Leicester City Council (22 012 220)

Category : Housing > Allocations

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 28 Mar 2023

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Miss X complained the Council had not addressed disrepair issues in her home or increased her banding on the housing register, leaving her and her family in an unsuitable property for longer. We do not have jurisdiction to investigate the complaint of disrepair. We have found fault in the Council’s communications with Miss X. We recommended it apologises, makes a payment for time, trouble and distress, and provides a further response to Miss X.

The complaint

  1. Miss X complains the Council has not resolved disrepair issues in her home, affecting the health of her and her family. And it has not increased her banding on its housing register taking into account their medical need, leaving them in an unsuitable home for longer.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

  1. I have investigated Miss X’s complaint about her banding allocation.
  2. I have not investigated Miss X’s complaints about disrepair because it is not in my jurisdiction to consider complaints about the Council in its capacity as landlord. The Housing Ombudsman is the appropriate body.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  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

  1. I spoke to Miss X and I reviewed documents provided by Miss X and the Council.
  2. I gave Miss X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s housing allocations policy

  1. The Council allocates households to one of three priority bands. All applicants must notify it immediately of any significant change to their circumstances which may affect their priority for housing.
  2. Relevant to this case, Band one includes:
    • People whose current housing conditions are having a seriously adverse effect on the physical or mental health of either the applicant or a member of their household.
  3. The policy details the evidence the Council requires to support this banding. It says supporting information must detail how the applicant’s current accommodation is adversely affecting their medical condition.
  4. Relevant to this case, Band two includes:
    • Tenants whose homes are severely overcrowded (two bedrooms or more short of their assessed need)
    • Families with children 3 years and over who are overcrowded and living in one bedroom accommodation
    • People whose current housing conditions are having a negative effect on the physical or mental health of the applicant or a member of their household
    • People assessed as living in insanitary or unsatisfactory accommodation
  5. Applicants placed into Bands 1 and 2 have a high priority and an urgent need to move. The Council will endeavour to review these cases at least every 12 months to ensure there is still an urgent need to move.
  6. All applicants have the right to ask for a review of a decision, if they consider they have been unfairly or unreasonably treated through the provisions of this Allocations Policy.

What happened

  1. In March 2022 the Council awarded Miss X priority band 2.
  2. Miss X says she asked for a review but the Council’s decision remained the same.
  3. On 26 October 2022 Miss X complained to the Council about ongoing disrepair and safety issues, affecting her and family’s physical and mental health. She asked the Council to place her in band 1.
  4. On 8 November the Council responded to say it awarded her priority band 2 for overcrowded families living in one bedroom accommodation on 3 March 2022. This was correctly awarded based on the level of overcrowding at the property. At the time she did not meet any of the criteria for band 1 priority. She needed to provide supporting information from a health professional to show how her health was impacted by the accommodation for it to reassess her banding. It was otherwise addressing disrepair issues. She could contact the Ombudsman.
  5. On 16 November Miss X complained further that the Council had not resolved disrepair issues or taken account of the impact on her health. She explained her GP told her the Council already had information about the impact on her health. Her GP had referred her to the Council’s single point access team and care navigator team regarding her living conditions and how this was affecting her and her family’s health on 18 October. Therefore, the Council had this information already. Her GP also said the Council could make contact directly if it needed more information.
  6. The Council replied to explain how it would address disrepair issues.
  7. Miss X complained the Council had said it would assess her for health priority upon further information; she had provided this information, but it was now ignoring this.
  8. The Council responded but again overlooked Miss X’s request to assess her banding for health reasons.
  9. Miss X raised the matter again and chased the Council for a response.
  10. On 21 November the Council said it had passed her information to the team to consider her banding and was awaiting a reply.
  11. On 22 November the Council told Miss X her banding was correct. It explained she would need to provide supporting information from the appropriate health professional detailing how her health was adversely impacted by her current accommodation. Once it received this it would reassess her needs and banding priority.
  12. Miss X told the Council it already had this information.
  13. The Council responded further but only addressed disrepair issues.
  14. In December Miss X contacted the Ombudsman. She said she told the Council where to view medical evidence but it did not do so and ignored her signposting to this.
  15. In response to enquiries the Council provided an internal email dated 22 November. This said it did not hold any supporting information and was not responsible for contacting Miss X’s GP, rather she had to provide the supporting information directly for it to assess.

Findings

  1. The Council explained to Miss X it needed supporting information to reassess her banding on the grounds of health. This is in line with its policy.
  2. Miss X told the Council at least four times that it already had information from her GP. However, the Council ignored or overlooked this every time. The Council should have either accessed the information held or explained to Miss X why it could not do so. The Council did neither. This is fault. Miss X was put to avoidable time and trouble corresponding with the Council and suffered avoidable distress and uncertainty. This is injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. To remedy the injustice outlined above the Council should carry out the following actions within one month:
    • Provide Miss X with an apology;
    • Pay Miss X £100 for time, trouble, distress and uncertainty;
    • Access the information provided by Miss X’s GP on 18 October 2022, reassess her banding in light of this and write to Miss X with its decision and reasons or, write to Miss X explaining why it cannot access this information.
  2. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
  3. The Council has accepted my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I find the Council at fault in its communications with Miss X. The Council has accepted my recommendations and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings