Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to properly consider his circumstances and has wrongly refused to award him Band A* priority on the housing register. The Council’s failure to properly consider, or record, its consideration of Mr X’s circumstances and the holistic impact on his health and his need to move is fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X complained the Council has failed to properly consider his circumstances and has wrongly refused to award him Band A* priority on the housing register. Mr X says his living conditions have a detrimental impact on his medical conditions and he has an urgent need to move to more suitable accommodation.

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. 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

5. Although Mr X’s concerns began in 2021 I have only considered events and the Council’s actions in the 12 months before Mr X contacted the Ombudsman. It was open to Mr X to raise his complaints with the Ombudsman sooner. I have referred to events prior to 2023 to provide context.
6. I have not considered events since Mr X contacted the Ombudsman as they were not part of his original complaint and the Council has not had an opportunity to consider them under its own complaints procedure.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Mr X; and
• Mr X 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

Housing allocations

8. 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))
9. 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))

10. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. It uses a banding scheme to prioritise applications. Those with the highest priority will be awarded Band A.
11. Band A* is emergency or urgent priority. The criteria to be awarded Band A* priority include:
• Applicants who have a High Medical Priority and require an adapted property;
• Priority transfer tenants for example emergency harassment, where there are significant and insurmountable problems associated with the tenant’s occupation and there is imminent personal risk to the household if they remain; and
• Where the applicant is in exceptional need of housing that warrants placement in Band A*. This is subject to approval by the Head of the scheme
12. The criteria for Band B priority include:
• Applicants who have a medium medical priority and relevant evidence of an urgent need to move;
• Transfer tenants who need to move urgently because of harassment or threat of violence or other exceptional circumstances, subject to approval by the Head of the scheme.

What happened here

13. Mr X initially joined the Council’s housing register in 2020. In February 2021 he was offered a tenancy at Property 1 via a housing association. Within a month of Mr X moving into Property 1 a new tenant moved into the property below. Mr X says the neighbour’s antisocial, abusive, and threatening behaviour had a significant detrimental impact on his health and wellbeing.
14. Mr X reported his neighbour’s behaviour to the housing association, police, and the Council but this did not resolve the issue. The housing association sent warning letters to the neighbour but did not end his tenancy.
15. In November 2021 Mr X returned to live with his parents but this was not a long term or suitable solution. In March 2022 he asked to rejoin the housing register. The Council advised Mr X in April 2022 that he did not qualify to join the housing register as he did not have a housing need. It said Mr X had accommodation available to him which was suitable for his needs. Mr X asked the Council to review its decision, he also contacted his MP for assistance.
16. The Council subsequently accepted Mr X onto the housing register in August 2022 and awarded Band B priority. Mr X, via his MP, asked for his priority to be increased to Band A as had been agreed. The Council advised it had not at any point agreed Band A banding with Mr X. It noted the housing association may have advised of this possibility but banding is determined by the Council in line with its allocation policy. The Council confirmed Mr X had been assessed as Band B for a transfer tenant who needs to move urgently because of harassment or threat of violence.
17. Mr X successfully bid on a property in January 2023, but turned it down as he did not consider it met his medical needs and as it was too far for his mother, Mrs Y, who was his full-time carer, to travel each day.
18. Mr X and Mrs Y contacted their MP again for further assistance. Mrs Y explained it was no longer possible for Mr X to stay with her but that he could not return to Property 1 without it further adversely affecting his health. The Council was attempting to arrange shared accommodation which would then increase Mr X’s priority to Band A, but Mrs Y was concerned he may not be able to cope with a shared environment.
19. Mrs Y asked the MP to ask the Council to award Band A priority before Mr X moved to shared accommodation so that he may not have to move twice and to prioritise his recent bid on a bungalow.
20. The Council’s response acknowledged the difficulties Mr X was experiencing. It advised the housing association was responsible for supporting Mr X in relation to any anti-social behaviour issues and any possible return to Property 1. It confirmed Mr X’s banding was correct and would not increase to Band A as he had a property available for occupation with the housing association. The Council advised Mr X to look at mutual exchange options and bid on all suitable properties.
21. Mr X maintained he had been unfairly placed in Band B. His application to move into shared accommodation had been denied as his medical needs were considered to be too high for shared accommodation. He felt he was being discriminated against as if he was not chronically ill he would be eligible for shared accommodation and have Band A priority.
22. Mr X returned to live at Property 1 in February 2023.
23. In April 2023 Mr X asked the Council to consider his bid on a bungalow close to Mrs Y. He said his neighbour had committed further knife attacks and he was suffering severe chronic illness and had nowhere else to go. The Council advised his bid was not successful and suggested he bid on all available properties.
24. Later that year, in November 2023 Mr X requested an increase in his banding from Band B to Band A* based on his exceptional circumstances given the ongoing and severe anti-social behaviour and harassment from his neighbour. Mr X said he was suffering from a chronic illness which is exacerbated by stress and the situation had rendered him bed bound and requiring full time care and medical intervention.
25. He noted he had been placed in Band B based on the need to move urgently because of harassment or threat of violence, but there had been no consideration of his medical needs. Mr X asserted he now had a High Medial priority which was evidenced by his application for Enhanced PIP, which had been pending for several months. He asked the Council to review his supporting evidence and consider his circumstances as a whole to award Band A* priority. He also asked the Council to prioritise him for a property he recently bid on where he was currently in position 8.
26. In addition, Mr X made a formal complaint. He complained the Council had not recognised the severity of his situation despite the vast amounts of evidence he had provided. It had not taken account of his medical evidence or his doctor’s warning that his health could decline. He noted the housing association had assessed his needs as the highest priority but the Council had not matched this. Nor had it awarded the increased priority he would have received had he been eligible for shared accommodation.
27. He said his situation was unique and warranted Band A* due to exceptional need as he was suffering with homelessness, violence, harassment, anti-social behaviour, and health decline all at the same time.
28. Mr X again asked the Council to increase his priority to Band A*.
29. The Council considered Mr X’s request for increased priority and responded the following week. It confirmed it had taken account of the documentation Mr X had provided and was aware of his circumstances. However, his accommodation was of a size and type that was suitable for his needs and he was not therefore in exceptional need of housing that warrants Band A* priority. It recognised Mr X needed to move urgently because of harassment, threat of violence or other exceptional circumstances and this was reflected in his award of Band B.
30. The Council also responded to Mr X’s complaint. The Council advised that to be eligible for the housing register an applicant needed to demonstrate they had a housing need. To do this the current accommodation would need to be deemed unsuitable for the applicant’s needs, for example if it was overcrowded or could not accommodate adaptations for medical needs.
31. In Mr X’s case the Council deemed he had access to accommodation which was deemed suitable for his medical needs so his medical needs were not a factor in his acceptance on the housing register. The Council said it accepted Mr X on the housing register at its discretion due to the issues he was facing with his neighbour. In the circumstances Band B was the highest it could award.
32. The Council also explained that simply meeting the categories outlined for Band A* banding does not guarantee Band A* priority will be awarded. Each applicant is considered based on their circumstances and housing needs. It also advised that the housing association had different criteria and processes to the Council. Being considered to have a high priority with one organisation does not therefore give an applicant the highest priority on the housing register.
33. The Council suggested that if Mr X had concerns about safety in his property or felt at risk of harm, that he contact the police in the first instance. The Council noted it had not received any communication from the housing association or police regarding concerns about an escalation in threatening behaviour of harassment.
34. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and asked for his complaint to be considered further. He maintained the documentation he had provided showed he had a housing need and that his accommodation at Property 1 was not suitable for his needs. He asserted the Council had not taken account of his medical condition and the decline in his health caused by his living situation, or his safety and vulnerability.
35. Mr X also disputed the suggestion there had been no escalation in the threatening behaviour or harassment. He referred to an injunction issued in May 2023, under which the neighbour must not use or threaten to use violence against any residents of or visitors to the block of flats. Or to engage in or threaten to engage in conduct likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress; or engage in behaviour or use words capable of causing nuisance to residents or visitors. Mr X also noted the housing association had confirmed in November 2023 the case would be escalated to its legal team.
36. The Council responded at stage two of its complaints procedure and reiterated it considered Mr X’s banding was correct based on the information provided. It acknowledged Mr X’s concerns regarding the time it may take to be allocated a property but advised that social housing is still at a significant premium and demand is far outstripping supply.
37. As Mr X remains dissatisfied he has asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint.
38. In response to my enquiries the Council says in reviewing Mr X’s request to rejoin the housing register it adhered to its allocations policy. It says his medical needs do not meet the threshold for Band A status.
39. According to the Council’s records show Mr X bid on six properties since moving to Property 1. Three of these were offered to applicants with higher priority, another was offered to Mr X, one was incorrectly advertised and Mr X was not eligible, and the final one was withdrawn and not offered to anyone on the housing register.
40. The Council says Mr X will only bid on bungalows because he feels they match his need and are less likely to have anti-social neighbours. It says this severely limits the options available for a move on.
41. The Council says it was open to the housing association to put Mr X on a list for an urgent manage move within its own stock. The housing association ultimately agreed to prioritise Mr X for a move banding him Band A according to its own policy. It says Mr X successfully moved to a new property.
42. Mr X has confirmed that since complaining to the Ombudsman, the housing association has offered him a managed transfer to another property. Mr X has agreed with the Council that he can accept the transfer and remain on the housing register so that he can continue to bid on bungalows.
43. Mr X has now moved into the property. However this property has had a detrimental effect on Mr X’s health. As a result of the property’s proximity to a commercial operation Mr X experiences migraines, vomiting, headaches and sore throats.
44. Mr X has responded to the draft decision and maintains the Council should have awarded him Band A* priority based on his exceptional circumstances. He refers to eight pieces of evidence he submitted to the Council to demonstrate his urgent need to move and the escalation of the harassment. These include correspondence from the housing association and the police, and evidence of the injunction obtained against his neighbour. Mr X asserts he could easily have been classified as being at imminent personal risk had he not returned to stay with his parents.
45. Mr X says the Council’s failures meant he missed out on opportunities to be prioritised for properties. He accepts there is no guarantee his bids would have been successful, but a higher priority would have given him a better chance. Mr X says he would not have needed to move to his new property if the Council had taken account of his needs and prioritised his bids. Mr X says he moved out of desperation but his health has declined significantly at the new property.
46. The Council has also responded to the draft decision. It confirmed it did consider the impact of the harassment and anti-social behaviour on Mr X’s health and wellbeing. It also acknowledges it has not explicitly recorded this consideration. The Council says it will revisit the language it uses in banding reconsideration communication to ensure it acknowledges consideration of the applicant’s health and wellbeing as part of the decision-making process.

Analysis

47. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide what level of priority Mr X should have on the housing register; that is the Council’s job. We can only consider whether the Council assessed his application correctly. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
48. There is no suggestion Property 1 was not suitable for Mr X’s needs when he moved in. Mr X’s difficulties arose when his neighbour subsequently moved in and their anti-social behaviour and harassment of residents began. The Council awarded Mr X Band B priority based on his urgent need to move because of harassment of threat of violence. It is unfortunate that although Band B is a high priority band Mr X was not successful in his bids to move.
49. Mr X asserted he met the criteria for Band A* priority not just on medical grounds but also as a priority transfer tenant and on the grounds he was in exceptional need of housing that warrants being placed in Band A*.
50. The Council reviewed Mr X’s priority and maintained Band B was correct. The Council’s review decision confirmed it had considered all of the supporting evidence Mr X had provided but did not specifically address any of the points Mr X raised. It acknowledged Mr X’s circumstances but did not consider he was in exceptional need of housing as Property 1 was of a size and type that was suitable for his needs. It also recognised Mr X needed to move urgently because of harassment or threat of violence or other exceptional circumstances.
51. There is however no evidence the Council specifically considered the impact of the harassment and anti-social behaviour on Mr X’s health and wellbeing given his underlying medical conditions.
52. The Council’s allocation scheme sets out that to be awarded Band A* on medical ground applicants must have a high medical priority and require an adapted property. A high medical priority can be demonstrated by the applicant receiving higher, or enhanced Disability Living Allowance (DLA), Personal independence Payment or Attendance Allowance (AA). The allocation policy is clear however that these do not guarantee Band A* priority. Although Mr X had applied for enhanced PIP he was not in receipt of it. Nor is there any evidence he required an adapted property. An Occupational therapist had assessment Mr X’s needs and identified equipment that would assist him but there is no suggestion he need major adaptations. Nor was he bidding on adapted properties.
53. Band A* priority can also be awarded for priority transfer tenants in cases of emergency harassment. This is where there are exceptional circumstances due to significant and insurmountable problems associated with the tenant’s occupation and an imminent personal risk to the household if they remain. I have not received any evidence to suggest there was an imminent personal risk to Mr X.
54. However, the allocation scheme also includes a much wider criteria of being in exceptional need of housing that warrants being placed in Band A*. This is subject to approval by the Head of the Scheme, but there is no indication of when this criteria might be used or how it is assessed. It is unclear how, or indeed whether, the Council considered whether Mr X met this criteria.
55. The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint suggests the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s medical needs focussed solely on the physical layout of his property. There is no reference to any consideration of the impact of the environment in which he was living on Mr X’s health or medical conditions.
56. I consider the Council’s failure to properly consider, or record, its consideration of Mr X’s circumstances and the holistic impact on his health and his need to move is fault.
57. Having identified fault I must consider whether this has caused Mr X a significant injustice. As Mr X has since moved, I do not consider it appropriate to ask the Council to review Mr X’s priority based on his circumstances and needs at Property 1. I am also unable to speculate on whether but for this fault the Council would have awarded Mr X increased priority, or whether any increased priority would have led to a successful bid on alternative accommodation. Mr X did not bid on many properties and the Council would still have had to prioritise applicants and allocate properties according to its published allocation scheme.
58. It is however clear that Mr X has experienced frustration and uncertainty and has been put to unnecessary time and trouble as a result of this fault.
59. It is unfortunate that the property Mr X recently moved to does not appear to have improved his housing situation. Although Mr X’s needs arising from his current accommodation are not part of this complaint, I would expect the Council to consider any requests Mr X makes to review his housing situation and priority on the housing register.

Back to top

Agreed action

60. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £300 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty he has experienced as a result of the fault identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
61. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

62. The Council’s failure to properly consider, or record, its consideration of Mr X’s circumstances and the holistic impact on his health and his need to move is fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman