Summary: There was no fault with how the Council handled Mrs X’s housing application which was done in line with the Allocation Policy. The Council was at fault for providing incorrect information to Mrs X. This caused Mrs X a minor injustice which the Council remedied during its investigation of her complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council delayed considering her application for housing and failed to properly consider it. She said this has caused her to miss out on being rehoused into suitable accommodation and has impacted on her health.

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 Mrs X’s complaint and have spoken to her about it.
5. I have also considered the Council’s response to Mrs X and to my enquiries.
6. Mrs X and the organisation 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 Allocation Policy

7. The policy document sets out how social rented housing in the area is alloacted and explains what people can expect from the Council in meeting their housing needs.
8. The Council has adopted a choice-base lettings scheme which gives people an element of choice, while ensuring that housing goes to those with the greatest need.
9. If the Council considers that the household has little or no real need for social housing, they are usually considered to be adequately housed.
10. Applicants who indicate in their application form that the consider their health or disability is seriously aggravated by their current housing conditions may be considered for medical priority. The Council will require additional information, usually from a medical professional to support the application. The policy states that all medical information will be assessed initially by a medical panel. An independent medical assessor will assess more serious cases.
11. People eligible to join the housing register will have their application assessed and placed into one of five bands (A-E). A being the highest priority.
12. The Council differentiates between people who are in the same priority band according to their waiting time. The waiting time (priority date) is based on the date a person completes their application or the date someone applies for a transfer or the date they notified the Council of a change in circumstances (if it changes their banding).
13. Once bids have been made, the Council sorts them in order of priority, and the person with the highest priority normally gets considered first for the property.

What happened

Priority banding and date

14. Mrs X submitted an application for the housing register on 29 July 2022. The Council placed Mrs X in Band D from 9 August once it had received Mrs X’s supporting information. Based on the information provided by Mrs X, the Council considered Mrs X to be adequately housed.
15. In early September, Mrs X contacted the Council and said she was not adequately housed on medical grounds. She uploaded some medical information. The Council then sent a copy of the medical form in a paper format. Over the coming weeks, Mrs X uploaded various medical information.
16. On 4 November, Mrs X uploaded an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment. The OT assessment concluded that Mrs X needed:
• wheelchair access to the front of the property either as a level entrance or existing property adapted.
• a flush floor shower or existing bathroom adapted.
• all facilities at ground floor level or property with stairlift or lift.
• to be housed in a location with good public transport links close by for access to community services, shops, GP or in close proximity.
17. Following an assessment of the information by the Independent Medical Advisor, the Council awarded Mrs X a Band C medium medical priority on 2 December 2022.
18. Mrs X questioned the Banding. During December, the Council and Mrs X were in regular contact. Mrs X said her landlord would not make the requirement adaptations to her property in line with the OT recommendations. The landlord emailed the Council on 21 December confirming he could not adapt the property to meet Mrs X’s needs.
19. The Council increased Mrs X’s priority to Band A on urgent medical or welfare grounds. Her priority date is 21 December 2022.

Available properties and bidding

20. The Council decided that Mrs X was eligible for a one-bedroom property. This meant she could bid on any one-bed property. Mrs X would like a bungalow with a garden as she has pets.
21. Between 2 September and 2 December Mrs X was within Band D. The Council identified 29 suitable properties were available for Mrs X to bid on. These were one bedroom bungalows, flats and sheltered flats. Mrs X bid for 3 bungalows. These were awarded to applicants in Band A.
22. Between 2 December and 21 December 2021, Mrs X was within Band C. 3 properties were available and Mrs X bid on one of these. It was awarded to an applicant in Band A.
23. Between 21 December 2022 and 13 February 2023 (when Mrs X brought her complaint to us), Mrs X was in Band A with a priority date of 21 December 2022. During this period, 20 one-bedroom properties became available. Mrs X bid for 2 bungalows. The properties were awarded to applicants in Band A with priority dates earlier than Mrs X (November 2021 and September 2021).

Misinformation

24. Mrs X contacted the Council on 16 November 2022. The customer service advised her:
• that she should only bid on properties she’s really interested in because if she’s offered properties and continually turns them down, she may not be offered further properties for 12 months.
• about when her medical form would be assessed. The advisor told Mrs X that a doctor comes in every 3 months to assess the forms.
25. Mrs X complained to the Council on 28 November about how the Council was handling her housing application. In her complaint she referred to the information she had received from the customer service advisor earlier that month.
26. On 12 December in its response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council apologised to Mrs for the incorrect information she had received. The Council confirmed that:
• It does not penalise applicants for the number of bids they make.
• An independent medical advisor (IMA) attends every 6-8 weeks to assess complex cases. In the interim, weekly medical panels assess the medical forms.
27. The Council explained that the advisors take calls for three different councils and had given information from another council’s allocation policy.
28. The Council informed Mrs X that it had provided further training for the advisors and had raised the matter with a senior advisor.
29. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it did not consider that Mrs X suffered an injustice as a result of the misinformation. It said:
• Mrs X only ever bid on properties she was really interested in (bungalows) and had bid on a property during the period 16 November to 12 December.
• Mrs X submitted her OT report on 4 November and further medical information on 17 November. It was assessed by an IMA on 2 December as it was not considered to be straightforward. The Council moved Mrs X to Band C the same day.

My findings

Priority banding and date

30. I have found no fault with how the Council handled Mrs X’s housing application. It considered her initial application and supporting evidence in a timely manner in line with the Allocations Policy.
31. Her initial banding and subsequent banding changes correspond with the policy. Only once the Council had received specific medical information was it satisfied that Mrs X’s medical needs meant her current property was not suitable. This was the Council’s decision to make, and I have found no fault in how this was reached.
32. As soon as Mrs X’s landlord confirmed he would not make adaptations to her current property, the Council awarded Mrs X a Band A priority on medical grounds. In line with the policy, Mrs X’s priority date is 21 December 2022 as this is when the Council received the landlord’s email.
33. I can appreciate that Mrs X feels that because she has been on the waiting list since August 2022, her priority date should be longer. However, the policy is very clear that the date reflects when the applicant moves bands due to a change in circumstances.

Available properties and bidding

34. Mrs X said that she felt that:
• no suitable properties were available,
• other people with a lower priority were being offered the properties she wanted ahead of her, and
• she had missed out on properties due to incorrect information being given to her by the Council.
35. I shall address point 3 in paragraphs 39 and 40.
36. The Council provided details of all the one-bedroom level access properties during a set period. These properties were available from when Mrs X joined the housing register until when she brought her complaint to us. The majority of the properties were flats and Mrs X wanted a bungalow, and she wanted a garden for her cats. Also, many landlords do not allow pets.
37. The information showed that there were plenty of one-bedroom level access properties, but these did not meet Mrs X’s preference. Mrs X’s bids were unsuccessful as the Council offered them to people with a higher banding/priority date. This is in line with the Allocations Policy, and I have found no fault.
38. I can understand that Mrs X wants a property that she can live in with her cats. However, this is not a factor the Council considers when allocating properties. I have found no fault with the Council’s actions in regard to this.

Misinformation

39. The Council was at fault when its advisor provided incorrect information to Mrs X. Although this caused Mrs X frustration, it did not cause her to miss out on any properties.
40. The Council has remedied Mrs X’s injustice by apologising in its December response. It has remedied any potential public interest issues by providing additional training to its advisors and making senior officers aware of the situation. I therefore do not intend to recommend any further remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed my investigation. I have found no fault with how the Council handled Mrs X’s housing application. The Council has remedied the injustice caused by it providing incorrect information to Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman