Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her circumstances and supporting evidence when assessing her housing priority. She also said the Council restricted her housing options. We have not found the Council at fault for how it considered Miss X’s housing circumstances and supporting evidence. We have found the Council at fault for a delay in completing its review of Miss X’s housing priority. We have found the Council at fault for errors in its allocations system, which led to Miss X being wrongly restricted from bidding on properties that met her housing needs. We have also found the Council at fault for its communication about this issue. We have made recommendations for the Council to remedy the injustice caused and to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her circumstances and supporting evidence when it assessed her housing priority. She said the Council wrongly prioritised her housing application as a result.
2. Miss X also complained the Council restricted her bidding options by only allowing her to bid on ground-floor properties, despite telling her she could bid on properties up to the second floor. Further, she said the Council would remove her identified bed-need if she were to transfer to a like-for-like property, while waiting for suitable accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered information she provided.
7. I considered information the Council provided about the complaint.
8. Both Miss X and the Council were able to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered any comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

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))

Review procedures

10. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
11. 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; and
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

Council’s allocations scheme

12. The Council’s published allocations scheme sets out how it considers applicants’ needs and decides how to prioritise applicants for accommodation.
13. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

Council’s priority bands

14. The Council has four priority bands, with Band A being the highest and Band D the lowest. Applicants are awarded priority based on their level of housing need and connection to the borough.
15. Relevant to this complaint:
1. The Council awards Band A medical priority to applicants identified as having urgent medical or welfare needs, where the current accommodation is found to be having an “extreme” impact on those needs.
2. The Council awards Band C medical priority to applicants with medical or welfare needs, where the accommodation is found to be having a “significant” impact on those needs.
3. Applicants assessed to be lacking one bedroom will be awarded Band C priority.

Back to top

What I found

Key events

16. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.
17. In mid-2023, Miss X complained to the Ombudsman about how the Council had considered her housing application. The Ombudsman could not then investigate the matter. The Council had not yet considered it as a formal complaint.
18. The Ombudsman referred Miss X’s complaint back to the Council. In June 2023, the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint. The Council said Miss X could provide new information to evidence her housing need, if she thought her application was inaccurate. The Council said any changes to her housing application would only be effective from the date the Council received relevant supporting evidence.
19. Later that month, the Council wrote to Miss X with its decision about her housing application:
1. The Council said it had awarded Miss X priority Band C, for lacking one bedroom.
2. The Council said there was a shortage of social housing. It said Miss X should consider private sector housing options, as it was unlikely social housing could address Miss X’s housing needs in the short term.
3. The Council said it had agreed to award medical priority, recommending only ground floor properties in light of evidence Mrs X had provided about her mobility.
4. The Council offered Miss X a right to request a review of these decisions.
20. In July 2023, Miss X wrote to the Council to request a review of its decision. She provided letters from medical professionals as supporting evidence. These letters said:
1. Miss X struggled with her mental health living in her home. Her property was on a floor high above ground level, mainly accessible by lift. The lifts were often out of action and repairs took a long time. Miss X had once been trapped in the lift for 45 minutes, which she found traumatic. She had since avoided using the lift.
2. Due to Miss X’s anxiety about the lift, and the frequent lift breakdowns, Miss X found it difficult for her and her young baby to leave the property. Using the stairs from several floors up was difficult with a young baby and pushchair.
3. Miss X said she had medical conditions affecting her mobility.
4. It was not clear the Council was taking Miss X’s well-being seriously. Any delay in processing Miss X’s housing application would be harmful to her mental health.
21. The Council wrote to Miss X with the outcome of its review decision on 16 October 2023:
1. The Council said it had considered the information Miss X had provided. Having done so, it would not award any added priority. It said Miss X’s housing priority would remain Band C.
2. The Council recognised Miss X had anxiety around using the lift. It had awarded medical priority Band C for this, because her housing environment made this condition worse.
3. The Council noted Miss X’s letters, but said a change in property would not alleviate these issues. It said there was no evidence Miss X could not manage flights of stairs. The Council said the letters did not suggest Miss X’s diagnoses were directly affecting her mobility.
4. The Council said it had therefore updated Miss X’s housing application so she could bid for properties up to the second floor. It said recommending only ground floor properties would significantly reduce Miss X’s chances of being rehoused. The Council said if future evidence showed Miss X could not manage stairs altogether, the Council could update her application.
22. Miss X brought her complaint back to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Review timescale

23. In its review response from October 2023, the Council referred to Miss X making a review request on 7 August 2023. The Council told me this date was an error. It said Miss X sought a review of the Council’s decision on 19 July 2023.
24. The Council took almost 13 weeks to complete its review. This is a delay of around five weeks beyond the timescale set out in government guidance. Have found the Council at fault for this delay.
25. This fault caused Miss X an injustice in the form of avoidable frustration and uncertainty. I have made recommendations for the Council to remedy this injustice.

Priority banding

26. The Council told me its letters to Miss X explained how it reached its decision and applied its allocations policy. It said the decisions were made by responsible officers, as per its allocations scheme.
27. I am satisfied the Council explained how it interpreted this evidence and awarded priority. The explanations set out demonstrate a regard for Miss X’s evidence, which consisted of two supporting letters. The Council awarded priority in a manner consistent with its allocations scheme.
28. I appreciate Miss X disagrees with the Council’s conclusions. However, I have not found the Council at fault for how it considered the evidence and awarded priority. I cannot therefore question the Council’s decision about Miss X’s banding.

Housing need

29. The Council first decided Miss X could only bid for ground-floor properties. This reflected evidence it had about Miss X’s anxiety when using lifts. The Council changed its decision on review, saying Miss X could bid for properties up to the second floor. The Council said the evidence suggested Miss X could manage some flights of stairs. It said restricting choice to only ground-floor properties would limit Miss X’s chances of securing new accommodation.
30. The Council was entitled to come to a view about Miss X’s housing needs, based on medical evidence it received. The Council changing position on review shows it had regard for this evidence. It was not fault for the Council to make its initial decision, or to refine the decision on review.
31. Miss X says she has been unable to bid for certain properties she thinks were suitable. The Council reviewed four properties as part of this investigation. Two of the properties were restricted for bidding, with one being for direct lets and another suitable only for applicants in need of adaptations. When reviewing Miss X’s bidding history, the Council also provided evidence Miss X placed bids on properties above ground-floor level, so there was no blanket restriction in place.
32. There were two other properties Miss X said she could not bid on, which she believed met her identified housing needs. Responding to my enquiries:
1. The Council initially told me Miss X could only bid for properties up to the second floor if there was also a lift. This qualifying condition was not mentioned in the Council’s review letters to Miss X. This appeared to explain why Miss X could not bid for the two properties in question, which were otherwise suitable.
2. The Council then withdrew this explanation, telling me it provided this in error. The Council said there was nothing preventing Miss X from bidding on the properties in question.
3. Miss X provided the Ombudsman with evidence she could not bid on these properties. On further review, the Council accepted Miss X was unable to bid for these properties, despite them matching her identified housing needs. The Council told me the property landlords, which were housing associations, listed these properties directly onto the allocations system. The Council said these housing associations made errors when listing the properties. These errors restricted bids from applicants who were suitable and who should have been able to bid.
4. The Council said because of this issue, it would now undertake checks of all properties listed by partner landlords to make sure any exclusions were correctly set. It also said it would speak to the partner landlords to make sure they understood how to list properties on the allocations system.
5. The Council said despite Miss X being wrongly excluded from bidding on these properties, she had not missed an opportunity to move to new accommodation. It said if Miss X had been able to bid, she would have been in positions 102 and 104 for the two properties in question.
33. The Council’s explanation shows Miss X, and potentially others, were being wrongly excluded from bidding on properties that met their identified housing needs. The Council is responsible for the overall administration of its allocations scheme, including actions carried out by partner landlords in delivering these responsibilities. I have therefore found the Council at fault for this.
34. These faults caused Miss X an injustice. Had she been able to bid, Miss X would not have been successful for these properties and there was therefore no missed opportunity. However, being unable to place bids on properties that met her identified housing need caused avoidable frustration and uncertainty. The Council’s initial explanation to the Ombudsman also caused uncertainty as to whether the Council had correctly recorded Miss X’s housing need on its records. Despite the Council offering clarification, this uncertainty remains for Miss X.
35. Further, there exists potential injustice for Miss X and others, if the Council does not take sufficient action to address errors by its partner landlords when listing properties. It is possible such errors could result in future missed opportunities. I note the actions the Council has proposed to take. I have included further recommendations for the Council to act to improve its services to prevent future injustice. I also recommend it act to remedy the injustice caused to Miss X.

Transfers and priority need

36. Miss X said the Council told her she would be unable to bid for suitable two-bed properties, if she transferred to a more suitable one-bedroom property in the meantime. The Council told me it had no record of giving this advice. It had also checked with its housing partners and found no record of this.
37. The Council said transfers/management moves were a matter for Miss X’s landlord. It said if Miss X moved to an alternative one-bedroom property through a management move agreed with her landlord, she would still be viewed as having a housing need. It said she would be able to bid on properties that met that need.
38. I have seen no evidence the Council gave Miss X incorrect advice. I have not found the Council at fault for misapplying its policy in this matter.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Miss X for the faults and injustice identified in this statement. The Council should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on “Making an effective apology", set out in our Guidance on Remedies document.
2. Pay Miss X £300 in recognition of the avoidable frustration and distress caused by the Council’s faults. I have had regard for the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies when recommending this figure. I have considered Miss X experienced delays in her housing review. I have also considered Miss X has been restricted from bidding on suitable properties, which has caused avoidable frustration and uncertainty about why she could not place certain bids. The Guidance on Remedies defines distress as including raised expectations and uncertainty.
40. Within eight weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Review Miss X’s housing need again to ensure there are no uncertainties or discrepancies in how it has recorded this. It should invite Miss X to comment or provide further evidence on her current housing need as part of this review. It should then write to Miss X to clearly state her identified housing needs, what accommodation she is entitled to bid on, and ensure this is correctly reflected on its records.
2. Prepare an action plan showing how it will ensure its partner landlords are aware of how to advertise properties correctly, and showing how the Council will check this is happening. The Council should share this action plan with the Ombudsman.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman