Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her application to the housing register. She says the Council’s failure to properly assess her application has excluded her from being able to bid on properties. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council’s allocations policy. There was fault in its handling of Mrs X’s application, but this has not caused Mrs X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her application to its housing register. Mrs X says the Council has failed to have due regard to her overcrowded circumstances and has failed to assess her husband’s medical needs.
2. Mrs X complains the Council’s actions have meant she has been unfairly excluded from the housing register.

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 may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
5. 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)

What I did and didn’t consider

6. I have not considered Mrs X’s first application to the housing register or the Council’s first medical assessment. This is because if Mrs X was unhappy with the Council’s handling of these issues, she could have complained to us sooner. I am therefore only considering from the point Mrs X gave new information in 2023 which triggered a new assessment.
7. I understand that during this complaint, Mrs X asked the Council for a further reassessment due to her child’s medical needs. I am not considering the outcome of this reassessment, as this is a separate complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered Mrs X’s complaint to the Council and information provided by the Council.
9. I invited Mrs X and the Council to comment on my draft decision and considered any comments received.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

10. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises housing applicants, and its procedures for allocating properties.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
11. The Council has 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 in a priority banding depending on how many priority points their circumstances qualify them for. This priority is the first factor the Council uses to allocate a property.
13. The effective date is the date the Council receives a completed application form. This can change if an applicant already on the housing register has a change in circumstances attracting a higher priority band.
14. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards priority points to applicants who:
• Those who are overcrowded by one bedroom or more and are in Council or Housing Association properties.
• Have a significant medical need to move.
15. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council allows those who have 100 points or more access to its bidding register to express interest in properties. The higher the points an applicant has, the higher priority they have in bidding on a property.

What happened

16. Ms lives with her husband and children in private rented accommodation.
17. In 2021, Mrs X applied to the Council’s housing register. In 2022, the Council carried out a medical assessment on Mrs X and her husband. It decided they were entitled to 50 points on their application due to health and wellbeing needs.
18. In December 2023, Ms provided further information to the Council about her circumstances, including that she was due to have a second child.
19. The Council assessed Mrs X’s application due to the new information. In January 2024 the Council said it recognised that she was overcrowded by one bedroom, and that she had low priority medical needs. This entitled her to 50 priority points under its allocations policy. The Council told Mrs X that she needed 100 points to bid on properties.
20. In February 2024 Mrs X requested a review of the decision.
21. The Council reviewed the decision in April 2024. In the review decision it said

• Mrs X gave further information in December which the Council assessed in line with the allocations scheme.
• The Council assessed Mrs X as needing two-bedroom accommodation but was currently living in a private one-bedroom accommodation.
• Mrs X did not meet the criteria for points due to overcrowding.
• The Council had awarded Mrs X 50 points based due to Health and Wellbeing, based on the information she gave about her needs.
• Mrs X remained under the threshold to be eligible to bid.

Analysis

The Council’s allocations policy

22. The Ombudsman can investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation if we consider others who have not complained may have suffered injustice as a result.
23. The law says allocations schemes must give reasonable preference to certain groups of applicants for social housing. 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))
24. In investigating this case, I considered the Council’s allocations scheme. The scheme gives points to applicants to those who are overcrowded by one bedroom and who are in Council or Housing Association accommodation. It does not give points to those who are overcrowded by one bedroom and in private accommodation.
25. In a previous draft decision, I intended to find fault with the Council for not demonstrating how the policy awarded those it identified as overcrowded but in private accommodation reasonable preference.
26. In response to my previous draft decision, the Council has clarified that allowing applications in this circumstance onto the housing register is giving reasonable preference about those who are not overcrowded, who would therefore not be eligible to join the register. Therefore, as the Council had identified and awarded reasonable preference to overcrowded applicants, its policy was lawful and rightfully applied in Mrs X’s case.
27. The Council also confirmed that if an applicant’s circumstances changed and they became eligible to bid, they would they keep the date of the initial acceptance onto the housing register. This would therefore place them above those with the same points but who joined the register later. The Council confirmed this was the case.
28. I am therefore satisfied the Council has been able to show how its policy has given reasonable preference to those who are overcrowded, and how it has considered Mrs X’s application in line with the policy.
29. If Mrs X’s circumstances were to change in future, and she was awarded more points, this would place her above those on the register with the same number of points but joined later.
30. While I appreciate that this is not the result Mrs X is seeking, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
31. In making its decision, the Council took account of the relevant guidance, information from its own policy and information from Mrs X. The organisation followed the suitable procedures when making this decision and I cannot therefore criticise it.

Medical assessment

32. Part of Mrs X’s complaint is the Council has only assessed her medical needs, and not those of her husband.
33. Between 2021 and 2023, Mrs X uploaded medical information for herself and her husband to her application. The Council carried out a medical assessment in 2022 which said Mrs X was entitled to low priority due to medical and health needs.
34. When Mrs X provided further information in December about expecting another child and being overcrowded, the Council reassessed the application. It did not reassess Mrs X’s husband or refer to him in the decision letter or review decision.
35. Having reviewed the information the Council, I am satisfied the medical information Mrs X provided was considered in the medical assessment carried out in 2022.
36. The Council should have explained in its decision and review decision if it had considered the health and wellbeing needs of other household members, and if it hadn’t, the reason for this. Not to do so was fault by the Council.
37. However, it caused limited injustice to Mrs X as I am satisfied the Council did consider Mrs X’s husband’s needs in 2022 and received no further information in 2023 that would have made it change its mind. It also confirmed this to her in writing after the review decision and explained why this didn’t change the medical priority.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation. I find fault with the Council for it’s communication with Mrs X’s about her application, however this did not cause significant injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman