Summary: The Council delayed assessing Miss B’s housing application but this did not cause any significant injustice to Miss B.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains that the Council delayed assessing her housing application. She considers the Council should backdate the housing priority award.

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;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s housing allocations schemes

5. The scheme introduced in January 2023 places applicants in a priority band from Band A (highest priority) to Band D (lowest priority). It says Band A will be awarded where a child is the subject of a child protection plan and the Child Protection Conference recommends rehousing as being important for the welfare of the child.
6. The previous scheme awarded Band 2 in the same circumstances. It placed applicants in a priority band from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 4 (lowest priority).
7. Applicants in the same band are prioritised by the award date (the date they were accepted into the band) with earlier dates taking priority over later dates. Where two or more applicants still have the same priority, then priority is given to the applicant who applied to join the housing register first.

Key events

8. Miss B and her partner, Mr C, live in a one-bedroom housing association property. Miss B joined the Council’s housing register in November 2021.
9. In August 2022, Mr C’s 12-year-old son from a previous relationship was placed on a child protection plan. It was decided that Mr C should care for his son and he moved in with Miss B and Mr C.
10. Miss B told the Council that her circumstances had changed and asked it to review her housing priority.
11. On 17 October, Miss B complained that the Council had not yet assessed her change of circumstances. She explained that they were severely overcrowded and Mr C’s son was having to sleep on an airbed in the living room.
12. The Council assessed Miss B’s application on 13 December but did not increase her housing priority. It explained that in order to get ‘child in need’ priority, a multi-agency proforma needed to be submitted by a social worker. It said that it had requested this information from the social worker but it had not been provided.
13. The social worker completed the multi-agency proforma on 14 December and submitted it to the Council. It was assessed on 13 January 2023. The Council decided to award Band 2 medical and Band 2 child in need.
14. The Council introduced a new housing allocations scheme on 17 January 2023. It has since reviewed Miss B’s housing priority in accordance with the new scheme and awarded Band A, the highest priority.

Analysis

15. I have considered the previous and current housing allocations schemes. I am satisfied that the Council’s housing priority decisions accord with the schemes.
16. Miss B submitted the change of circumstances form on 18 September 2022. We expect Council’s to carry out assessments within four to six weeks. The Council took eight weeks to assess the application. This delay was fault.
17. The Council says it asked the social worker to submit a multi-agency proforma on 24 November 2022 and it was submitted on 13 January 2023. If there had been no delay assessing the change of circumstances form, and the multi-agency proforma had been submitted and assessed in a timely manner, I consider Miss B’s housing priority would have increased to Band 2 around four weeks earlier.
18. I do not consider this has caused Miss B any significant injustice. This is because all applicants who had a Band 2 child in need award were placed in Band A, the highest priority band, when the new scheme was introduced. They have the same award date, 17 January 2023, and so are prioritised in accordance with the date they joined the housing register. Miss B’s housing registration date is 11 November 2021. I am satisfied that Miss B’s housing priority would be the same if there had been no delays.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have completed my investigation and uphold Miss B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council but it did not cause Miss B any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman