Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council has responded to his request for a review of his housing register priority banding. He says it has not appropriately considered his medical evidence and failed to respond to his correspondence. He also complains about poor complaints handling. Mr X says this has caused him frustration and distress. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for delay in actioning Mr X’s review request, reviewing and responding to correspondence and responding to his complaint. The Council has agreed to write to Mr X to apologise, pay him a financial payment and complete service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council has responded to his request for a review of his housing register priority banding. He says it has not appropriately considered his medical evidence and failed to respond to his correspondence. He also complains about poor complaints handling.
2. Mr X says this has caused him frustration and distress.

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 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 have considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. Both Mr X and the Council were invited to provide comments on my draft decision. Any comments received were considered before a final decision was issued.

Back to top

What I found

7. 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))
8. 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))

The Council’s allocation scheme

9. The Council’s allocation scheme says households who have not been continuously living in the borough for at least 10 years will not qualify to join the housing register.
10. When the Council accepts a housing application it places applicants into one of four Priority Bands and assigns a priority date.
11. Priority Band A is the highest priority band and is awarded to households with an emergency and very severe housing need.
12. Priority Band B is the second highest band and is awarded to households with an urgent need to move.
13. Priority Band C is the third highest band and is awarded to households with an identified need to move.
14. Priority Band D are homelessness applicants who do not satisfy the 10-year continuous Residence Rule.
15. The Council review medical need if applicable and a medical advisor will band applicants into one of three bands.
16. Band A- Emergency Medical where the applicant or a member of the applicant’s household has a life-threatening condition that is seriously affected by their housing needs.
17. Band B – Medical Hardship where the applicants current housing conditions are having a major adverse effect on the medical condition of the applicant or a member of the applicant’s household.
18. Band C- Medical Need where the applicants current housing conditions are having a moderate or variable adverse effect on the medical condition of the applicant or a member of the applicant’s household.
19. The 10-year continuous residency apples additional priority to those who have a local connection by living in the borough continuously for a minimum period of 10 years. If an applicant’s housing need is assessed at Band B and they have 10-year residency their Band will be increased to Band A. if an applicant’s housing need is assessed at Band C and they have 10-year residency their Band will be increased to Band B.

The Council’s complaints procedure

20. The Council’s complaint procedure says it will acknowledge complaints within five working days and then issue a Stage One response with a further 10 working days.
21. If the Stage One response does not resolve the complaint it can be escalated to Stage Two.
22. The complaint procedure says this will be acknowledged in five working days and responded to in a further 20 working days.

What happened

23. Mr X completed a housing application with the Council in late November 2022.
24. The Council completed its assessment and wrote to Mr X in December 2022 saying it had assessed Mr X as having ‘no identified housing need’. The Council said it did not maintain a housing waiting list for those it considered to have no identified housing need. The Council said if Mr X disagreed with its assessment, he could ask for a review.
25. Mr X requested a review in late December 2022 and provided the Council with medical evidence.
26. Mr X chased a response from the Council in January, March and April and did not hear back from it.
27. Mr X raised a complaint with the Council in June 2023 as he had not received a response to his request to review the Council’s decision on his housing application.
28. The Council emailed Mr X in late June 2023 to say it had not linked the emails he had sent asking for a review and chasing it to his account. The Council said it had now sent Mr X’s information to a medical advisor for review.
29. The Council wrote to Mr X a few days later in late June 2023 to say it had reviewed his application and had now assessed him as Band C based on his medical circumstances. The Council backdated Mr X’s priority band date to November 2022 when he made the original application. The Council told Mr X he had not provided it with evidence of his 10-year residency. The Council said it therefore could not apply this to his Banding.
30. Mr X contacted the council in mid-July 2023 to ask for a second review on medical grounds.
31. The Council wrote to Mr X in mid-December 2023 to issue a Stage one response to his complaint. The Council said it assessed Mr X as being in Band C due to his medical needs.
32. Mr X requested his complaint be escalated to Stage Two in early January 2024.
33. The Council issued a Stage Two response in mid-January 2024 and said there was still a gap in Mr X’s residency evidence so it could not advance his priority to Band B. The Council said it would look at this again if Mr X provided the necessary documentation.
34. Mr X provided evidence of his residency to the Council in late January 2024.
35. The Council wrote to Mr X in mid-July 2024 and acknowledged he had provided bank statements showing his residency in January 2024. The Council said it had enhanced Mr X’s banding to Band B and confirmed it had backdated his priority banding date to November 2022.

Analysis

36. Mr X asked the Council to review his housing application in December 2022 and chased a response in January, March and April. Mr X then raised a complaint in June 2023. The Council responded in June 2023 and said it had not linked Mr X’s emails to his account in error. This is fault and would have caused Mr X distress and frustration.
37. Mr X raised a complaint with the Council in June 2023. The Council issued a stage one complaint response in December 2023. The Council’s complaint procedure says it will issue an acknowledgement of the complaint within five working days and a stage one response within a further 10 working days. The Council’s stage one complaint response was well outside the timescales set in the policy. This is fault and would have caused Mr X distress and frustration.
38. Mr X sent a further request to review his application in mid-July 2023 following the Council’s decision to award him Band C priority. I cannot see the Council completed a further review when it received the request. This is fault and would have caused Mr X distress. I understand the Council have now requested a further review of Mr X’s medical information and will look to backdate any changes to his banding should the review conclude it needs to be changed.
39. Mr X provided the Council with information about his residency in January 2024, but the Council did not write to Mr X to confirm it had received this until July 2024. This is fault and would have caused Mr X distress and frustration.
40. The Council has backdated Mr X’s priority date to November 2022 which was the date of his original application, and he has been able to bid on properties from June 2023. I cannot see that Mr X would have been successful in securing a property had he been able to bid any sooner.

Back to top

Agreed action

41. In recognition of the faults identified, the Council should within one month of a final decision:

• Write to Mr X and apologise.
• Pay Mr X £500 for the distress and frustration caused to him.
• In writing, remind officers of the importance of correctly logging and responding to correspondence.

42. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have found fault in the actions of the Council for delay in actioning Mr X’s review request, reviewing and responding to correspondence and responding to his complaint.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman