Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed dealing with her housing application appeal. She also complained about delays in the complaints process and the Council has not responded to complaints. Miss X said this has delayed her moving and exacerbated her health conditions. There was fault in the way the Council delayed making decisions and poor communication in this case. Miss X was frustrated by the delays and poor communication. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, make a financial payment and evidence its staff received complaint handling training.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council delayed dealing with her housing application appeal. She also complained about delays in the complaints process and said the Council has not responded to complaints. Miss X said this has delayed her moving and exacerbated her health conditions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 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 a Council’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 read Miss X’s complaint.
6. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
7. Miss X 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

Background information

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))

• 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))

9. Housing applicants can ask the Council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
10. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:

• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• 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 - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

11. The Localism Act 2011 introduced new freedoms to allow Councils to better manage their waiting list and to tailor their allocation priorities to meet local needs.
12. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.
13. The Council housing allocation scheme sets out the banding criteria. Applicants who are under occupying their current accommodation are granted a higher banding to facilitate a move and free up accommodation. This is referred to as a smart move request. The policy continues people with severe medical priority and their current property is unsuitable are placed in band two. Applicants with moderate medical priority are placed in band three and all other applicants are in band four.
14. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a Council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
15. The Council’s complaint policy sets out its timescales for responding to complaints. Stage one complaints should be dealt with in 10 working days and stage two within 20 working days.

What happened

16. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
17. Miss X applied to the Council to join the housing register to bid on other properties in October 2021. She lived in a two-bedroom, second floor flat but wanted to move to a ground floor flat due to her medical issues.
18. The Council logged Miss X’s application at the end of November 2021.
19. The Council assessed Miss X’s application in March 2022. The assessment confirmed Miss X did not need to move due to her medical needs and she would be placed in band four. The Council telephoned Miss X to inform her she would be in band four.
20. Miss X wrote to the Council in April 2022. She raised concerns about being in band four and said she would be giving up a bedroom as she wanted to move to a one-bedroom property. Miss X informed the Council she was having difficulty uploading evidence documentation.
21. The Council wrote to Miss X in May 2022. It advised her she did not meet the threshold for medical priority and she remained in band four. The Council gave Miss X the opportunity to appeal against its decision.
22. Miss X wrote to the Council at the end of May 2022 to appeal the decision not to award her medical priority. She provided further information about her medical issues and why she needed a ground floor flat. I have not seen any response to this letter.
23. Miss X wrote to the Council again in August 2022. She requested the outcome of her appeal letter.
24. An internal Council email at the end of August 2022 confirmed Miss X should have been referred as a smart moves request as she was willing to downsize, which would award her a band one priority.
25. Miss X complained to the Council in September 2022. She complained about the delay and inaction determining her appeal.
26. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint at the end of September 2022. The response stated it logged a medical review request at the start of September and it had not been completed. The Council said it could not uphold the complaint as it did not know the outcome of the medical review. The response added, if Miss X was interested in downsizing, she should contact a housing choice team.
27. Miss X requested the Council escalate her complaint to stage two at the start of October 2022. She asked why it took the Council 12 weeks to log her appeal and why has the Council not responded to her correspondence.
28. Miss X chased the Council with the help of a friend, Ms Y in November 2022. Ms Y raised concerns about the Council expectation everyone had the technology and ability to send information electronically. She advised Miss X could not provide the information electronically.
29. The Council acknowledged Miss X’s request and said it would respond by mid-December.
30. The Council requested a medical assessment review in January 2023.
31. Ms Y chased the Council for a response in mid-January 2023 and Miss X requested an update three days later.
32. The Council chased the medical assessment review at the end of January 2023 and at the start of February 2023.
33. Ms Y chased the Council for a response to the appeal and the stage two complaint response in February 2023.
34. The Council responded the next day to inform Miss X the medical assessment advised she does not need to move on medical grounds but may be eligible for band one as she wanted to downsize.
35. The Council responded to Ms Y with its stage two complaint response on the same day. It apologised for the delay. The response said the Council had been waiting for a senior officer to review the case. The response continued it could not provide any update until the officer had completed the review. The Council referred Miss X to the smart moves scheme again. The Council said it had a shortage of senior officers and the banding review was unsuccessful but accepted it had taken too long to respond.
36. Miss X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Miss X would like the Council to compensate her for the delays.
37. In response to my enquiries the Council stated it is going to provide complaint handling training and it has employed more staff to improve services. The Council also advised Miss X was able to bring documents to the office if she had requested too.

My findings

Medical priority

38. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
39. I have considered the steps the organisation took to consider the housing banding. The Council policy sets out the bandings for medical priority applications. General applications with medical need are placed in band four, moderate medical need with a clear need to move but the home is suitable sits in band three and band two is only applied if the home is unsuitable and the person has medical needs. The Council assessed Miss X’s medical information, assessed her application and allocated Miss X band four in accordance with this policy. The Council considered all information and made its decision, as it is entitled to do. There is no fault in how it took the decision, and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
40. However, the Council could, and should, have done more to assist Miss X in her application. The initial application evidenced Miss X was willing to move to a one-bedroom property. The Council should have registered her on the Smart Moves Scheme when she initially applied. Miss X could have been applying for properties, while she was in band one and may have been successful in moving. This is fault and Miss X has been frustrated by the lack of action from the Council.

Delay

41. Communication from the Council has been poor and Miss X has experienced significant delays throughout her dealings with the Council.
42. The Council took five months to medically assess Miss X and a further two months to give her the outcome in writing, giving her an appeal right. Guidance says an appeal should be completed within eight weeks. The Council took 12 weeks to lodge Miss X's appeal against her banding decision and a further five months to complete the appeal. The appeal did not affect Miss X’s banding, but the delay added to Miss X’s frustration.
43. The Council also took five months to respond to Miss X’s stage two complaint. The delays in this case amount to fault and Miss X has been frustrated by the delays and lack of communication.
44. Through this case we have become aware of others affected by the delayed complaint investigation. They will also be caused frustration, distress and may have the wrong housing banding for longer than necessary.
45. The Council has identified necessary service improvements as a result of Miss X’s complaint, including:

• Recruiting new staff
• Providing complaint handling training.

Smart moves scheme

46. The Council Smart Moves Scheme sets out those who are willing to downsize would be offered band one priority. It is clear when Miss X applied for housing register in September 2021 she was moving on her own. The Council should have advised Miss X of the Smart Moves Scheme, or registered her for it, in October 2021. This is fault and has caused Miss X frustration and distress.
47. The Council only informed Miss X of the Smart Moves Scheme in September 2022, 12 months after it was clear, and the Council has stated, she would have been eligible for it. When Miss X found out about the scheme, her circumstances had changed, and a family member was staying with her. Failure to inform Miss X about the Smart Moves Scheme earlier and the implications for her banding is fault. This meant she was left with the uncertainty and distress that a move may have been possible before her family member moved in with her.

Back to top

Agreed action

48. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Miss X by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Miss X for not informing her of the Smart Move Scheme earlier, the delays in dealing with her appeal and delays in responding to her complaints.
• Pay Miss X £500 as an acknowledgement of the distress and frustration the Council’s fault caused.
• Pay Miss X £300 for her time and trouble pursuing her appeal and complaint.
• Pay Miss X £500 for the uncertainty and lost opportunity to apply for appropriate properties.
• Offer Miss X the opportunity to register with the Smart Moves Scheme, if and when her circumstances mean she can downsize to a one-bedroom property. If she does apply, consider backdating her registration to October 2021.
• Provide evidence of the complaint handling training it said it would deliver to relevant staff.
49. In addition, the Council should write to each of the remaining people it has identified as not receiving a complaint response within its published timescales to apologise for its delay responding to their complaints. The apology should:
• Explain they have been identified following an investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman.
• Set out the steps the Council has taken to reduce its stage one and two backlog. It should also explain, in line with the Ombudsman’s recommendation, the Council will consider what further steps it should take to prevent a future backlog: and
• Include in the letter, once they receive a stage one and stage two response, they have the right to complain to us if they remain dissatisfied with the Council’s response to the substantive matter they complained about. It should say that if we choose to investigate the main issue they complained about, we can also consider the Council’s complaint handling.
50. To improve its service, the Council has agreed to take the following action within three months of my final decision.
• Update the Ombudsman on the backlog of it’s complaint process for stage one and stage two responses and its timeliness.
51. The Council should provide evidence of the actions taken to satisfy the recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

52. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Miss X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman