Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to keep accurate records of its consideration of Ms X’s case at its Exceptional Circumstances Panel. However, this did not cause Ms X a significant injustice. The Council has agreed to act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about how the Council implemented a recommendation the Ombudsman made as part of a previous investigation. She says although the Council referred her case to its Exceptional Circumstances Panel, it did not consider all the circumstances and evidence.
2. As a result, Ms X says the panel did not have all the information it needed and might have reached a different decision if it had properly considered her case.

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 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)
5. An organisation should not adopt a blanket or uniform approach or policy that prevents it from considering the circumstances of a particular case. We may find fault in the actions of organisations that ‘fetter their discretion’ in this way.
6. 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

7. I considered the complaint and the information both Ms X and the Council provided.
8. I considered the Council’s allocations scheme and the terms of its Exceptional Circumstances Panel.
9. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
10. Ms X and the organisation 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

Council’s allocations scheme

11. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. This means housing applicants can express an interest in available properties. This is called bidding.
12. The Council places applicants who qualify to join the housing register into a priority band from Band A (highest priority) to Band E (lowest priority).
13. Band A is for applicants with an urgent need to move. Band B is for applicants with a very high need to move.
14. The policy says the Exceptional Circumstances Panel has “powers to consider other special cases where an exception to the Council’s usual policy may need to be made.”

Background

15. Ms X is a tenant of the Council. She has three children. Her eldest daughter, Ms Y, is an adult with disabilities. Ms Y uses a wheelchair and needs care and support to carry out activities of daily life. Ms X is Ms Y’s main carer.
16. Ms Y needs an adapted property to be able to access the home and move around safely within in. Ms X’s current property has adaptations, but these do not meet Ms Y’s needs. The Council agreed in 2022 that it could not further adapt the property and that Ms X needed to move.
17. Ms X joined the Council’s housing register in June 2022. In a previous investigation, we found the Council delayed deciding the property could not be adapted and delayed Ms X’s application to the housing register. The Council agreed to backdate Ms X’s application to April 2021. Ms X has Band B priority.
18. In our previous investigation, we recommended the Council refer Ms X’s case to its Exceptional Circumstances Panel.

What happened

19. The Council considered Ms X’s case at the panel in June and August 2023. It appears the Council referred the case in June in response to our draft decision on the previous complaint and in August to comply with the recommendation in the final decision.
20. The referral to the panel in June says: “[p]lease consider if the priority Banding reflects the families’ current circumstances or if Band A should be awarded.”
21. The minutes of the panel say it “decided that the application was correctly banded.”
22. The August referral says: “[p]lease consider if the priority Banding reflects the families’ current circumstances or if Band A should be awarded given the final decision by the LGSO.”
23. The panel’s decision says it decided Ms X’s banding reflected her current circumstances and “there are no priority needs/reason to award Band A.”
24. In both cases, the panel had a copy of our decision (draft and then final) and an Occupational Therapist’s report from May 2022 which set out the problems for Ms Y in the current property and what was necessary to meet her needs in any other suitable property.

My findings

25. We cannot question the outcome of a decision made without fault. That means we look at whether the Council made its decision properly, considering all the relevant information and following relevant policies and guidance.
26. In this case, I am not satisfied the Council made its decision properly in either June or August. On both occasions its records show it limited its consideration to whether Ms X should be in Band A.
27. The panel has “powers to make decisions outside of the usual terms of the Allocations Policy”. This extends beyond increasing an applicant’s priority band. The policy gives specific examples, which include deciding banding, making exceptions to shortlisting arrangements, and “other special cases where an exception to the Council’s usual policy may need to be made.”
28. The Council says it did consider all the circumstances of the case. However, its record of the decision does not reflect this. It only addresses whether Ms X should be in Band B or Band A. As a result, the records do not show that the Council considered all the options available to it. I accept the Council’s evidence that the panel discussion went into more detail than its records reflect. However, failure to accurately record the discussion in sufficient detail was fault.
29. In the circumstances of this case, I do not consider this fault caused Ms X or Ms Y a significant injustice. This is because the Council has already agreed to request a direct let of any property it identifies that can be adapted to meet Ms Y’s needs. This effectively gives Ms X priority over every other applicant for those properties.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. The Council should take the following action to improve its services:
• Remind officers who attend the Exceptional Circumstances Panel that its records should contain sufficient detail of the discussion to demonstrate the matters it considered as well as its decision.
31. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. This did not cause injustice to Ms X. I have recommended the Council act to improve its services for the future.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman