged there had been an administrative error. It also confirmed that Mr X had “not been disadvantaged in any way by this oversight.”
18. The Council did not signpost Mr X to his right to escalate the complaint to stage two of its process.
19. Later that day, the Council sent Mr X a revised response quoting current statistics of people on the two-bedroomed waiting list.
20. On the same day, the Council carried out a joint inspection with the property agent to assess for any remedial works. Works to deal with damp and mould at the property were agreed and scheduled for late October.
21. Around the same time, Mr X submitted a medical assessment form and supporting evidence to see if this would change his priority banding.
22. Two weeks later, Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s process. He remained unhappy at the Council’s response, particularly:
• that he was on the wrong waiting list until he made a complaint;
• he had been told he had not been disadvantaged;
• it had been suggested he relocate when the Council knew he had a daughter in the Borough who did not live with him; and
• questioned that his priority date should have been October 2016 when he was moved into accommodation by the Council before moving to his current address in December 2016.
23. The next day, the Council’s medical advisors produced a report that said any accommodation on the second floor or lower (without a lift) would be suitable. It confirmed that it did not view Mr X had a medical need to reside in the Borough.
24. In the middle of October 2022, the Council sent its stage two complaint response. In this email, amongst other things, the Council said it was “satisfied as to the decision made and the advice provided in the initial response.”
25. The Council did not answer Mr X’s questions about priority dates or further discuss the matter of his being on the wrong waiting list for over five years.
26. The Council directed Mr X to us if he remained unhappy, after which he registered a complaint with the Ombudsman.
27. Late in October 2022, repairs were carried out on the property as scheduled.

Analysis

Priority date

28. The Council’s stage one response stated Mr X’s priority date was January 2017.
29. When he escalated his complaint to stage two, Mr X asked the Council to explain his priority date and the discrepancy he thought there was from the period of October 2016 – January 2017.
30. In its stage two complaint response to him the Council did not answer the question asked. Internal records show this request for clarification was specifically highlighted during the stage two complaint investigation. Instead, the Council’s response simply told Mr X that priority dates were updated when applications were assessed.
31. This lack of explanation to Mr X will have caused him uncertainty and added to the distress he already felt about his housing situation. The Council should have answered the question of his priority date and is at fault for not doing so.
32. As part of my initial enquiries, I asked the Council to clarify Mr X’s priority date. In response, it confirmed it was early October 2016, as Mr X had originally said.
33. In later responses to me, the Council provided evidence that Mr X’s priority date was October 2016 and the date it accepted a duty to house him was January 2017. This is likely to explain the confusion Mr X felt regarding dates. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council explained the difference in the meaning of these two dates to Mr X and any related effect the dates might have had on how his application was treated.
34. This lack of clarity would have caused further confusion for Mr X and is fault on the part of the Council. I have made a recommendation below to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X.
35. Also in its later responses to me, the Council confirmed the error in putting Mr X on the wrong list was made when it updated its systems to accept a duty to house him, in January 2017. This was the case until Mr X complained, the Council realised and updated the waiting list in September 2022. This is fault. The Council has made a recommendation to remedy the injustice to Mr X, as detailed below.

The waiting list and property allocations

36. As part of my initial enquiries, I asked the Council to explain how Mr X had not been disadvantaged if he was on the wrong waiting list and the Council had said as soon as this was corrected he would receive offers.
37. In response, the Council said there were a large number of applicants who had a higher priority than Mr X and he would therefore not have received a housing offer.
38. Further to this, I asked the Council to provide me with a list of properties allocated during the time Mr X was on the wrong list, together with the priority band and relevant date of the successful applicants.
39. The Council sent me a list of 41 properties. The data showed successful applicants were all in the same band as Mr X, were waiting for two-bedroomed properties and had a later priority date than him. I asked the Council to clarify if the data it had sent me was correct as it seemed to confirm that Mr X had been disadvantaged 41 times.
40. In its second response to me, the Council accepted that Mr X had been disadvantaged due to being on the wrong waiting list, from January 2017 – September 2022. It suggested a remedy set out further below for the injustice this fault caused to Mr X.

Suitability of the property

41. As part of my enquiries, I asked the Council if it had considered the suitability of the property after Mr X had raised concerns in August 2022.
42. In response, the Council said the property was assessed as suitable when it was originally allocated in 2016. After he contacted it in August 2022, it asked him to fill out a booking form to provide up to date information on his circumstances.
43. The Council also asked Mr X to submit information so that any medical priority could be assessed. Information was submitted but this did not change Mr X’s priority banding.
44. The Council recognised Mr X’s son had outgrown his room and it therefore placed the family on its temporary accommodation transfer list.
45. The Council also assessed and organised the repair works to the property after Mr X had made it aware of damp and mould issues. I find no fault here in respect of the Council’s actions, or the medical assessment process.
46. However, the Council says it did not complete a formal S202 review as Mr X did not ask for one at any time.
47. It is unclear if the Council advised Mr X of his right to an S202 review of the suitability of his accommodation, under its homelessness duty. On the balance of probabilities and with a lack of evidence to suggest otherwise, I am satisfied it is likely that Mr X was not advised of this right. This is likely to be why he did not request a review when he was clearly unhappy with the accommodation he was in. This is fault. The Council should have advised him of this right. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice to Mr X.

Complaint handling

48. The Council did not uphold any of Mr X’s stage one complaint to it. Even though Mr X had clearly complained that he kept being told he was near the top of the waiting list, the Council admitted to the “administrative error” but chose not to uphold his complaint. Also, the Council did not apologise at any point in its response.
49. The Council’s stance here seems confused, given that Mr X had been on the wrong waiting list for over five years through no fault of his own. The Council also stated that Mr X had not been disadvantaged in any way, when clearly he had. This is fault and would have caused further distress to Mr X in trying to get his case moved forward.
50. In Mr X’s case, the stage one response sent out to him did not explain how to escalate his complaint to the next stage of the process. The Council should have clearly explained this in its letter, including the relevant timescales. Instead, the letter told Mr X the Council would “continue to work…to find a solution to your housing.”
51. This is fault. It would have caused further uncertainty and confusion to Mr X and had the potential to lose him the opportunity to escalate his complaint.
52. In its stage two response to Mr X, the Council again failed to adequately explain questions asked and repeated the stance that the decision made in the stage one response was satisfactory.
53. The letter did explain agreed remedial works to be done at the property and that the Council considered there was currently no medical need for him to live in the Borough. It did not, however, adequately address his other concerns. The letter did apologise for the distress Mr X was suffering but not directly for the error the Council had made.
54. Given the circumstances of his original complaint and of his escalation, I am satisfied this was not an appropriate stance to take. This is fault and would have caused Mr X further confusion and frustration.
55. The Ombudsman’s guidance on effective complaint handling highlights things such as being accountable, explaining thinking and saying sorry when something has gone wrong. With this in mind, I have made a recommendation below to remedy the injustice caused by these faults.

The Council’s suggested remedy offer

56. In recognition of the error Mr X had been disadvantaged by, in its later response to me the Council offered:
• to apologise to Mr X;
• a direct offer of two-bedroomed, permanent, suitable accommodation, with urgency;
• £500 for the distress caused to him;
• a transport and decoration voucher when moving into the permanent accommodation; and
• £100 for each month he was on the incorrect list from January 2017 – September 2022, a total of £6800.
57. Mr X has recently confirmed that he has already moved into a permanent property in the Borough, after the Council nominated him to a local housing association.

Back to top

Agreed action

58. The Council offered a suggested remedy as outlined above. I am satisfied this is in line with our guidance on remedies. This offer was welcomed but should not have required intervention and investigation by the Ombudsman to achieve it.
59. The Council has agreed that within four weeks of the date of my final decision:
• it will complete any outstanding actions from its suggested remedy;
• remind relevant officers of the need to share appropriate review rights with complainants; and
• share the Ombudsman’s guidance on effective complaint handling with relevant officers.
60. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

61. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman