Summary: We found no fault on Miss J’s complaint about the Council failing to properly consider the suitability of her accommodation. The Council delayed considering the medical information she sent and there was a six-week delay dealing with her request for a review of its banding decision. This caused no significant injustice to her as the review confirmed she was in the correct band.

The complaint

1. Miss J complains about the Council failing to properly consider her request to review its decision about her housing allocation priority awarded: as a result, she is in reduced banding under its housing allocation scheme which means she has less priority than she believes she should have which is causing her a great deal of stress, anxiety, and frustration.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

2. I have only investigated the Council’s actions from February 2022. This is because she complained to us in February 2023. The law says we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done.
3. I have seen no good reason why we should exercise discretion to look further back than this date.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
5. 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)
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

Council’s social housing allocation policy (22 July 2021)

7. The policy sets out how the Council assesses applications for housing, prioritises each one, and decides which applicant is offered Council and Housing Association housing.
8. To qualify to join the housing register, an applicant must have continuously lived in the borough for at least ten years.
9. Housing need is decided by assessing the current housing circumstances of applicants. They are given a priority band according to the urgency of the housing need. It has the following priority bands:

• Band A: The highest priority awarded to those with an emergency and very severe housing need;
• Band B: The second highest priority for those with an urgent need to move;
• Band C: The third highest for those with an identified need to move; and
• Band D: Homelessness applicants who do not satisfy the ten-year continuous residence rule.

10. Medical assessment looks at how current accommodation affects the applicant’s health or disability of a family member. It assesses whether their health would improve by moving to alternative accommodation. Medical advisers carry out the assessment and based on their recommendations, an applicant will be placed in one of three bands: Band A (emergency medical: where there is a life threatening condition that is seriously affected by their housing); Band B (Medical Hardship where the current housing conditions have a major adverse effect on their medical condition); Band C (Medical Need where the current housing condition has a moderate or variable adverse effect on their medical condition).

Back to top

Children Act 1989

11. It shall be the general duty of every local authority to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need, and so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs. (section 17(1))
12. In carrying out their functions under section 17, social services have the power to provide financial assistance and accommodation to the child in need and their family. (section 17(6))
13. Guidance for local authorities says accommodation under section 17 must be suitable for the children and families for which it is intended. (Local Authority Circular LAC (2003) 13). Social services must carry out an assessment of the needs of the child and family to ensure the accommodation offered is suitable.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

14. I considered all the information Miss J provided, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries. I also considered our decisions on previous complaints Miss J sent (19 020 660 and 18 019 714). I sent a copy of my draft decision to Miss J and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

15. Miss J has lived in her current two bed flat for three years with her daughter who has health issues. The property was arranged by the Council’s children’s services department because her daughter is a child in need (CIN). This is temporary accommodation.
16. While the Council accepted it owed her a homelessness duty in July 2017, it discharged this the following year when she refused two offers of suitable privately rented accommodation in the borough.
17. Children’s services were notified and in 2019, housed her under section 17 Children Act 1989. Her daughter is a section 17 CIN for accommodation support.
18. The following are key dates:

2022:

19. February: Miss J was told she had now completed her 10-year residency within the borough and her banding would automatically change.
20. April: Miss J sent the Council details about their medical conditions and current situation with supporting documents. This explained she and her daughter both had problems with the property itself and getting to school, which is more than an hour away. She sent medical evidence in support about her daughter’s health. This included problems she has using public transport, the need for social support networks, and the need for a home environment with low stimulation.
21. May: The Council told Miss J her housing application was in Band C (Homeless household/section 17) with a banding date of 3 July 2017. It had now moved her to Band B with a band date of 29 October 2021. She had already made a referral to the housing and social care board.

I have seen a record of a CIN meeting held this month which reviewed her daughter’s plan. This noted the distance to school and Miss J being grateful for having a car. She agreed to share her daughter’s Education, Health and Care plan when received. The record notes the family continued to live in section 17 accommodation and consideration needed giving to its impact on them.

22. June: Miss J asked if her and her daughter’s medical needs were considered and applied to their banding. She did not want to explore private housing options.
23. July: Miss J sent a complaint to the Council as she received no response to her email sent in April.
24. August: The Council responded to her complaint. It apologised for the delay in responding to her April email. It explained what it would do about her reports about security and rats, and explained while her account was set to automatically bid for properties, there was a severe lack of social housing. It advised her to look in the private sector.

The same month, a medical assessment was carried out. This concluded she already lived in accommodation with access to normal facilities and the issues raised were not primarily medical. The Council decided to give her Band C for medical. Miss J queried why this was only Band C. It told her while she was in Band C for Medical and Homeless households/section 17, she was already in the higher Band B.

25. September: Miss J contacted the Council again, confused about why her banding had not increased. The Council updated the CIN plan which agreed to support her on a CIN plan with the Long-Term team. It confirmed statutory visits would be done every six weeks. The minutes of this meeting show Miss J raised the issue of housing again, the distance to school, and how she wanted to move her to a nearer school. The records show Miss J was visited the same month.
26. October: Miss J asked the Council to review its decision about banding. A Special Educational Needs and Disability officer spoke to Miss J the same month.
27. November: The Council carried out a CIN review. This concluded the social worker would provide further housing supporting letters if required. Miss J’s daughter was visited at school.
28. December: The Council told Miss J if it found accommodation for her, it would be privately rented and likely out of borough because of the high rents within borough. It explained it is difficult to find affordable accommodation locally.

2023:

29. February: The Council gave her its decision on her review request. This confirmed the award of Band C for Medical and Band B overall.
30. Miss J is unhappy as her daughter:

• has a bedroom which is only large enough for a bed. There is no room for any other furniture, for example;
• is travelling to school which is more than an hour away by car and more than an hour and a half by public transport which has a financial cost. She does not always have access to a reliable and working car;
• has heightened sensory issues and cannot cope with noise coming from the flat above, which she accepts is nothing more than daily living sounds;
• her problems mean when travelling to school, Miss J must have access to a car or taxi as her daughter cannot use public transport; and
• needs somewhere to live that is quiet.

31. Miss J believes she should be in a higher banding under the Council’s allocation policy than Band B.

My findings

Suitability:

32. I found no fault on this complaint. This is because I am satisfied the Council is keeping the suitability of the accommodation under review and is aware of the problems Miss J says it causes. In reaching this conclusion, I took the following into account:
1. Miss J sent medical information to the Council in April 2022. This explained the problems her daughter experienced because of the accommodation, mainly to do with noise because of its location. She referred to travel problems getting her daughter to school and asked the Council to consider this when looking at her band.
2. I have seen a copy of the CIN review done in May. This considered evidence from various sources. It noted: Miss J felt the distance to school was too far; she wanted to change to a nearer school which could meet her daughter’s needs; she had explained the current accommodation affected mental health; there were problems with attendance and punctuality at school with 71% attendance and late for registration 27% of the time.
3. The decision to carry out six weekly visits was made at another CIN review meeting in September. I have seen records showing her daughter was seen in the months that followed.
4. I have taken account of social services checking with the housing team which noted there were 200 applicants ahead of her on the housing system.
5. In January 2023, social services made a referral to the Long-Term Team. This team provides statutory CIN support through visits and meetings.
6. The Council also confirmed it discussed various options with Miss J including her looking at properties through private landlords and the Out of London Scheme. She refused them. The Council made a referral to Adult Services to assess Miss J.

Banding:

33. I found fault on this complaint. This is because:
1. Miss J sent details of their medical situation and supporting documents in April 2022. There is nothing in the Council’s letter of 26 May which showed it took this into account when reaching its decision. The letter told her she had moved to Band B but gave no information about if, and how, it took account of her medical information.
2. This caused her some frustration, as the impact the property was having on their health was one of the main reasons for wanting to move and her medical information was not assessed until August when she sent a formal complaint. I am not satisfied this caused a significant injustice. This is because when a medical assessment was done in August, while medical Band C was given as a result, this did not change her overall banding as she was still in the higher Band B.
3. In October, Miss J asked the Council to review its decision about her banding following its August assessment. The Council carried out the review in February 2023, about 12 weeks later. I consider a reasonable period would have been about six weeks to do a review.
4. I am satisfied this delay caused Miss J no significant injustice. This is because the review confirmed she was correctly placed in Band B.
34. The review itself considered the law, its allocation policy, and the medical information she provided. It noted the medical evidence was assessed by an independent medical advisor and the recommendation for Band C. There was no fault with the review decision.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I make the following findings on Miss J’s complaint against the Council:

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman