Summary: the Council took far too long to assess Ms X’s Housing Register application and that was fault. It also took too long to reassess her priority and points when she provided further evidence about her family’s medical needs and disabilities. This caused Ms X avoidable frustration and uncertainty. But she did not miss out on an opportunity to be rehoused sooner due to these delays. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy for the distress caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X is a Council tenant. She, her partner and their four children, two of whom are disabled, were living in a three bedroom flat on the third floor of a block without a lift. Ms X’s youngest child has a severe disability which means she cannot walk and needs constant supervision. One of her other children has a neurodiverse condition and has challenging behaviour.
2. Ms X complained that the Council took too long to process her application to join the Housing Register. She also complained about the time it took to consider her requests for a reassessment of her medical points, priority band and bedroom need. She complained about the poor communication with her throughout the process.
3. Ms X believes that due to these delays Band A priority was awarded later than it should have been. As a result, she and her family may have spent longer in unsuitable accommodation which did not meet their complex needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
    
5. 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)
6. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The council should consider this guidance when making the apology recommended in my findings.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have spoken to Ms X and considered all the information she provided. I considered the council’s response to my enquiries and relevant housing records.
8. Ms X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law and the Council’s housing allocations scheme

9. 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))
10. The law and statutory guidance do not prescribe a timescale to make a decision on a Housing Register application. However, in public interest report 20 007 658 the Ombudsman said it would be reasonable for councils to complete the process within four to six weeks.
11. Applicants have the right to request a review of decisions about their Housing Register application. The Council’s housing allocations scheme does not give a timescale for making the review decision. Statutory guidance suggests eight weeks is a reasonable timescale.
12. The Council’s scheme awards points to recognise different housing needs. Applicants are placed in one of four priority bands (A to D) depending on their points award. Band A is the highest band. Priority between applicants in the same band is determined by waiting time from when they entered that band.
13. The Council’s scheme awards medical points if someone in the household has a diagnosed health condition or disability relevant to their current or future housing needs. There are three different levels of points award:

• Minor 25 points
• Moderate 75 points
• Major 150 points

The Council also awards 5 points for each additional person in the household with a diagnosed health condition or disability which is relevant to their current or future housing needs.

14. The scheme awards points for overcrowding when there are not enough bedrooms in the current accommodation for the applicant’s household. If the accommodation has two bedrooms less than the household needs, 150 points are awarded.
15. Bedroom need: Generally two children under the age of 10 are expected to share a bedroom regardless of their gender. Two children of the same gender aged between 10 and 20 are expected to share a bedroom. However a senior manager can disapply these criteria if there is evidence there would be a serious risk to the health and safety of the children if they were to share a bedroom.

Ms X’s housing application

16. Ms X and the Council have shared with us several reports and letters from medical, social work and other professionals who support the family. They give a detailed picture of family members’ medical conditions and disabilities. They also explain the impact of their housing conditions on their health and disabilities. I have considered all this evidence but deliberately limited the information included in this statement to protect the family’s anonymity and keep the statement as concise as possible. I have focused on the key events relevant to this complaint.
17. Ms X applied to join the Housing Register in early January 2022. She explained the flat was not suitable for her family because of their medical and disability-related needs She provided supporting evidence. She heard nothing more until 7 August when the Council informed her it had accepted her application. She was placed in the Council tenants’ transfer queue with 25 medical points (for a health condition or disability of minor relevance to current or future housing needs). This entitled her to Band D priority (the lowest band).
18. At that point the Council decided Ms X needed a three bedroom property based on the ages and gender of her four children. Each child was expected to share a bedroom with one sibling.
19. Ms X asked the Council to explain how it had assessed the points award. In mid-September the Council said its Medical Adviser had considered the medical evidence but had not recommended separate bedrooms for her two disabled children. In view of this recommendation, the Council said the family were not overcrowded because they were already in a three bedroom flat.
20. In late September 2022 Ms X paid an Occupational Therapist to assess her youngest child’s housing needs and write a report. In mid-October 2022 she sent this report to the Council, along with other medical evidence. Ms X also wrote a detailed statement explaining the impact of the family’s medical conditions and disability on their daily life and the particular difficulties in their current flat.
21. In early January 2023 Ms X complained to the Council. She was still waiting for a response and had requested the reassessment more than eleven weeks earlier. She said the Council had not acknowledged her request or explained the reasons for the delay. She reiterated that she or her partner had to carry their youngest child, who could not walk, up more than fifty steps to their flat. Ms X had been experiencing shortness of breath and chest pains. She said her chronic back pain was made worse by carrying her child.
22. In early February 2023 a manager in the Housing Assessment team completed the reassessment as part of his response to Ms X’s complaint. He accepted Ms X’s two disabled children could not share a bedroom with their siblings. The family therefore needed a five bedroom property. He awarded 245 points:
• 150 points for overcrowding (lacking 2 bedrooms) ,
• 75 medical points (for the youngest child whose disability had moderate relevance to current or future housing needs);
• 20 additional medical points (5 points for each person in the family affected)
23. 245 points entitled Ms X to Band B priority. This was backdated to mid-October 2022 when Ms X sent in the new evidence and requested the reassessment.
24. The manager apologised to Ms X. He said that by backdating Band B priority to October 2022 she had not been disadvantaged by the delayed reassessment.
25. Ms X sent further evidence to the Council in mid-February 2023. An assessment officer said the Council’s medical adviser had considered it but did not recommend any change to the medical points.
26. In late February 2023 Ms X asked for her complaint to move to the second stage of the council’s complaints procedure. She provided a new letter from the children’s social worker. She said the family was waiting for the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) to assess the mental health needs of one child. The social worker explained the severe impact of the lack of space and overcrowding in the flat. She said Ms X and her partner had to carry their youngest child up several flights of stairs to the flat which aggravated their health conditions. Their youngest child needed a ground floor bedroom and accessible bathing facilities. She also raised concerns about the risk of family breakdown due to the severe strain they were under and the impact on Ms X and her partner’s mental health. She had made a safeguarding referral because of her concerns about the family’s mental wellbeing.
27. In late March 2023 a senior manager considered Ms X’s complaint along with the social worker’s letter and all the evidence previously submitted. He decided to award an extra 75 medical points. This increased the total points to 320 which entitled Ms X to Band A priority. This award was effective from the date in late February 2023 when Ms X sent the social worker’s letter. The senior manager said he was satisfied the family’s combined medical conditions and disabilities were of major relevance to housing need.
28. Ms X was allocated a four bedroom house in early May 2023. A ground floor living room was converted to create the fifth bedroom. Ms X and her family moved to this property in mid-May 2023. Ms X says it meets her family’s needs and the move significantly improved their daily lives and wellbeing.
29. Ms X considers the Council should have awarded Band A priority before March 2023 because the social worker’s letter did not provide any significant new evidence about her family’s needs. She is concerned she may have missed out on an earlier opportunity to move to suitable accommodation due to the delay in the initial assessment and reassessment.

The Council’s response to our enquiries

30. The Council says it currently takes 338 days to make decisions on new Housing Register applications. It accepts this is too long and it has strengthened the Assessment Team and engaged more staff to reduce the time. On average it makes review decisions within 52 days which is within the recommended timescale in the statutory guidance.
31. The Council said the primary focus of the Occupational Therapist’s October 2022 report was on the specific needs of Ms X’s youngest child. It also referred to the needs of Ms X’s other disabled child. However, the social worker’s letter in February 2023 gave more information about the impact on the whole family. It also referred to a pending mental health assessment for another child and Ms X’s mental health issues. The manager gave additional weighting to this information and decided it merited additional points and priority.
32. The senior manager considered the social worker’s letter contained materially different information and arguments to those in the supporting evidence Ms X had previously provided. It says the decision to award additional priority in March 2023 was one of a range of reasonable decisions open to the senior manager. He based his decision on a composite assessment of all the relevant medical and welfare factors.
33. The Council says it did not allocate any five bedroom properties to applicants in the Council tenant transfer queue between January 2022 and May 2023. Ms X was offered the first available suitable property in May 2023. So she did not miss out on an earlier opportunity to be rehoused due to the delays in processing her application.
34. The Council wishes to apologise to Ms X. It also offered to pay her £1,000 for the distress caused by its delay in assessing her application.

My analysis

35. The Council accepts it took far too long to assess Ms X’s housing application. She waited almost seven months for the first decision. In a previous public interest report we said we expect councils to process applications within four to six weeks. The unreasonable delay in this case was fault which caused Ms X significant uncertainty and frustration.
36. There was then further delay: the Council took eleven weeks to reassess her priority and points after she provided the private Occupational Therapist’s report in February 2023. The final reassessment, which led to additional medical points and Band A priority, was completed within a reasonable time of Ms X’s request for a further review.
37. Some of the information in the social worker’s letter was already known to the council because it had been included in reports and letters from other professionals which the Council had previously considered. But there was some new information and evidence. The social worker referred to the pending CAMHS assessment of one child. She also raised concerns about the impact on the parents’ mental health and the risk of family breakdown due to the severe strain of caring for the children in unsuitable accommodation. The letter therefore gave some new information which explained the senior manager decided to award extra points at this stage.
38. Ms X and her family have now moved to accommodation which meets their needs. They did not miss out on an earlier offer of suitable accommodation due to delay in the initial assessment and subsequent reviews. Even if there had been no delay, and Band A priority had been awarded sooner, they would still have had to wait until May 2023 for a property which met their specific property needs.
39. The frustration and uncertainty of waiting so long for the Council to complete the assessment and inform her of its decisions caused injustice to Ms X. She also had to make a complaint to prompt the Council to complete the outstanding assessments. In response to our enquiries, the Council offered to apologise to Ms X and pay her £1,000. This is a satisfactory remedy for the distress caused by its delays. I will not recommend service improvements because the Council has recognised it needs to improve its performance and processing times and it is already taking steps to address this.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will provide us with evidence that it has apologised to Ms X and paid £1,000.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed the investigation and found the delay in making a decision on Ms X’s application, and in considering her requests for reassessments of her priority band and bedroom need, was fault. The Council offered a satisfactory remedy for the distress, uncertainty and frustration this caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman