Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed carrying out her housing allocation banding review request. The Council delayed carrying out Ms X’s banding review by eight months. This meant she remained in unsuitable accommodation during that period without the ability to improve her situation and bid on suitable properties. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X, make payments and backdate her priority to June 2023.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council delayed reviewing her housing application which delayed her right to apply for suitable housing by eight months.
2. Ms X said the delays mean she and her children lived in overcrowded unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary without the ability to bit on suitable properties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 considered information Ms X provided to us about her complaint.
6. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter.
7. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing 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. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority. The priority bands are:
• Band A – those with a very urgent need to move for an allocation of social rented housing.
• Band B – those with an urgent need to move for an allocation of social rented housing.
• Band C – those with a need to move for an allocation of social rented housing.
• Band D – consists of applicants from Bands A, B and C who have refused an allocation or failed to bid for suitable properties on three or more occasions.

The Council’s housing allocation review policy

11. The Council prioritises applicants who are eligible and qualify for housing based on their current circumstances. It places applicants into one of four bands depending on the applicants and their households’ circumstances.
12. The Council’s website states a housing applicant can request a review of a housing decision if they are unhappy with how the case was assessed. This may include
• How the Council determined reasonable preference
• The type of property the Council can allocate.
• Who the Council considered as part of the housing needing to be rehoused.
13. Applicants must request a review within 21 days of receiving a decision letter. A Council officer not involved in the original decision making process will review the decision and notify the applicant of the outcome of the review within 56 days.

What happened

14. In early 2022 Ms X and her two children lived in a different council area (Council B). Ms X has diagnosed complex medical needs and disabilities as do both of her children. Records show Ms X and both her children require separate bedrooms due to their medical needs. Ms X also requires an additional bedroom for carers who stay overnight. Council B had previously assessed Ms X as requiring four bedrooms. Ms X had previously lived in the Council’s area before moving to Council B and therefore the Council held information about her needs.
15. Ms X fled Council B due to domestic violence and in March 2022 she made a homelessness application in the Council’s area. In the meantime, Ms X moved into her mother’s house.
16. The Council accepted a homelessness duty to Ms X and in April 2022 it wrote to her informing her it had placed her in band B and told her she could bid for properties which had a maximum of two bedrooms.
17. At the end of April 2022 Ms X asked for a review. She said she required four bedrooms due to the complex medical needs of both her and the children. Ms X provided the Council with supporting information which she said supported her being moved into Band A. This included a supporting statement from a domestic violence charity and various medical letters which outlined Ms X’s and her two children’s needs. The evidence also outlined the requirement for the fourth bedroom due to Ms X’s need for overnight carers. In line with the Council’s policy should have made a review decision by 24 June 2022.
18. On 23 June 2022 the Council wrote to Ms X to acknowledge her review request. It explained that due to a backlog, staff shortages and staff sickness it was unable to meet target dates. It said it would endeavor to priorities banding review requests.
19. In September 2022 Ms X chased the Council about her review. She said she was still living in an unsuitable, overcrowded house at her mothers. Ms X said she was unable to bid on suitable housing due to the band she was in which limited her to two bedrooms.
20. Ms X complained to the Council at the end of September. The Council responded and apologised for the delay in carrying out Ms X’s review which it blamed on unprecedented review requests and staff shortages. Ms X escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. The Council reiterated its previous response at stage 2.
21. In early January 2023 Ms X complained to us. She said the Council had still not completed the review and she remained living in unsuitable accommodation, unable to make bids on anything suitable because of the banding she was in.
22. The Council completed Ms X’s review and wrote to Ms X on 6 February 2023 which its decision. The letter said it had considered medical evidence which was not considered as part of Ms X’s original housing application. It had decided to move Ms X into Band A with a homeless priority. The letter told Ms X she had no further right of review.
23. Ms X remained unhappy with the Council’s decision. Ms X told the Council it had failed to consider the number of bedrooms which was the main reason for her original review request. Internal case records show the Council accepted the reviewing officer had not considered the issue around bedrooms. It wrote to Ms X again on 1 March 2023 informing her it had now awarded her Band A with eligibility to bid on properties with four bedrooms. It backdated the award date to 7 February 2023.

My findings

24. The Council received Ms X’s banding review request in April 2022. In line with its policy, it should have completed that review by 24 June 2022. It did not complete Ms X’s review until 1 March 2023. That delay was fault.
25. The Council completed Ms X’s review after considering the supporting information she submitted in April 2022 when she initially requested the review. Therefore, had the Council completed the review in line with timescales, on balance, it would have decided to put her in Band A with four-bedroom priority in June 2022. This would have given Ms X the opportunity to bid for suitable properties from that date onwards.
26. Ms X and her children have significant medical needs. The delays in reviewing Ms X’s banding meant her and her children remained in overcrowded, unsuitable accommodation without the ability to bid for suitable properties during that period. This caused her distress, frustration and time and trouble chasing the Council for a review response. In line with our guidance on remedies I made a recommendation to acknowledge this injustice.
27. The Council is currently working on a plan to reduce delays in carrying out banding reviews. We are already monitoring the progress of this following recommendations from other cases where we have found similar fault. I therefore did not make any further service improvement recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to:
1. write to Ms X and apologise to her for the distress, uncertainty and time and trouble caused to her by the Council’s delay in carrying out her housing banding review request between July 2022 and March 2023.
2. pay Ms X £2400 to acknowledge the eight months between July 2022 and March 2023 where she remained in unsuitable accommodation without the ability to improve her situation and bid on suitable properties, caused by the delay in carrying out her banding review. This is based on a monthly rate of £300 in line with our guidance on remedies for unsuitable accommodation and takes account of Ms X’s individual circumstances.
3. backdate Ms X’s Band A, four-bedroom priority award to 24 June 2022.
29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I completed this investigation. I found fault and the Council agreed to my recommendations for the Council to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman