Summary: Ms B complained about the way the Council dealt with her housing application when she provided evidence of her worsening circumstances due to anti-social behaviour. We found fault in the actions of the Council. The Council has agreed to backdate Ms B’s Band B priority to 26 September 2022, pay her £150 for her time and trouble and improve its procedures for the future.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained that Reigate and Banstead Borough Council (the Council) delayed in increasing her priority on the Housing Register, failed to explain its decision or give her a right of review against it. It also failed to consider whether there were any social or welfare grounds to increase her priority given the antisocial behaviour she was experiencing. Ms B has been caused significant distress and time and trouble in pursuing her complaint.

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. 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

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

5. 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))
6. 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

7. 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;
• for a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
8. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))

The Council’s allocations policy

9. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. It awards priority to eligible applicants. Every application is placed into one of five bands (A-D or H) to reflect the level of housing need. Band C is for medium priority cases, including overcrowding where a household lacks one bedroom and Band B is for high priority cases including applicants with a high medical or welfare need to move where these issues are directly linked to their current housing and would be alleviated by alternative accommodation. Within each band, applications are listed in date order.

What happened

10. Ms B is a housing association tenant. In 2021 she applied to the Council for larger accommodation. The Council placed her application in Band C.
11. In April 2022 she completed a renewal application and confirmed the same reason for wishing to move.
12. In June 2022 Ms B submitted a letter from her GP. It said Ms B would greatly benefit from a house move away from disruptive neighbours. The situation had affected her mental health and she needed high intensity psychotherapy. Ms B did not specifically request a review of her banding.
13. On 26 September 2022 Ms B submitted a fitness for work note from her GP indicating she was not working, some documents relating to her therapy, three police incident letters between July and September 2022 and a letter from social prescribing. There was no specific review request.
14. On 26 October 2022 the Council reviewed Ms B’s banding. It decided she did not have any medical priority and sent her a decision by email. The decision said the Council had sought advice from the Council’s medical adviser and went on:

“Following careful assessment, we have concluded that your application should not be awarded any additional priority on medical grounds.

You do not have the right to ask for a review of this decision. However, if your medical situation changes and you have additional medical information which you would like to be considered, please submit this to us and we will re-assess your application.”

15. Ms B queried the decision immediately and asked if the Council had received the information she had provided. She also said her housing officer and the anti-social behaviour team had written letters.
16. On 23 November 2022 the Council, following contact from Ms B’s local councillor, received a more detailed statement from Ms B explaining the anti-social behaviour and harassment she had experienced. She detailed incidents from 2017 but said it had escalated in December 2021, mainly involving damage to her car but also some intimidating behaviour.
17. Ms B also complained to us and submitted a copy of her statement.
18. On the basis of the new information the Council received, it reviewed her case at the beginning of January 2023. It increased her priority to Band B and backdated it to 23 November 2022.
19. In response to my enquiries the Council said:
• It was an error not to have acted on the GP’s letter in June 2022 and contacted Ms B to discuss her situation.
• When it reviewed the case in October 2022 it had no supporting statement from the Police and no details about the anti-social behaviour, so it did not award a higher banding.
• It had erroneously said the case was passed to the Medical Adviser when it was not.
• It accepted the standard letter response failed to say what it had considered carrying out the review and why it did not support higher banding.
• Suitable properties available to bid on since 23 November 2023 all went to applicants with a higher priority than Ms B.

Analysis

20. I agree that the Council should have contacted Ms B in June 2022 on receipt of the doctor’s letter to ask for more details about her situation. She could have provided details of the antisocial behaviour at that point. The failure to do so was fault.
21. However, I note that Ms B has only provided police incident reports from July 2022 so there may have been insufficient evidence at this point to have affected her banding.
22. Ms B provided some more relevant information in September 2022 including medical evidence of the treatment she was receiving, she said as a result of the anti-social behaviour. Even though she did not make a specific request, the Council reviewed her banding a month later. I do not consider this was an unreasonable delay. But I consider it would have been good practice for the Council to have contacted Ms B to have ask for more details about her situation this may have provided more complete information at that point to inform the review.
23. The review decision was deficient in several respects:
• it gave no reasons why it did not consider Ms B’s health was affected by her housing situation;
• it said it had sought advice from its medical adviser when it had not; and
• it said she did not have a right of review against the decision.
24. The decision should have given reasons why she did not meet the criteria, why her medical evidence and the evidence from the police had been discounted and why her case was not referred to a medical adviser. It should also have given her a right of review. The failure to do so was fault.
25. The Council then failed to respond to her email querying the decision and questioning if it had received all her evidence. The list she gave indicated that the Council had not received the information from her housing officer and the anti-social behaviour team. This may have made a difference to the decision and further contact may have elicited the fuller statement she provided in November 2022 through her local councillor.
26. I note that the Council eventually reviewed the case in January 2023 and increased her priority to Band B from 23 November 2022. I welcome this action and I agree that is unlikely that increasing her banding at an earlier point would have resulted in alternative accommodation. But the missed opportunities in July and September 2022 to contact Ms B along with the missed opportunity to review the case in October 2022, created uncertainty for Ms B and prompted her to complain to us.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. In recognition of the injustice caused to Ms B, I recommended the Council:
28. Within one month of the date of my final decision:
• backdates Ms B’s Band B priority to 26 September 2022 (when she submitted evidence of medical treatment and antisocial behaviour where the police had responded); and
• pays Ms B £150 for her time and trouble in complaining to us.
29. Within three months of the date of my final decision:
• reviews its procedures for dealing with reviews about housing allocation decisions to ensure review decisions are accurate, contain reasons and provide a right of review where appropriate; and
• reminds staff that when information is received indicating a change of circumstance that further enquiries should be made of the applicant to ensure full information about their situation is obtained.
30. The Council has agreed to my recommendations. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Ms B and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman