Summary: Mr D complained about the Council’s decision on his housing priority and who it included in his household application. We found the Council at fault for some delay, errors in its decision making, and for not considering relevant information to make a new decision when it made changes to the household. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr D complains about the Council’s decisions relating to his included household for his housing register application and his priority banding. He says the Council has failed to properly consider medical information he provided when he requested higher priority due to overcrowding and medical need. He says his accommodation is not suitable for his housing needs and is having a continual impact on his health and mental wellbeing.

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. 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 discussed the complaint with Mr D and considered his views.
5. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.
6. Mr D 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

Law and administrative background

7. 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))
8. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in several categories, including people in overcrowded housing or who need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
9. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority. Reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - eight weeks is suggested as reasonable.

The Council’s allocations scheme

10. The Council places applicants in priority bands depending on the level of housing need. Band A is highest priority and Band D is the lowest. Band D was removed from the Council’s allocation scheme in September 2023.
11. The Council’s scheme outlines who can be considered part of the household and included in a housing register application. This includes the applicant, their spouse, and their dependent children. It also says:
• A dependent relative who has joined the household because they are unable to live independently, and there are no other available options for the family.
• Advice will be sought from relevant professionals, including the Council’s Medical Adviser on whether the relative needs to live with the family. Where this is not considered essential other options, such as sheltered housing, will be discussed with the family before a decision is made by the Head of Allocations and Accommodation as to whether the relative should be included in the application or advised to make a separate Housing Register application.
• Normally only adults in receipt of Attendance Allowance, at the higher rate, will be included.

Background

12. Mr D lives in a private rented property with his family and older adult relatives (“Person B and Person C”). He made a housing register application. It awarded him Band D. The Council said Persons B and C had not been included in the application as they were expected to apply in their own right.
13. Mr D has physical disabilities, mobility issues and mental health conditions. Persons B and C also have physical conditions and mobility issues.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

14. In June 2023, Mr D made a formal complaint to the Council. He disagreed with the priority it gave him. He wanted higher banding on medical grounds as his property was unsuitable for his health needs and was overcrowded. He detailed his uncomfortable and painful sleeping arrangements due to needing access to facilities for his condition. This negatively affected his physical and mental health.
15. The Council responded at Stage One. It asked Person B and C to submit medical forms with supporting evidence so it could decide if they could be added on medical grounds. It considered external Medical Adviser 1’s view and decided medical priority did not apply to Mr D. The Council concluded Mr D met the criteria for overcrowding and apologised. It changed him to Band C and backdated his priority.
16. Mr D was dissatisfied with this. He sent an Attendance Allowance award letter confirming Persons B and C received the higher rate. The Council assessed Person B and C’s forms and considered Medical Adviser 2 said no medical priority with the house level they lived on. After it incorrectly overlooked some information, it then reassessed these.
17. In October 2023, the Council contacted Mr D. It did not award him medical priority. It did not add Persons B and C to his application. It decided again there was no medical need for them to reside with him.
18. Mr D requested a review. The Council said it intended to complete this by the start of January 2024. Mr D sent further supporting medical letters relating to himself and Person B.
19. In late March 2024, the Council sent its review outcome letter. It made no changes to his application or banding. It explained how it considered the medical information all in relation to Person B. But as it decided Person B was not part of the household, their medical issues were not relevant in assessing banding priority. The Council said it had not seen any other evidence that other members of the household had medical issues relevant to the review.
20. Mr D was dissatisfied with this. He told the Council it wrongly believed his own health information belonged to Person B, so it based its decision on incorrect information. He escalated his complaint to Stage Two.
21. In May 2024, the Council’s Stage Two response did not uphold his complaint. It was satisfied it acted correctly and maintained its position.
22. We then accepted Mr D’s complaint.

Events since Mr D’s complaint to us

23. I have seen two decision letters which show the Council has since carried out further reviews of Mr D’s application in October 2024:
• In early October 2024, the letter reviewed Persons B and C’s medical information and confirmed they would not be added to the application. It said therefore, it would only consider the medical condition of Mr D or other permitted household members when assessing his banding. He remained in Band C. The Council explained how it came to its decision based on the evidence, what external medical advisers had said, and why it thought he did not meet the criteria for higher banding on medical grounds.
• In late October 2024, a letter included Persons B and C onto his household. It repeated its assessment of Mr D’s medical priority.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

24. In response to my enquiries, the Council accepted it failed to acknowledge the errors Mr D raised with the review decision in March 2024. This was an oversight. But it had now completed another review and Mr D remained in Band C.
25. I asked the Council for its position on Persons B and C being part of Mr D’s household (see Paragraph 11). It said while it acknowledged they were in receipt of high rate Attendance Allowance, it found there was no essential medical need for them to be rehoused together. But it was willing to exercise discretion in this case to allow them to be included. The banding would be the same but with an additional bedroom requirement.
26. In a separate document to me, it checked its records on suitable properties since Mr D’s application date and found they were all let to applicants with higher priority. Therefore, it said his application had not been disadvantaged “despite the error in the decision to not accept [Persons B and C] as part of the application since proof of Attendance Allowances were received”.

Analysis

Delay

27. The Council delayed with its review assessment from late 2023. Government guidance says eight weeks is a reasonable timescale for completing reviews. It took 21 weeks altogether. This is fault, and caused injustice to Mr D with avoidable frustration as he waited a notable period for a decision. He was also put to time and trouble to chase the Council for updates.

Household

28. The Council has given two different and conflicting answers about its position on adding Persons B and C to Mr D’s application. This is fault. It has not been transparent about its reasons and whether it was because it did not apply its criteria when it should have. But there was no significant injustice in housing terms; as it stands, they did not miss out on any potential properties.

Priority Banding decision

29. We are not an appeal body. I appreciate Mr D strongly believes he should have higher priority due to the significant negative impact he says his property has on his conditions and health. But it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide what band Mr D should be in. We consider the Council’s process in making decisions and whether it has taken them properly.
30. I can see the Council previously overlooked or made decisions based on incorrect information on at least two occasions. The Council did not acknowledge or engage with Mr D on his concerns when he made valid points about this. This is fault causing inconvenience and frustration to Mr D.
31. I appreciate the Council appears to have made a well explained decision on Mr D’s medical priority based on him as an individual in early October 2024. However, since then, Persons B and C are now included in Mr D’s application.
32. The Council said since their addition, the priority banding remained the same and gave reasons for its decision. However, these mainly detailed Mr D’s medical circumstances and impacts. There was no rationale relating to Persons B and C and therefore I am not satisfied it properly considered them too. This is fault.
33. The Council’s previous review of Person B and C’s medical information was specifically for it to make a decision on whether they should be added. As Persons B and C are now permitted members of the household, their medical conditions should also be fairly considered specifically for a banding priority decision. This is a separate and different consideration. Without a new explained decision, there is the injustice of uncertainty; as the Council has not shown proper consideration of Person B and C’s relevant information, and whether it may affect the overall banding decision.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions:
35. Within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Mr D in writing (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology) and pay a symbolic payment of £150 to recognise his injustice with delay and frustration because of the identified faults.
36. Within three months of the decision:
• The Council should make a new decision about Mr D’s household’s banding priority and invite Mr D to provide any further evidence if he wishes. It should ensure it fairly considers the medical information from each (Mr D, Persons B and C) altogether with sufficient explanation about how the decision was reached. If the Council decides it should award a higher priority, the Council should review if Mr D has potentially missed out on a property in the meantime and consider an appropriate remedy to acknowledge this.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I found fault with the Council which caused injustice to Mr D. The Council has agreed with my recommendations to remedy this, and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman