Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in reviewing its decision on his housing application, which delay was severely affecting his health. We found there was avoidable delay by the Council, which caused uncertainty and frustration for Mr X. To put matters right, having issued its review decision during our investigation, the Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a symbolic payment of £500.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council unreasonably delayed carrying out the Stage 2 review of its decision on his housing application. Mr X said the delay was severely affecting his health. Mr X wanted the Council to complete the review and award points to his housing application so he could move to a home that met his needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. Where we find fault, we must also consider whether that 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I:

• considered Mr X’s written complaint and supporting papers;
• talked to Mr X about the complaint;
• asked for and considered the Council’s comments and supporting papers about the complaint;
• shared the Council’s comments on the complaint with Mr X; and
• gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Councils must publish an allocations scheme setting out how they prioritise housing applicants, and their procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
7. 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))

8. Applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
9. Statutory guidance on housing allocation says:

• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage;
• there should be a timescale to ask for 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.

10. The Council has a points based 2018 Housing Allocation Scheme (‘the Scheme’). This means the Council awards points for different needs when assessing housing applications. For example, points are available if an applicant is homeless; or their home is overcrowded; or they have housing and health related needs.
11. The Scheme says applicants with housing and health related needs must show:

• their medical condition is made worse by their existing housing conditions;
• their existing home cannot be improved or adapted to meet their needs at a reasonable cost; and
• rehousing is likely to significantly improve their medical condition.

12. The Council’s medical officer, or other health professional, assesses housing and health needs. Under the Scheme, the Council may award either 150 or 500 housing and health points. The points are awarded where an applicant’s medical condition and housing circumstances have a serious impact on their health and wellbeing. And, for 150 points, rehousing is necessary, and for 500 points, there is an urgent need for rehousing.
13. The Scheme says the Council aims to assess housing and health needs within 21 working days. The Scheme also includes a two-stage procedure for reviewing decisions. At Stage 1, applicants have 21 days to ask the Council to reconsider its housing decision. Applicants may give reasons for asking for a review and provide further information about their application. The Council then has 14 days to tell the applicant if they will change the decision. Applicants may, at Stage 2, ask for a review of the Stage 1 decision. Again, the applicant has 21 days to ask for the further review and may give reasons and provide more information about their application. At Stage 2, a Council review officer, with no previous involvement in the case, will review the decision within 56 days and tell the applicant of the outcome. The Scheme says the review timescales may be extended in exceptional circumstances.

What happened

14. Mr X lives in a Council property. He applied to move home and sought housing and health related points under the Scheme. Mr X became concerned about the Council’s handling of his housing application. And, by Autumn 2022, Mr X had complained to the Council. Mr X also asked for a Stage 1 review of its decision not to award housing and health related points and that he was adequately housed.
15. The Council upheld his complaint and apologised for its delay and poor communication in dealing with his application. It then issued its Stage 1 review decision, which again said he was adequately housed and did not meet the threshold for housing and health related points.
16. In late 2022, Mr X asked the Council for a Stage 2 review of its housing decision. Mr X gave reasons for asking for a further review and provided more information from health professionals. Mr X also made a stage 2 complaint. Mr X said, while upholding his complaint, the Council’s response was incomplete and failed to offer any remedy for the distress caused by its delay. The Council partially upheld Mr X’s stage 2 complaint and again apologised.
17. Mr X came to the Ombudsman about seven months later, and over ten months after asking for a Stage 2 review of the Council’s housing decision. Mr X wanted the Council to deal with his Stage 2 review and apply housing and health related points to his housing application.
18. During my investigation, and over 15 months after Mr X asked for a Stage 2 review, the Council sent him its Stage 2 review decision. The Council again said it would not award Mr X housing and health related points.

Consideration

19. We are not an appeal body. We consider if there is fault in how councils reach their decisions. If there is evidence of fault, we consider if it has caused the complainant injustice. If there is no evidence of fault, we cannot question council decisions however strongly a complainant may disagree with them (see paragraph 2 of this statement).
20. Here, the evidence showed the Council took significantly longer to review Mr X’s housing decision than suggested in the statutory guidance and the Scheme (see paragraphs 9 and 13). However, Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman concerned his Stage 2 review. So, that was the focus of my investigation.
21. The Scheme said the Council should complete a Stage 2 review within 56 days (subject to exceptional circumstances). Here, it took over 15 months. The Council said delays had occurred as it had staff vacancies and officers on long term leave. It also said Mr X raised new matters in his complaint to the Ombudsman, which it had then asked him to evidence. (Mr X said the Council had not been in touch with him.) However, if the Council asked Mr X for more information after he complained to the Ombudsman, nearly a year had already passed since he asked for a Stage 2 review. I find lengthy avoidable delay by the Council in carrying out the Stage 2 review, which is fault. I also find the avoidable delay would likely have caused frustration and uncertainty for Mr X, which is injustice (see paragraph 3).
22. Mr X is now in the position he should have been in within 56 days of asking for a Stage 2 review. That is, he has the Council’s Stage 2 review decision. The Stage 2 review decision refers to the information Mr X provided in asking for a Stage 2 review. The decision letter also gives the Council’s reasons for not awarding Mr X’s application housing and health related points. I recognised Mr X would likely strongly disagree with the Council’s Stage 2 review decision. However, I could not find fault if the Council carried out its assessment of Mr X’s housing application in line with the Scheme. And, apart from the Council’s avoidable delay in making its Stage 2 review decision, I could not see any evidence of fault to give me grounds to question it (see paragraph 2).

Back to top

Agreed action

23. To put matters right, the Council agreed:

• (within 10 working days of this statement) to apologise to Mr X; and
• (within a month of this statement) to make a symbolic payment of £500 to Mr X.

The apology and payment are to recognise Mr X’s frustration and uncertainty caused by the Council’s avoidable delay in carrying out the Stage 2 review. The apology should take account of the Ombudsman’s ‘apology checklist’ available at: Guidance on remedies - Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. The Council also agreed to provide us with evidence it had complied with the actions set out in this paragraph 23.

24. The Council had recently agreed with the Ombudsman to review its housing allocation procedures to ensure the timely completion of medical assessments and reviews and to deal with any delays. I therefore made no recommendations here for service improvements.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I completed my investigation, on the Council agreeing the recommendations at paragraph 23, finding fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman