Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly consider additional evidence she submitted for a review of her housing priority. There was no fault in the Council’s review decision, but there was a delay in the review process. The Council has already apologised for the delay.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly consider additional evidence she submitted for a review of her housing priority in October 2022. She says this means her family are in the incorrect banding, which has caused distress and affected her family’s health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
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 spoke with Mrs X about the complaint and considered information she provided.
6. I considered information provided by the Council.
7. Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Allocations

8. 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))
9. 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))
10. Applicants have a right to request a review of a council’s decision about the priority band they have been awarded.

Review procedures

11. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:
• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process.
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker.
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - eight weeks is suggested as reasonable.

The Council’s allocations scheme

12. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. This means housing applicants can express an interest in available properties. This is called bidding.
13. The Council assesses a housing applicant’s needs and places them into a priority band based on their assessment:
• Band 1 is the highest priority.
• Band 2 is awarded where the applicant’s household is severely overcrowded (by 2 fewer bedrooms than entitled). It includes unsatisfactory housing conditions where an Environmental Health Officer has assessed one or more category 1 hazards (excluding overcrowding) and where an emergency prohibition order has or would be made.
• Band 3 is awarded where the applicant’s household is overcrowded (by one less bedroom than entitled). It includes medical and welfare considerations, where the applicant or member of their household has a physical or mental health problem that is in part related to their current housing and could be helped by rehousing.
• Band 4 is the lowest priority.
14. The date on which the Council placed an application into a priority band is called the priority band date. This date is important because the Council uses it to decide priority within a band. For example, if there are three bids for a property from applicants with a band 1 priority, the applicant with the oldest priority band date will be highest on the list.
15. If an applicant falls into more than one band category that relates to a housing need, they will be placed in the higher of the two bands and their application backdated by six months. If an applicant falls into more than one category in the same band, their application will be backdated by six months. If an applicant completes the “Roof Over My Head” course, their application will be backdated by three months.
16. The Council applies a “bedroom standard” to its assessment. A separate room is granted for each:
• Married or cohabiting couple.
• Adult over 21 years.
17. The following groups are assessed as being able to share a bedroom:
• Two children under 10 of either sex.
• Two boys or two girls under 21.
18. A couple with two children under 21 of the same gender would be granted a 2-bedroom entitlement.
19. An additional bedroom may be granted in exceptional circumstances where an applicant or household member has significant overnight care needs.

What happened

20. Mrs X lives in private rented accommodation with Mr Z, her daughters Y and A, and another adult family member, Ms J. Y has a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and other learning needs. The family had a band 2 priority award prior to 2022.
21. In early 2022, the Council reassessed Mrs X’s housing application due to a change in circumstances; Ms J decided to apply for housing in her own right, separate from Mrs X. The Council considered the information available and decided Mrs X and her family no longer met the criteria for band 2 and awarded her a band 3 priority. The Council wrote to Mrs X in June 2022 to inform her of its decision. It told her band 3 was awarded because of overcrowding by one bedroom and the health needs of Y. The Council told Mrs X that Mr Z’s health needs did not merit additional priority.
22. Mrs X requested a review of the Council’s decision in June 2022. Mrs X:
• challenged the Council’s decision to reduce her family’s priority from band 2 to band 3.
• queried whether the Council had considered historical information from Environmental Health in 2014 which indicated the overcrowding was a category 1 hazard.
• was concerned Y’s and Mr Z’s health needs were not considered.
• said she had attended the “Roof Over My Head” course but said the three-month priority backdate had not been allocated to her application.
23. The Council acknowledged Mrs X’s appeal request and requested any additional information be provided by July 2022. Mrs X was supported by a third-party advocacy organisation to make the appeal. The advocacy service provided the additional evidence in mid-August 2022, which included:
• A letter from Y’s school supporting higher banding.
• A supporting letter from the advocacy agency highlighting a need for reasonable preference for overcrowding and health and welfare needs.
24. The Council wrote to the advocate and said it would complete the review by early September 2022.
25. In July 2022 the Council’s private housing team completed an updated overcrowding assessment and found the family was overcrowded. It considered the space available and concluded based on a space standard that the second bedroom was suitable for occupation by 0.5 persons, and therefore the property was two bedrooms short in total.
26. In early September, Mrs X’s advocate contacted the Council about its review decision. The Council responded and said there was a delay in the review. It said it would complete the review as soon as possible.
27. In late September, Mrs X’s advocate contacted the Council requesting an update. The Council responded the same day and said there was a delay in processing the review due to staff resource and workload. It apologised for the delay and said it would complete the review as soon as possible.
28. The Council conducted the review in mid-October 2022. The decision considered information including the report from its private housing team, medical information, and the third-party advocate. The Council told Mrs X:
• The original decision was accurate, and therefore the decision was for the family to remain in band 3 due to overcrowding by one bedroom, and for the health needs of Y.
• All three adults were entitled to the whole of the property and did not appear to be at risk of homelessness.
• The family did not meet the criteria for a higher banding under its policy for unsanitary housing conditions because that section of its policy only applied when the applicant was occupying housing conditions which were so serious regarding immediate threat to health and welfare as to require housing. This is where an Environmental Health Officer has said the property should not be occupied due to one or more category 1 hazards (excluding overcrowding) and where an emergency prohibition order would be made.
• Private housing confirmed the hazard they identified was overcrowding, and their policy was not to serve a prohibition order under those circumstances. Therefore, Mrs X did not meet the criteria for higher banding.
• The assessment found the family met the criteria for overcrowding as the family were one bedroom short on its bedroom standard, and on medical and welfare grounds for Y.
• The Council said it had considered the health information provided and awarded a health priority for Y, primarily due to overcrowding. It said that Y’s health needs did not indicate she required her own bedroom and therefore she could continue to share with her sister, A.
• It allocated a six-month backdate due to having two housing needs, and a further three-month back date because Mrs X had attended the “roof over my head” course. Therefore, the award was backdated to February 2011.
29. In early December 2022 the Council wrote to Mrs X’s advocate and provided a list of documents considered as part of the review. The Council explained:
• Based on the health information available, there was no clear evidence of risk of Y sharing a room with her sibling, A. Therefore, she did not qualify for her own room for her sole use based on health grounds.
• The banding had reduced because of a policy change after 2015. After this date, the Council’s policy for category 1 hazards excluded overcrowding. Therefore, the family no longer met the criteria for a higher banding.
30. Mrs X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
31. In response to our enquiries, the Council said the private housing team’s assessment concluded the house was over occupied and two bedrooms short. It explained the household had two separate housing applications. Mrs X’s application was considered as one bedroom short, as she and Mr Z could occupy the larger bedroom and there was no bedroom for the two children. Ms J occupied a bedroom which was considered too small for an adult, so her application was also considered one bedroom short.

Analysis

Priority & overcrowding

32. Environmental Health had previously classed the family’s overcrowding as a category 1 hazard. Between Mrs X’s original assessment in 2014 and the review conducted in October 2022, there was a change in the Council’s policy. The updated policy no longer awards a higher priority where a category 1 hazard is overcrowding. Therefore, there was no fault in how the Council applied its policy to Mrs X’s review regarding overcrowding due to a category 1 hazard.
33. There was also no fault in the way the Council considered the occupancy of the property. It considered the private housing team’s report and gave Mrs X’s application a reasonable preference priority in line with its policy due to overcrowding. We will not question the outcome if there was no fault in the decision-making process.

Medical assessment

34. There was no fault in how the Council considered the medical information provided by Mrs X. The Council considered the relevant information and followed its procedures by allocating a reasonable preference for Y’s medical needs in line with its policy. It explained its decision and the reasons for it. We will not question the outcome if there was no fault in the decision-making process.

Review procedure

35. Mrs X complained the Council’s review was delayed. The review decision was sent 9 weeks after the supporting evidence was submitted to the Council. This is beyond the 8 weeks the statutory guidance recommends reviews to be conducted and is fault. However, the Council has already apologised for the delay in completing the review and this is sufficient to remedy any injustice caused.
36. Once the Council conducted the review, there was no fault in the way it considered the additional information provided by Mrs X. It explained its reasons in the decision letter.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I ended my investigation. I found fault and the Council has already apologised for the impact of that fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman