Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to her housing application. The Council was at fault. It did not explain to Miss X why it changed her priority banding and it failed to properly consider Miss X’s mental health needs when it assessed her application. The Council has agreed to complete a reassessment of Miss X’s housing application. It will also apologise to Miss X and pay her a symbolic amount of £200 for the distress and frustration the matter caused her.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to her housing application. She said the Council has:
• not rehoused her despite being on the housing register for over five years;
• changed her from band three to band five with no good reason;
• cancelled her application on several occasions; and
• not considered the negative affect her current housing is having on her mental and physical health.
2. Miss X said it has caused her significant distress and it has affected her health. She wants the Council to apologise to her and properly assess her application so that she is in the correct band with a priority need.

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. 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)
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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have exercised discretion to investigate elements of Miss X’s complaint that occurred more than 12 months ago. I have investigated the period between February 2021 and June 2023. This is because the Council issued its new housing allocation policy in February 2021 which affected Miss X’s housing application and the Council responded to her complaint in June 2023.
7. I have not considered the elements Miss X has complained about before February 2021. Although I have referred to what happened before February 2021, my investigation does not go back that far. Miss X could have brought this element of her complaint to us much sooner, and there is no good reason to investigate it now.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I spoke with Miss X and considered information she provided.
9. I considered information provided by the Council.
10. Miss X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

11. 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))
12. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds; and
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others.

(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

13. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

The Council’s housing allocation policy

14. The Council’s housing allocation policy sets out who is eligible for housing, how the Council assesses housing applications and what type of accommodation it can offer to applicants.

2013 housing allocation policy

15. The Council’s 2013 allocation policy prioritised applications into the following four groups:
• additional preference plus;
• additional preference;
• reasonable preference; and
• no preference.

2021 housing allocation policy

16. The Council’s 2021 allocation policy replaced the previous policy. It states the Council would migrate all applicants to its new allocation scheme, however all applicants would need to update their application so that the Council would be able to assess their eligibility and priority in line with the new scheme. The Councill would not carry over existing priorities and so all applicants previously awarded a priority such as a medical or a social needs priority would need to submit a new request for their application to be assessed.
17. Eligible applicants would be placed in one of five bands, ranging between 1-5. Applicants placed in band 5 would have no priority.
18. Applicants would need to update their application annually. Failure to do so would result in the Council cancelling their application. Applicants can find out when their application is due to be updated on the Council's website.

Disability and health assessments

19. The Council’s Independent Medical Advisor can make property recommendations following an assessment. Recommendations may include awarding an applicant a priority based on disability/health grounds.

Social needs panel

20. The Council’s social needs panel considers applications from applicants between band 1-5 who for example, are experiencing mental health problems. The panel may consider:
• the level of risk associated with an applicant continuing to live at their current address;
• requests to agree an applicant for any type of special housing provision for example, supported housing because of a mental health need; or
• requests to move following incidents of abuse.
21. The panel may decide to award a level of priority on social or welfare grounds.

Background

22. Miss X lives in a two-bedroom council property with her child. The property is a first floor self-contained flat. Miss X has been living in the property since 2012.
23. Miss X re-applied to the Council’s housing register in 2018 as she wanted to move properties. The Council accepted Miss X on its housing register and placed Miss X’s application under ‘reasonable preference’ with a priority.

What happened

24. In early 2021, the Council replaced its housing allocation policy. It migrated Miss X’s housing application under its new housing allocation scheme and placed her in band 3 under its banding scheme.
25. In April 2022, the Council cancelled Miss X’s housing application as she had failed to update her application. Miss X later re-applied to the Council’s housing register.
26. The Council accepted Miss X’s housing application and placed her in band 5 of its banding scheme with no priority.
27. Following this, Miss X submitted to the Council a disability and health questionnaire in which she said she had:
• mental health needs; and
• mobility problems which made it difficult for her to access the property.
28. Miss X gave the Council a letter from her Psychiatrist Consultant which highlighted Miss X had mental health needs and her conditioned had worsened. It also said Miss X’s current property was not appropriate for her as she associated it with past trauma.
29. Miss X was known to the Mental Health Community Recovery Team which completed an assessment of Miss X’s medical needs. She gave the Council a copy of the assessment which noted:
• Miss X was desperate to move from her current property due to past trauma she had experienced there. It was in support of Miss X’s move from the property as it was a constant reminder of Miss X’s negative experiences which worsened her mental health; and
• Miss X was independently mobile however struggled to climb the stairs which led to the property.
30. Between October and November 2022, the Council’s Independent Medical Advisor assessed Miss X’s medical application. It informed Miss X it had decided not to award her a priority because she already lived in a lower floor self-contained flat with access to normal facilities. It continued and said, “having a medical, mental health, or neurological condition and/or any form of disability does not mean that an applicant will be awarded priority for housing. It is only in those cases where an applicant has one or more conditions and, where the property occupied is having a detrimental effect upon any of those conditions, that any award of priority may be considered”.
31. Miss X remained in band 5. The Council informed Miss X she had the right to request a review of its decision within 21 working days.

Miss X’s complaint to the Council

32. Between March and May 2023, Miss X complained to the Council and said:
• the Council had closed her housing application;
• it was unclear why the Council had changed her banding from band 3 to band 5; and
• the issue was affecting her mental health. Miss X also reiterated the current property was not suitable for her mental health due to past trauma and she struggled to climb the stairs to access the property.

Miss X wanted the Council to reinstate her application, reassess her medical needs and provide her with a new property.

33. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint and said:
• it had cancelled Miss X’s housing application several times in the past year as Miss X had failed to update her housing application. It informed Miss X on this occasion, it had requested its Housing Team to reinstate her application;
• it recognised Miss X had mental health needs which it had already assessed. Miss X remained in band 5 which meant she had no identified housing needs or she was already adequately housed.

The Council did not uphold Miss X’s complaint.

34. Miss X remained unhappy and complained to us. In her complaint to us, Miss X said she was not able to update her application on one occasion in 2022, due to problems with her health.
35. In response to my enquiries, the Council said when it migrated Miss X’s application under its housing allocation scheme, it had in error placed Miss X in band 3.
36. The Council also provided me with a copy of its assessment of Miss X’s medical needs. It said, “no priority awarded”.

Back to top

Findings

37. When the Council migrated Miss X’s housing application to its new allocations scheme, it placed Miss X in band 3. The Council told us it did this in error and later changed Miss X’s banding to band 5. Miss X asked the Council why it had changed her banding but it did not explain to her it had placed her in band 3 in error. This was fault and caused Miss X frustration.
38. Miss X was unable to update her application on one occasion in 2022 and so the Council cancelled her application. The Council’s housing allocation policy states all applicants must update their applications annually and failure to do so will result in the Council cancelling their application. The Council was not at fault as it cancelled Miss X’s application in line with its policy.
39. Miss X told the Council she had problems with her mental health and mobility. She gave the Council a letter from her Psychiatrist Consultant which outlined problems with her mental health and supported her request to move from the property. Miss X also gave the Council a copy of the assessment completed by the Mental Health Community Recovery Team who also supported Miss X’s request to move to another property due to her mental health.
40. The Council’s assessment which its Medical Team completed states, “no priority awarded”. The Council was at fault as it did not explain what information it considered or how it made its decision.
41. In addition, the Council’s decision letter to Miss X did not show how the Council considered the evidence surrounding Miss X’s mental health problems. The Council’s letter states it decided not to award Miss X a priority because she already lived in a lower floor self-contained flat with access to normal facilities. This indicated the Council based its decision on Miss X’s mobility problems only. The Council was at fault. There was no supporting evidence the Council properly considered Miss X’s mental health needs when it decided not to award her a priority.
42. Furthermore, the Council said in its decision letter it would only consider awarding a priority if an applicant had one or more conditions and the property was having a detrimental effect upon any of those conditions. Miss X’s evidence showed her current property was negatively affecting her mental health.
43. The Council should have properly considered Miss X’s application under its Medical Team or social needs panel. Failure to do so has caused Miss X distress and frustration.

Back to top

Agreed actions

44. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed it will:
• complete a reassessment of Miss X’s housing application, considering her health needs and taking into account the evidence collated from her consultant and the Mental Health Community Recovery Team. The Council will make a decision clearly explaining its decision considering the evidence. If the Council decides to award Miss X with a priority, it will backdate her application to November 2022, when the Council decided its initial outcome of the assessment;
• apologise to Miss X for the distress and frustration it caused to her by not properly considering her health needs and for not clearly explaining to her why it changed her banding from 3 to 5; and
• pay Miss X a symbolic payment of £200 for the distress and frustration the matter caused her.
45. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I have now completed my investigation. The Council was at fault. It has agreed to the 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