Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly decided he was he not eligible for additional priority on the housing register and delay. We found the Council was at fault because it took too long to process his request. The Council has already apologised for this delay, and this is an appropriate remedy for the frustration experienced by Mr X. It has also taken action to address the backlog of cases. There was no fault in how it reached the decision about priority because it considered the available evidence and applied its allocations policy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to increase his housing allocation priority banding.
2. He also complains about delay in processing his review request.
3. Mr X says living in unsuitable accommodation is affecting the health and well-being of his family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
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 discussed the complaint with Mr X and reviewed the evidence he sent me.
8. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.
9. I considered the relevant law, guidance and Council policy, as set out below.
10. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and Council policy

Housing allocations

11. 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))
12. 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.

The Council’s allocations scheme

13. The Council’s housing allocations scheme sets out the rules for qualifying to join the housing register, how applicants are prioritised and how the Council manages the allocation of available properties. The allocations scheme sets out the following banding groups:

• Band One – high level of housing need (includes households with severe medical needs)
• Band Two – moderate, but not urgent, level of housing need
• Band Three – low level of housing need (includes social housing tenants who are lacking one bedroom and where the landlord has entered into a reciprocal agreement with the Council)

14. Additional priority (known as “reasonable preference” is granted in exceptional circumstances where the applicant’s home has been assessed as having a Category 1 hazard or where a Prohibition Notice is required because the property is deemed prejudicial to health and where continued occupation poses a significant threat to the health and safety of the occupiers.
15. Medical priority is not awarded solely on the existence of a health problem. It is normally only awarded in instances where the health of an applicant or a member of their household is made significantly worse by their accommodation to such a degree that the circumstances have, or are likely to become, life threatening and would be demonstrably improved by a move to alternative accommodation.
16. Applicants can request a review of their banding priority. The Council aims to respond to requests for a review about priority banding within 56 days. If the review is likely to take longer than this, the Council will advise the applicant what the amended response time will be.

What happened

17. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “Analysis” section of this decision statement.
18. Mr X is a social housing tenant. He lives in a one-bedroom flat (“the Flat”) with his partner, Ms B, and their infant child, Child D. Ms B suffers with poor mental health.
19. The Flat is in a poor state of disrepair with excessive damp and mound. This is the subject of legal action between Mr X and the landlord.
20. Mr X applied to move to alternative accommodation. He said the Flat was too small and the disrepair posed a serious risk to the health of both Ms B and Child D.
21. The Council considered his application and awarded him Band 3 priority. Mr X requested a review of this decision in November 2023. He provided the Council with letters from professionals involved with supporting the family including Ms B’s mental health practitioner and Child B’s social worker. All stated it would be beneficial for the family to move.
22. The Council failed to deal with his review request within 56 days. In February 2024, he was told there would be a delay in responding to his review request. Mr X complained to both the Council and then the Ombudsman about this.
23. In response the Council apologised and acknowledged there was a delay and explained it had appointed additional staff to deal with the backlog.
24. The Council provided its review decision in early April 2024. This confirmed the outcome of the previous assessment, that he was eligible for Band 3 priority.
25. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council has set out in more detail what action it has taken to reduce the backlog.
26. The Council said, in summary:

• The disrepair to the property was for Mr X’s landlord to resolve and there were no Category 1 hazards.
• Requiring one extra bedroom did not give any additional priority to Band 3.
• There was no compelling evidence to show the Flat, is or is likely to have, a life threatening effect on the residents.

Analysis

27. 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. The Ombudsman also recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. 

The banding decision

28. In April 2024, after a review request from Mr X to increase his priority banding, the Council decided he should remain in the Band 3.
29. I considered the Council’s records about how it reached this decision, including letters of support from Child D’s social worker and health visitor, Ms B’s mental health practitioner, as well as the letter to Mr X about the outcome. I found the Council properly considered all the evidence Mr X had provided. It also provided Mr X with an evidence-based explanation and appropriate references to the allocations policy.
30. I found no fault in how the Council made the decision which would cause me to question the outcome.

Delay

31. The Council’s policy says review decisions should be completed within 56 days where possible. In this case it took approximately three months longer that it should have done, and I have not seen evidence Mr X was updated until February 2024. This significant delay, and failure to keep Mr X updated, was fault.
32. However, I did not find this caused significant injustice or affected Mr X’s application, as ultimately the banding decision remained the same, so the time taken did not change anything in this case. The Council has already apologised and I consider this to be an appropriate remedy for the limited injustice to Mr X.
33. I am also satisfied the Council has taken appropriate action by increasing resources within the review team to ensure reviews are handling in accordance with its timescales. For this reason, it is not necessary for me to make service improvement recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have found the Council to be at fault but has already taken action to remedy the injustice to Mr X and improve its service. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman