Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed considering her case at its Social Welfare Panel. As a result it took much longer than it should have for Ms X to obtain a property on the housing register. We have found the Council at fault. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise to Ms X, make a payment to her for the time she spent in unsuitable accommodation and carry out a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains on behalf of Ms X that the Council delayed putting her housing register application to its Social Welfare Panel.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
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. As part of this investigation I considered the information provided by Ms Y. I discussed the complaint with Ms Y over the telephone. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information received in response. I sent a draft of this decision to Ms Y and the Council for comments.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

6. 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))
7. 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))
8. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. The Council operates a needs based banding system. The order of the bands is arranged to reflect housing priority with Band 1 being the highest priority.
9. Band 2 includes applicants who have an urgent need to move due to social welfare as decided by the Council’s Social Welfare Panel.
10. The Council’s Social Welfare Panel (SWP) considers referrals from applicants, support, voluntary and statutory agencies. The SWP will consider whether an applicant should get additional priority on the housing register.

What happened

11. Ms X lives with her children. In February 2019 a social worker from the Council referred Ms X’s case to the Council’s SWP. The Council’s social worker explained Ms X needed to move to alternative accommodation as her children had suffered sexual abuse at her property. The social worker said the children were suffering flashbacks of the abuse, significant trauma and suicidal ideations.
12. In April 2019, Ms X sent the Council a change of circumstance form as she had not heard anything back from the Council about whether her case was considered by the SWP. The Council decided to carry out a medical assessment for Ms X.
13. In early May 2019, the Council received an email from a housing charity supporting Ms X asking for an update on whether the SWP had considered her application. The housing advice charity sent the Council a further email a few weeks later as it had not received a response.
14. The Council responded to the housing advice charity in late May 2019 and said its housing team were still waiting for the outcome of the medical assessment and said it was unaware of a request for the SWP to consider Ms X’s application.
15. At the end of May 2019, the Council wrote to Ms X and told her she was in Band 3 on its housing register following the outcome of her medical assessment.
16. In June 2019, Ms X’s MP contacted the Council and asked it to review the banding Ms X had been given on the housing register. The Council responded and told Ms X’s MP it would refer her case to the next SWP in July 2019.
17. In November 2020 Ms X sent the Council a further change of circumstance form as she had not heard whether her application was considered by the SWP.
18. In April 2022, Ms X approached an advice service for help. Ms Y from that service assisted Ms X to complain to the Council. Ms Y complained that the housing team had failed to put Ms X’s application to the SWP and the social care team at the Council had not followed this up.
19. In May 2022, the Council responded to the complaint. The Council said there was an oversight in not putting Ms X’s application to its SWP and agreed to do this within the next two weeks.
20. On 19 May 2022, the Council’s SWP considered Ms X’s application. The notes from the Panel said that the SWP supported Ms X’s request for a move because of the mental health issues, trauma and suicidal ideations stated in the social worker’s support letter. As a result, Ms X’s priority on the housing register increased to Band 2 and she successfully obtained a property in late May 2022.
21. In March 2023, Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint further with the help of Ms Y. Ms Y said Ms X’s family were left in unsuitable accommodation for longer than they should have been and it took years for the SWP to consider the case. Ms Y said the Council has not provided assurances this will not happen again.
22. In July 2023, the Council provided its final response. The Council apologised for the delay in handling the complaint and the delay in referring Ms X’s case to its SWP. The Council acknowledged it had not responded to requests for the SWP to take place and asked Ms X to submit change of circumstance forms when it already had the correct information on file. The Council also acknowledged if it had referred the case to its SWP, Ms X would have been moved to Band 2 much earlier and would have been successful on bidding for a property much sooner.
23. The Council offered Ms X £800 to recognise the injustice caused to her for its failure to consider the case at its SWP, the time and trouble she experienced chasing up the case and the uncertainty about whether things would have been different had the Council acted upon earlier requests for her case to go to the SWP. The Council also offered Ms X £75 to recognise the delays responding to her complaint.
24. Ms X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.
25. In response to my enquiries the Council said the first missed opportunity for Ms X to obtain a property was in February 2019.

Analysis

26. Normally we do not investigate complaints where it has taken over 12 months for someone to complain to us about something a Council has done unless there are good reasons. Ms X does not speak English and was reliant on the assistance of other organisations for help pursuing the matter and complaining on her behalf. In addition, Ms X was reliant on the help of a social worker to make the referral to the SWP in the first instance. The organisation Ms X asked to help her complain are not a professional organisation but a group of individuals living with housing issues. In light of the above I have decided there are good reasons to investigate.
27. Ms X’s case was initially referred to the SWP in February 2019 by a social worker from the Council. The case was not considered until May 2022, over three years later. This was fault.
28. During this time there is evidence of Ms X trying to chase this up and raise concerns through other agencies she asked to support her. In addition, there does not appear to be records from the Council’s social work team chasing this referral up. This is also fault.
29. Ms X has spent significantly longer than she should have done in unsuitable accommodation. The Council were aware of the trauma and impact living at the property was having on Ms X’s children given the abuse they had suffered at the property. If the Council’s SWP considered Ms X’s case when she initially asked it to in 2019, by the Council’s own admission she would have been moved in February 2019. As a result, Ms X and her children could have obtained alternative accommodation over three years earlier but for the Council’s fault.
30. While the Council has upheld Ms X’s complaint and offered her a remedy, totalling £800, I do not consider this is sufficient to remedy the injustice Ms X and her children experienced. Where a complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation during what would inevitably have been a stressful period in their life, our guidance on remedies recommends financial redress of between £150 to £350 a month. In this case I consider the impact on the family was significant given the concerns initially raised by the social worker when they referred the case to the SWP.
31. There was also some fault by the Council for the time it took to respond to Ms X’s complaint. The Council has acknowledged this and offered Ms X £75 for her time and trouble. I am satisfied this is a suitable remedy for any injustice caused.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. Within one month of my final decision the Council agreed to carry out the following:
• Apologise to Ms X for delays amounting to over three years to consider her case at the SWP.
• Pay Ms X £11,700 to acknowledge the time she and her children spent living in unsuitable accommodation. I have calculated this at £300 per month for 39 months (from February 2019 until May 2022).
33. Within three months of my final decision the Council agreed to carry out the following:
• Review what went wrong in this case and why Ms X’s case was not passed to the Social Work Panel. The Council should consider what measures it can put in place to ensure cases passed to the Social Work Panel are not ignored or misplaced in future. The Council should report back to the Ombudsman with the changes to its procedures that it intends to make.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation and found the Council was at fault and this caused injustice to Ms X. The Council agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman