Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s consideration of his priority for rehousing. He considered it did not award him high enough priority and when it did do so it was based on information he had already provided so it could have reached the decision sooner. He considered the delay in awarding the correct banding meant he was unable to bid on properties and be considered with the correct priority and he may have missed the opportunity to move to a property better suited to his needs. There was fault and the Council should apologise and make a payment to Mr B.

The complaint

1. I refer to the complainant as Mr B. He complains about the Council’s consideration of his priority for complained about the Council’s consideration of his priority for rehousing. He considered it did not award him high enough priority and when it did do so it was based on information he had already provided so it could have reached the decision sooner. He considered the delay in awarding the correct banding meant he was unable to bid on properties and be considered with the correct priority and he may have missed the opportunity to move to a property better suited to his needs.

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 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)
3. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr B and spoke to him. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. Mr B 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

6. Mr B approached the Council in March 2022 to join the housing register. The Council assessed his application and placed him in Band B with high medical needs.
7. In September Mr B supplied medical evidence from his GP with a view to increasing his banding. In January 2023 the Council referred the letter to its medical advisers who considered that no increase in banding was warranted. Mr B submitted further information from his GP and also his mother about his living situation and the difficulties he experienced. The Council again referred the information to its medical advisers but they still considered there was no basis for an increase in banding.
8. Mr B was not happy with the decision and asked the Council to review it. The result of the review was to increase Mr B’s banding to band A.

Analysis

9. Mr B considered the Council had all the necessary information from the outset and could have reached the view it did that he should be in band A in the summer of 2022. The Council’s position is that it was the second letter from the GP in March 2023 and information provided by Mr B in a telephone conversation at review that meant there were grounds to increase the banding.
10. It can be the case that a review will change a previously made decision, that is part of the review process and does not necessarily mean there was any fault in the earlier decision making. Mr B’s point was there was no significantly new information so the Council could, and should, have made this decision when he first applied. I consider the March 2023 letter from the GP did provide some more detail and context about Mr B and his conditions and needs. And the telephone call again provided more detail about his situation. Therefore there not was fault in the Council’s consideration of the merits of the medical information supplied by Mr B. But there was delay in considering the GP letter Mr B submitted in September 2022. That was not referred to the Council’s medical adviser until January, a delay of three months. The Council commented it had a backlog at that point. Regardless of the reasons for the delay that was unacceptable and is service failure.
11. Had there not been this delay the whole process would have moved forward by three months. Mr B would, therefore, have been awarded Band A priority in mid-February.
12. I understand that in the time Mr B has been on the housing register he has not placed any bids. Mr B told me he did see some suitable properties but with the priority he had he considered there was no point placing a bid as he stood no chance of being successful. In particular he said there was a property on the street where he lives now on which he would have placed a bid if he had had higher priority.
13. The Council identified the property and explained how it was advertised and the successful applicant chosen. There is no suggestion of fault in that. But it is the case that if Mr B had placed a bid he would have stood a good chance of being successful even with his then band B priority. I cannot therefore say the delay by the Council was the sole reason why Mr B was not awarded that property. But it was a contributory factor because while in a lower band Mr B considered there was no point bidding. The Council should apologise to him and make a symbolic payment to recognise the impact the delay had on him.

Back to top

Agreed action

14. Within one month of the final decision the Council will apologise to Mr B in line with our guidance on making an effective apology and pay him £250.
15. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

16. Subject to further comments by Mr B and the Council, I intend to find there was fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman