Summary: Ms F complained about the Council’s handling of her housing register application since 2021 and how it communicated with her. She said as a result she experienced distress and lost out on moves to a suitable property. We agreed with the Council it was at fault for causing an extensive delay in Ms F’s housing application, for its poor communication and its delayed complaints handling. However, its apology and proposed remedy was not enough to acknowledge the injustice this caused Ms F. The Council should make payment to Ms F and provide us with an update on staff training.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms F, complained about the Council’s handling of her housing register application since May 2021. She said:
• it caused delays in considering and progressing her application;
• its medical assessment was delayed for 12 months, and insufficient reasons were given for the priority band she was awarded;
• communicated poorly with her and asked her to resubmit her application and information again;
• its Find Your Home website had errors regarding the description of properties; and
• it caused delays in its complaints handling.
2. Ms F said, as a result she had experienced distress and uncertainty which had impacted her physical and mental health. She also said she had lost opportunities to apply and move to a suitable accommodation.

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. 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. 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)
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. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Ms F’s complaint and the Council’s responses;
• discussed the complaint with Ms F and considered the information she provided;
• considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries; and
• had regard to the relevant law and policy to the complaint.
8. Ms F 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

The Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme

9. The Council scheme sets out how it prioritises applications for housing. It prioritises first by band and then by a priority date which is when the applicant was placed in their allocated band. Decisions are made by the Council following recommendations from its medical advisors.
• Band 1 is emergency band, which includes hospital discharges and risks to life.
• Band 2 is high priority, where an applicant has been assessed to have an urgent need for rehousing due to the severe impact a medical condition or disability has on health or wellbeing, and as a result their present housing circumstances are having a substantial effect on their health and wellbeing.
• Band 3 is medium priority. Such recommendations are only made where the advisor is satisfied the applicant has a need for rehousing because they have a medical condition or disability which is seriously affecting their health or wellbeing.
10. The Allocations Policy says it will normally take up to six weeks to obtain a medical assessment.
11. If an applicant disagrees with a housing decision or the outcome of a medical assessment, a review of the decision can be requested. This must be made within 21 days of the housing decision to the Council’s reviews email address. The Council will respond with its decision within 56 days of receiving the request. The outcome of the review is final.

Council’s Complaints Policy

12. Prior to February 2024, the Council’s Policy said it would respond to complaints through a three-stage process:
• Stage one complaints would be responded to within 10 working days;
• Stage two complaints would be responded to within 20 working days; and
• Complainants who remained unhappy could request a stage three investigation, which would be responded to within 30 working days. From February 2024, the stage three process no longer applies.

What happened

13. Ms F lives in a property accessed by some stairs. She has medical conditions which affects her mobility and ability to use stairs when her condition worsens.
14. Ms F applied to join the Council’s housing register in Spring 2021. The Council rejected her application based on the limited information Ms F had provided.
15. Ms F said she did not know she had to provide her medical information when she applied. She appealed the Council’s decision. The Council asked her to share the grounds of her appeal, which Ms F shared shortly after.
16. In July 2021 the Council emailed Ms F and explained her housing register application had been reopened. It advised her to amend her circumstances on its website. Ms F uploaded her information and asked the Council to confirm receipt, but she did not get a response.
17. In November 2021 the Council informed Ms F it had completed her medical assessment. She had been found eligible for support and in priority need with a recommendation for Band 3 (medical priority), with a requirement of a lift if housed above ground floor.
18. Ms F chased the Council for updates on several occasions as the system said she was awaiting assessment. The Council either did not respond or informed her it was dealing with a backlog of cases.
19. In October 2022 Ms F told the Council about a change in her circumstances. She said she was now in a wheelchair, which she had privately funded.
20. Ms F also complained to the Council about its handling of her housing register application since Spring 2021. She said its application and appeals process was unclear, it had communicated poorly with her, she had been asked to provide repetitive information and to reapply, and she could still not bid for properties. She also said she was unable to leave her home due to needing her wheelchair.
21. In response the Council upheld parts of Ms F’s complaint and apologised. This included:
• its delayed response to Ms F’s complaint;
• it had caused delays in progressing her housing application, but it explained some part of the application process was delayed as Ms F had to provide information and it had not received some of her email correspondence. It also said it had a backlog of applications and a new computer system which added to the delays;
• it had incorrectly told Ms F her housing register application was incomplete in Autumn 2021, as she had already provided this;
• it had completed her medical assessment in November 2021, but due to poor communication between its teams, this had not been shared with its Housing Team. This meant her application was not updated and she could not bid for properties. It would correct this error; and
• it had received her changes of circumstances request in October 2022, it would contact her when the outcome of this was known.
22. Ms F was able to bid for properties on her allocated Band 3 (medical priority) from November 2022.
23. In November 2022, Ms F asked the Council to consider her complaint under its stage two process. She explained her emails and information had been sent to the Council’s email address for reviews, and the responses she had received were dismissive. She also said she had shared the Council’s own medical priority decision with it on four occasions since November 2021, but this was not addressed until she complained.
24. Ms F chased the Council several times for a response to her complaint.
25. In May 2023 the Council asked her to complete a housing register application again. Ms F said this upset her and she called the Council. It then asked her to provide some medical information, which she shared with the Council.
26. A week later, the Council provided its Stage two complaint response to Ms F. It partly upheld her complaint and explained:
• its Housing Team had received training and had learn and implemented changes following her complaint to improve communication and avoid misunderstandings;
• its review email address was for homeless applicants. This meant her emails had been forwarded to another team, but due to a backlog this team had not responded to her. It had since updated its website and set out a dedicated email to manage housing register appeals;
• her application was now live with a priority date from November 2021. It suggested she applied for more properties to increase her chances; and
• confirmed a new medical assessment was pending following her change of circumstances in October 2022.
27. Ms F told the Council she was not happy with its response. She said she had missed out on properties due to the Council’s error and delays as several properties had been given to people with lower priority then her. She was still waiting for the medical assessment since October 2022. She also said its Find Your Home website had incorrect property listing relating to stairs and lifts, which meant she was at risk of bidding for unsuitable properties.
28. Soon after the Council shared its medical assessment decision with Ms F, which considered her application and medical letters. It found her priority band remained Band 3 (Medical priority) with lift required if above ground floor.
29. In June 2023 Ms F requested an appeal of the Council’s medical decision.
30. In September 2023 Ms F escalated her complaint to the Council’s stage three process.
31. The Council’s final complaint response considered her complaint from January 2022. It found:
• it had caused delays in progressing Ms F’s application and had communicated with her poorly;
• it had caused delays and failed to respond to Ms F as set out in its complaints policy, and its responses had not properly acknowledged the distress its actions or inaction had caused her. It offered Ms F a symbolic payment of £50. It also explained it had changed the way it handles complaints and is providing training for all complaints handling staff;
• its medical assessment did not clearly explain why she was awarded Band 3 (Medical priority) and not Band 2 (High priority), considering her difficulties to leave her current home. She may therefore be in an incorrect priority Band. The medical adviser should therefore review Ms F’s case and provide clear reasons for the decision;
• its Find Your Home website could not filter properties as Ms F wanted. This was not fault, but a recommendation was made to review this when the system was next upgraded. It also explained the process and steps it was taken with landlords to ensure properties listed were accurate. It said if Ms F were to bid for a property which was unsuitable due to inaccurate information she would not be penalised;
• it also acknowledged Ms F had concerns about properties with lifts, but explained why such properties were found to be appropriate for her; and
• there was no evidence Ms F had missed out on properties due to its delays and errors. It explained the properties which has been available went to applicants with higher priority, and the average waiting time for applicants in Ms F’s band was around two years.
32. In late 2023 the Council started its medical reassessment of Ms F. It told her the information she had provided was not enough and some medical information had been redacted. It asked her for consent to obtain medical information from relevant professionals. Ms F did not consent.
33. The Council subsequently informed her the outcome of the assessment was she will remain in Band 3 (Medical priority) with a lift if above ground floor. It told her if she were to give consent for it to seek medical information, it could reconsider its decision.
34. Ms F remains dissatisfied with the Council’s decisions and its response to her complaint. She asked the Ombudsman to consider her case.
35. In response to our enquiries the Council shared information about:
• the relevant advertised properties which had been offered to other applicants during the period Ms F was unable to bid for properties. This shows the available properties were offered to applicants with a higher priority band or earlier priority date than Ms F;
• the process it follows when properties are listed on its Find Your Home website and the steps it is taking with landlords to ensure they input accurate information, which includes quarterly meeting and verifying lifts in blocks; and
• its progress with the completion of the recommendations set out in its final complaint response to Ms F.
36. I understand Ms F has a separate complaint with the Council regarding an error it made in Summer 2023 where a property she bid on was incorrectly offered to an applicant with lower priority.
37. Ms F also shared with the Ombudsman and earlier draft of the Council’s final complaint response which showed two further recommendations, which were not in its final response. She feels these should have been included.

Analysis and findings

38. Ms F complained about the Council’s handling of her housing register application since Spring 2021. This therefore relates to matters which occurred more than 12 months before it was brought to our attention, and the complaint is therefore late.
39. I have found it appropriate to exercise my discretion to consider Ms F’s complaint, which is consistent with the Council’s own view. This is primarily due to the delay the Council caused in its responses and complaints handling with Ms F.

Ms F’s Housing register application

40. The Council has accepted it was at fault for causing delays in progressing Ms F’s housing register application and how it responded to her communication. It accepted it had failed to complete her application with its assessed Band 3 (Medical priority) for 12 months between November 2021 until November 2022, which meant she was unable to bid for properties under her allocated band until then.
41. I agree with the Council’s findings its was at fault for causing delays in the housing register application process for Ms F from November 2021 to November 2022, and how it communicated with her and failed to respond to her requests for information since Spring 2021. I also agree the Council failed to adhere to the timescales in its complaints policy or inform her when a response would be received.
42. I have considered the impact the Council’s faults had on Ms F. I found the Council’s remedy offer of £50 was not enough to acknowledge the impact this had on her. This is because:
• its failure to respond to her and its poor communication caused her distress and uncertainty, which meant she had to continuously chase the Council for responses;
• its mistaken requests for her to reapply to the housing register caused her further uncertainty;
• its delayed complaints handling at stage one was limited, but its stage two response was significantly delayed as it took six months. This caused Ms F further distress, uncertainty and a loss of trust in the Council’s ability to address her concerns. She also had unnecessary time and trouble to chase the Council for its responses;
• the length of time the Council’s poor handling and communication was significant; and
• Ms F had a loss of opportunity to bid for properties in her allocated band. However, I am not satisfied she lost out on any suitable properties during this period. This is because the evidence shows properties were offered to applicants with higher priority or an earlier priority date than Ms F.

Ms F’s change of circumstances and reassessment request

43. Ms F told the Council about a change in her circumstances in October 2022, and asked for her housing priority to be reassessed.
44. While the Council acknowledged receipt of her request, there was no action to reassess her housing priority until May 2023. I understand the Council had a backlog of medical applications to assess. However, its failure to complete the reassessment within six weeks as set out in its Allocations Policy and keep her informed about any delays, was fault.
45. I found the Council’s fault did not cause Ms F an injustice in terms of the properties she was eligible to bid for. This is because its assessment, and its late 2023 assessment, found her allocated Band 3 (Medical priority) was correct based on the information available to the Council.
46. However, I am satisfied the Council’s delays and poor handling caused Ms F further distress and uncertainty, which meant she had to add this concern to her existing complaint before any progress was made.
47. The Council’s final complaint response found the medical assessment lacked enough information to explain the outcome of the banding decision. I agree with this view. The medical assessment merely stated the impact on Ms F’s existing housing was ‘stairs’. While I understand some additional information was held in the medical assessors’ records, this was not shared with Ms F. This should at least have been shared with her when she contested the outcome of the assessment.
48. A third medical assessment was started by the Council in late 2023 as a result of the Council’s final complaint response’s recommendation. The outcome of this assessment was her priority band remained unchanged. I have found no fault in how the Council completed this assessment. This is because it considered the information available to it and Ms F did not consent to the Council obtaining further information from medical professionals known to Ms F. It was therefore entitled to reach its view.
49. My understanding is Ms F’s health conditions are not disputed. However, her medical evidence does not sufficiently show how her existing housing situation has a substantial effect on her health or wellbeing, which is required for the Council’s medical advisor to recommend Band 2 (High Priority).

The accuracy of property listings

50. Ms F’s complaint to the Council also included her difficulties to use its Find Your Home website as some properties which would be unsuitable to her was visible and she could not filter these out.
51. The Council’s final complaint response acknowledged Ms F’s concerns but did not find it at fault. It made recommendations for improvements to the Council’s system when this is next due to be upgraded.
52. I have not found the Council at fault. I acknowledge Ms F’s frustrations that some property listings may have had errors and she may therefore have been able to bid on some properties which may not have been suitable to her. However, in reaching my view, I was conscious:
• the Council is not in control of the information provided by landlords. However, it has a process in place with landlords to ensure property listings are accurate, which includes regular meetings to address concerns;
• it has reviewed its system and its options to limit errors, and it does verify some types of property listings to ensure lifts are available;
• Ms F does not agree properties above ground level with lifts are suitable to her. She therefore generally does not bid for lifted properties; and
• the Council confirmed Ms F will not be penalised if she were to bid on a property which had inaccurate information and was therefore unsuitable based on her assessed priority band.

Service improvements

53. The Council’s final complaint response to Ms F included recommendations. These were to:
• remind medical assessors that assessments must include reasoning for the Band recommendation which refer to the Council’s Allocations Policy. The Council has confirmed it expects medical assessors to record the rationale of their recommendations, however, detailed reasons will normally not be provided to applicants, unless an appeal or complaint is received.
• provide training to complaints handling staff following Ms F’s complaint and the Council’s changes to the way it handles stage two complaints. The Council has confirmed it is delivering this training in early 2024.
54. I acknowledge Ms F feels the draft version of the Council’s final response, which showed two further recommendations relating to automatically filtering her housing profile and ensuring all listing on its Find Your Home website were complete and accurate, should have been included in its final response to her.
55. It is clear the Council did not include these recommendations as they were not feasible within the system available to the Council. Nor would this be within the control of the Council. I have therefore not included these recommendations in my findings.
56. However, the Council’s final complaint response did not address its backlog of handling housing register applications and medical assessments. I understand this is because it no longer has a backlog of cases. I have therefore not included a service improvement recommendation for the Council to address this.

Back to top

Agreed action

57. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Ms F, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. pay Ms F £300 to acknowledge the distress, uncertainty and lost opportunity the council’s delays and poor communication caused her;
2. Pay Ms F a further £300 to acknowledge the distress and time and trouble its poor and delayed complaints handling caused her during its stage one and stage two process.

In total the Council should pay Ms F £600.

58. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:
1.  
2.  
3. provide the Ombudsman with an update on the roll out of its training to complaints handling staff, which aims to avoid delays and improve responses.
59. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

60. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault by the Council. The Council’s apology and remedy offer was not enough to acknowledge the injustice it caused her.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman