Summary: Ms X complained the Council has incorrectly assessed Mr Y’s priority on the housing register and failed to carry out a banding review. The Council delays in considering Mr Y’s request for a reassessment of his banding on the housing register is fault. As is the delay in responding to Ms X’s complaint. These faults have caused Mr Y and Ms X an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X complained the Council has incorrectly assessed her brother, Mr Y’s priority on the housing register and failed to carry out a banding review.
2. Ms X also complains about poor communication and that the Council has handled their complaint badly.

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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Ms X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• Ms X 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

Housing allocations

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. It uses a banding scheme to prioritise applications. Those with the highest priority will be awarded Band 1. This is awarded to applicants with an urgent need to move due to reasonable preference plus additional priority. Those with the lowest priority are awarded Band 4.
9. The Council awards medical priority and banding based on the extent to which the health and welfare of one or more of the applicant’s household is affected by their housing conditions and the expected benefits of providing suitable alternative settled housing.
10. The policy sets out the criteria for additional medical or disability priority. This includes:
• Where an applicant’s condition is expected to be terminal within a 12-month period and re-housing is required for provision of suitable care;
• The condition is life threatening and the applicant’s existing accommodation is a major contributory factor; and
• The applicant’s health is so severely affected by the accommodation that it is likely to become life threatening.
11. In addition the policy gives increased priority to applicants who make a community contribution. Applicants must meet at least one of the eligibility and qualifying criteria to be considered for a community contribution award. This includes applicants who undertake formal care of dependants who are in receipt of higher rate Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
12. Applicants with a need to move due to reasonable preference and a community contribution are awarded Band 2.

What happened here

13. The Council accepted a homelessness duty to Mr Y several years ago and provided temporary accommodation at his current property in 2022. It also awarded Mr Y Band 3 priority on the housing register.
14. In March 2023 Mr Y, via his solicitors asked for a suitability review of his temporary accommodation. His solicitor asserted the accommodation was not suitable due to its location and Mr Y’s health. Mr Y needed to be near his mental health services and support network. They also informed the Council Mr Y was having suicidal thoughts.
15. The following month Ms X asked for Mr Y’s banding on the housing register to be reviewed based on his medical needs. Ms X provided a copy the solicitor’s letter requesting a suitability review and medical evidence.
16. The Council wrote to Mr Y’s solicitor in July 2023 indicating they were likely to find the property was suitable with regard to size, location and all medical and psychiatric concerns raised. Mr Y’s solicitor provided additional information which the Council considered and discussed with its medical advisors. The Council then issued a review decision in October 2023.
17. Its decision letter set out the Council’s consideration of Mr Y’s medical and psychiatric information, which had been discussed with both its medical and psychiatric advisors. It noted the medical advisor had concluded the accommodation was suitable on medical grounds. In addition the psychiatric advisor also confirmed that based on the information available there was no specific evidence indicating the current accommodation was unsuitable.
18. The Council was satisfied there was no medical or psychiatric information to support the view that the property was not suitable for Mr Y to occupy. The Council was also satisfied the location was suitable.
19. As Ms X did not receive a response to the banding review request, she chased the Council in September 2023 and made a formal complaint in November 2023. The Council responded in February 2024. It noted the Council had considered the medical information provided as part of the suitability review request. This review had found Mr Y’s accommodation suitable. The Council explained that if it had found the accommodation was unsuitable it would have looked to provide alternative suitable temporary accommodation. It would not have offered social housing. The Council urged Mr Y to continue bidding for properties.
20. Ms X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and asked for her complaint to be considered further. Ms X said they were still waiting for an official response to the medical assessment form completed in April 2023 and that Mr Y needed priority banding 1 not band 3. She also noted Mr Y’s solicitor was looking at the suitability of housing, not the housing register.
21. The Council’s stage two response acknowledged the review related to suitability of the accommodation, not the banding on the housing register. The Council noted its Housing Advice and Homelessness manager had been trying to contact Ms X to discuss the matter further but Ms X had not responded to their calls or emails. The Council said it was unable to review Mr Y’s banding until Ms X made contact.
22. In addition the Council incorrectly advised Ms X she could refer her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman to consider an independent review. The Council should have signposted Ms X to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
23. Since contacting the Ombudsman, Ms X has discussed Mr Y’s housing application with the Council’s Housing Advice and Homelessness manager. The Council’s records show that following a conversation in May 2024 the Council confirmed it had now located the medical form and documents Ms X had submitted in April 2023. It noted the documents had not been automatically forwarded to the assessment service in the usual way. The Council apologised for this error. In addition the Council asked Ms X to provided additional information regarding Mr Y’s PIP eligibility as he may meet the criteria for Band 2.
24. Ms X responded asking the Council to award Band 1 priority. The Council advised Ms X it was unlikely Mr Y would meet the criteria for Band 1 and repeated their request for evidence of Mr Y received the enhanced rate of PIP.
25. In a further letter the Council noted that although the Housing Register Service did not receive and assess the documentation in April 2023, the same information was considered in the context of the review of the suitability of Mr Y’s temporary accommodation. This review in October 2023 found that despite Mr Y’s diagnosis and challenges, his temporary accommodation was suitable and there was no basis for moving him to Band 1 or into alternative temporary accommodation. The Council was satisfied it had considered the information previously submitted and that it would not change its assessment of Mr Y’s application.
26. The Council reiterated that its allocation policy makes provision for applicants who received enhanced level PIP to be placed in Band 2. It repeated its request for evidence Mr Y received PIP and advised that if this was provided Mr Y would move to Band 2 with his band backdated.
27. The Council reassessed Mr Y’s application and confirmed on 24 May 2024 Mr Y was awarded Band 2 priority. The Council also noted Ms X had asked for Mr Y to be rehoused to a ground floor property. It confirmed the Bid for a Home scheme allowed Mr Y to select properties he was interested in and advised him to bid for ground floor properties he considered suitable. In addition, the Council confirmed it would seek more up to date and complete risk assessments from mental health professionals which would inform them better.
28. In August 2024 the Council wrote to Mr Y having carried out a review of the way his request for additional medical priority was handled. It accepted the time taken to reassess his application fell short of the standard the Council aims to provide. The Council apologised for the service failure and offered a payment of £250 to redress this.
29. The Council confirmed Mr Y remained in Band 2 and was able to bid on available properties.

Analysis

30. It is clear from the documentation available, and the Council accepts, there was a delay in considering Mr Y’s request for a reassessment of his priority on the housing register. This delay is fault.
31. The Council’s allocation policy says it will complete reviews and notify applicants of the outcome with 56 days. In this instance Ms X requested a review in April 2023. The Council says it reviewed the request in September 2023 when Mr Y’s solicitor provided the same information to support his review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation.
32. While this in itself is outside the 56-day timeframe, I am not persuaded the Council did consider Mr Y’s request to review his banding in September 2023. The Council reviewed the suitability of Mr Y’s temporary accommodation and issued a decision in October 2023. But this is a different process, related to the homelessness duty the Council owed Mr Y. This review considered the medical evidence provided but did not specifically address Mr Y’s banding on the housing register.
33. The Council acknowledged it was a different processes in February 2024 and said it was unable to review Mr Y’s banding until Ms X made contact. There is no evidence it had tried to contact Ms X or Mr Y in relation to the banding review prior to February 2024. When the Council reviewed Mr Y’s banding in May 2024, it increased Mr Y’s priority from Band 3 to Band 2.
34. Ms X maintains Mr Y should have Band 1 priority based on his medical needs. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide Mr Y’s priority on the housing register; that is the Council’s job. We can only consider whether the Council assessed his application correctly.
35. Although not specifically in relation to Mr Y’s banding, it is clear the Council has considered all of Mr Y’s medical evidence. The Council has determined his current property meets his needs and is satisfied Mr Y does not have an urgent need to move. Although Ms X and Mr Y disagree this is a decision the Council is entitled to reach.
36. The documentation suggests the Council needed confirmation of Mr Y’s enhanced PIP to complete the review in May 2024. However, I note the Council’s minded to letter of July 2023 and review decision of October 2023 both refer to Mr Y receiving enhanced PIP. It is clear therefore that the Council already had sufficient evidence of Mr Y’s entitlement to complete the review. The failure to recognise this led to further unnecessary delay.
37. The delay in responding to Ms X’s complaint is also fault. Ms X made a formal complaint in November 2023 but the Council did not respond until February 2024. We would expect the Council to respond in line with its published complaint policy. The failure to do so and delays of this nature are fault.
38. It is also disappointing the Council did not immediately acknowledge it had not forwarded Mr Y’s documents to the Housing Register Service to assess as it should have in April 2023. The Council has subsequently apologised for this error but I consider it should have identified and addressed this in its complaint responses.
39. Having identified fault I must consider whether this has caused Mr Y and Ms X an injustice. But for the delay in completing the review I consider it more likely than not that the Council would have moved Mr Y to Band 2 almost a year sooner than it did. Mr Y has received enhanced PIP for several years. Assuming the review would have been completed within eight weeks of Ms X’s request, Mr Y could have been in Band 2 from June 2023.
40. The Council has backdated Mr Y’s priority so that going forward he is not disadvantaged by the delay. It has also confirmed that Mr Y has bid on five properties since May 2023. Even allowing for the increase in Mr Y’s priority his bids would not have been successful. These properties were all allocated to applicants with greater priority than Mr Y. I am therefore satisfied the delay has not caused Mr Y to miss out on a property.
41. Mr Y has however suffered an injustice in the form of distress and uncertainty for an extended period of time. Ms X has also experienced inconvenience and frustration in relation to delays in responding to her correspondence and complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

42. The Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr Y and Ms X for the failings and delays in reviewing Mr Y’s banding on the housing register and in responding to their complaint. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Mr Y £400 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused by delays in reviewing his banding on the housing register.
• Pay Ms X £150 in recognition of the inconvenience and frustration caused by the delays in reviewing Mr Y’s banding on the housing register and in responding to their complaint.
43. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

44. The Council’s delays in considering Mr Y’s request for a reassessment of his banding on the housing register is fault. As is the delay in responding to Ms X’s complaint. These faults have caused Mr Y and Ms X an injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman