Summary: the Council was at fault because it failed to fully implement agreed recommendations from our investigation of Miss X’s previous complaint about delay in processing her Housing Register application. This has caused Miss X further frustration and distress.

The complaint

1. In an earlier investigation in 2023 (22013549), we considered Miss X’s complaint that the Council was taking too long to process her request for a review of a decision that she cannot join its Housing Register because she is not in housing need. She believed she met the Council’s criteria and is in housing need.
2. She told us the mould in her privately rented flat, and the anti-social behaviour of another tenant in the building, is having an adverse impact on her health and triggering anxiety and panic attacks.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. We produced this draft decision after considering relevant documents, including our decision on our investigation into Miss X’s original complaint, and our subsequent correspondence with the Council. We have also spoken to Miss X.
5. Miss X and the council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Housing allocations scheme

6. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  Most councils keep a housing register which records information about applicants waiting for housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
7. The law says 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;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
8. There is a very high demand for a short supply of social housing in Croydon. The Council decided to raise the bar to decide who qualifies for reasonable preference. Only applicants who meet one or more of the reasonable preference criteria as defined in Croydon’s published housing allocations scheme will be accepted on the Housing Register.
9. Croydon’s housing allocations scheme includes the following definitions of the reasonable preference groups relevant to Miss X’s complaint:

Insanitary or unsatisfactory housing: there must be at least one verified Category 1 hazard (defined under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System) which cannot be resolved by the landlord within 6 months and the condition of the property must have at least a moderate effect on the applicant’s health;

Health related housing need (medical grounds): applicants who need to move because their current accommodation at least moderately affects their medical condition. It may seek independent medical advice to inform its assessment.

Processing the housing application and reviews of decisions

10. There is no statutory timescale in which a council must decide a Housing Register application. However, in a public interest report in October 2021, we expressed our view that councils should complete the process within four to six weeks.
11. Applicants have the right to request a review of decisions about their Housing Register application, including whether they qualify to join the Housing Register. Croydon Council’s housing allocations scheme says a senior officer will make a review decision within 56 days of receiving the request (unless the applicant agrees to a longer period).

The Improvement and Assurance Panel

12. In July 2020 the Government appointed an Improvement and Assurance Panel to provide external advice, challenge and expertise to Croydon Council, and to report progress to the Secretary of State. In July 2023 Government gave the Panel increased statutory powers and directed the Council to “continue to improve the capacity and capability of the [Council’s] housing service”.

Findings from our previous investigation

13. This is a brief summary of our findings on Miss X’s previous complaint.
14. Miss X applied to join the Housing Register in January 2022. The Council sent her a letter in February 2022 which was misleading and confusing. It told her she did not qualify to join the Housing Register and informed her of her review rights. But it also said her application would be passed on for a medical assessment if she had completed the medical questionnaire. Miss X had completed the questionnaire so, until the medical assessment was done, the Council could not decide whether Miss X was in housing need and qualified to join the Housing Register. It was therefore misleading to tell Miss X a final decision had been made, which carried review rights, when the medical assessment was still outstanding. We found this was fault.
15. We also found the excessive delay in processing Miss X’s application was fault. When we completed our previous investigation in early June 2023, Miss X had been waiting 17 months for the Council’s decision. She was still waiting and the Council could not say when it would make the decision. This delay was unacceptable and was fault.
16. We could not decide whether Miss X met the Council’s criteria to be accepted on the Housing Register. Only the Council could make that decision after considering all the supporting evidence and completing a medical assessment. But we found that the continuing delay was causing Miss X significant frustration, worry and uncertainty. She has an anxiety condition and the prolonged uncertainty about the outcome had a significant impact on her.

Wider service failure

17. In April 2023 we completed our investigation of another complaint about Croydon Council’s delay in assessing a Housing Register application. We knew from that investigation that other applicants were also affected by lengthy delays.
18. At the time the Council told us it was taking 20 months to assess Housing Register applications. It had been working on a new housing database for two years which went live in the summer of 2023. It hopes this will reduce waiting times and provide applicants with access to more information about their applications. However the new database may increase delays in the short term while staff get used to the new way of working.
19. The Council accepted recommendations we made for service improvements as part of the remedy for that complaint. It agreed to review its process for assessing housing register applications (including new applications, change of circumstances requests and review requests). It also agreed to consider what more it could do to reduce delays in addition to implementing the new database.. It completed this review in early July 2023 and sent us an action plan setting out its proposals. We agreed this was a satisfactory remedy.

Agreed remedy for Miss X’s previous complaint

20. The Council agreed to carry out the following recommendations within two weeks of our decision on Miss X’s original complaint (by 20 June 2023):
• apologise to Miss X for the delay in processing her application;
• review the medical evidence received in late April 2022 and make a final decision about whether she qualified to join the Housing Register;
• inform her in writing of its decision, giving reasons, and notify her of her review rights;
• establish what happened to the medical evidence Miss X’s MP sent to the Council on 27 May 2022 which appears not to have reached Miss X’s housing file and inform Miss X;
• pay Miss X £350 to recognise the distress and frustration caused by its long delay in processing her application. This reflects the excessive delay and the significant impact this continues to have on Miss X due to her anxiety condition.
21. It also agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision (by 6 July 2023):
• review the template letters it sends to applicants to ensure they explain clearly whether the Housing Register assessment has been completed and whether a final decision has been made which carries review rights.
22. In making these recommendations, we took into account that the council had already agreed recommendations for wider service improvements in a previous investigation. We therefore did not make any further recommendations. We asked the council to provide evidence by 5 July 2023 that it had completed that review and drawn up an action plan to reduce the significant backlog and delays in processing applications.

Non-compliance with the agreed remedy

23. On 7 June 2023, we closed Miss X’s original complaint because the Council had agreed to implement all the recommendations by the due dates.
24. We contacted the Council on 22 June to check progress with the remedy. On 27 June it told us there had been some delay due to restructuring of the housing service and associated industrial action.
25. On 11 July 2023, Miss X told us she had not yet heard from the Council. We chased up the Council on 12 July and again on 19 July.
26. On 21 August, we decided that, as the Council had not provided any evidence of compliance with the agreed recommendations, we would open a new complaint. We informed the Council on 22 August.
27. On 23 August the Council apologised to us for not complying with the agreed recommendations. It said this was due to an officer error. It had informed the head of the housing service and said it would follow this up as a priority.
28. On 8 September Miss X received a letter of apology from the head of the service. The letter was dated July 2023 but Miss X did not receive it until September. Three days later Miss X told us she had received the £350 payment.
29. Around the same time, Miss X received a letter (wrongly dated 12 July 2023), informing her that the Council had accepted her application to join the Housing Register. She was awarded Band 2 priority on welfare grounds due to the combination of her living conditions and health-related needs. The Council has backdated her registration to January 2022 when she first applied. Miss X is still waiting for further checks to be completed. She has not been given the information she needs to start bidding for properties advertised on the Council’s choice-based lettings scheme.
30. The Council’s website has a link to live data about the average times applicants in different priority bands wait to be allocated a property. Applicants in Band 2 currently wait 1.65 years on average for a one bedroom property. The maximum waiting time for this group is 5.6 years. The waiting time depends on the supply of properties and whether an individual applicant is willing to bid for properties in every area of the borough.
31. I have considered this evidence to assess whether Miss X may have missed out an earlier opportunity to be allocated a property. If there had been no delay in processing her application, and Band 2 priority had been awarded by the end of February 2022, it is unlikely she would have been allocated a property by now in light of the average waiting time.
32. It is a matter of significant concern that the Council has not told us if it has completed the other two agreed actions:
• establish what happened to the medical evidence Miss X’s MP sent to the Council on 27 May 2022 which appears not to have reached Miss X’s housing records and inform Miss X of its findings;
• review the template letters it sends to applicants to ensure they explain clearly whether the Housing Register assessment has been completed and whether a final decision has been made which carries review rights.
33. The Council did not fully deliver the agreed remedy from our previous investigation. There was significant delay in providing the apology and financial remedy to Miss X and a failure to complete two of the agreed actions.

Back to top

Analysis

34. Where we find fault and make recommendations, we expect councils to carry them out within the agreed timescales. This is important because, until changes happen, other individuals might be caused a significant and unnecessary injustice by the same fault. In addition, the Council’s delays in acting on agreed recommendations following our investigation could undermine public trust in the Council’s ability to operate a fair system of redress. And importantly, delay causes further avoidable distress for the complainant.
35. The Council agreed to the timescales in our earlier complaint investigation. If a council knows an action is likely to take longer, we expect it to suggest a different timescale before we finalise a decision. The Council was at fault for failing to honour its commitments and deliver the agreed remedy in full and on time.

Back to top

Agreed action

36. The Council has now implemented some of the agreed recommendations from our previous investigation. But in view of its earlier non‑compliance, and its failure to complete all the agreed actions, we made further recommendations which the Council has accepted.
37. Within one month of this final decision, the Council will:
• complete the two outstanding agreed actions in paragraph 32;
• ensure Miss X gets the information she needs to set up her account as soon as possible so she can start to bid for properties on the choice-based lettings scheme;
• explain what it will do to improve the way it tracks and monitors implementation of agreed actions following our investigations to ensure they are completed in full and within agreed timescales;
• pay Miss X £150 to recognise the additional distress and avoidable time and trouble to which she has been put;
• share our final decision statement with the Improvement and Assurance Panel.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed the investigation and found the Council was at fault and this caused further injustice to Miss X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman