Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision that he was not entitled to priority on its housing register on medical grounds and delay. We found the Council to be at fault. There was significant delay processing his application, in part due to a cyber-attack. To remedy the injustice to Mr X, we recommend the Council should apologise and make a payment to acknowledge his frustration.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his application to join the housing register. Specifically, he says the Council:

• took too long to process his application following a cyber-attack;
• took too long to process his application for additional priority on medical grounds and repeatedly asked for the same information;
• incorrectly decided he did not have priority on medical grounds; and
• did not back date his application to when he first applied.

2. Mr X says the long delay since 2022 has caused considerable distress. He remains living in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
7. 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

What I have and have not investigated

8. Part of Mr X’s complaint is late because it relates to events that took place from April 2022. I have decided to exercise my discretion to investigate this because Mr X was told when he applied that he would have to wait several months for his application to be processed. He was told to wait until he was contacted by the Council. It did so 18 months later. Because he was following the Council’s instruction, it would not be reasonable to expect Mr X to have complained sooner that he did.
9. I have not investigated events since Mr X asked the Council to review its decision on medical priority in June 2024. I note he has also provided evidence that he needs to move due to threats to his personal safety that require assessment by the Council. If Mr X wishes to challenge this decision, he must allow the Council the opportunity to consider this matter through its own complaints procedure in the first instance.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint.
11. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.
12. I considered the relevant law, guidance and Council policy, as set out below.
13. 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

14. 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))
15. 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 allocations scheme

16. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. The Council places housing applicants into one of three bands according to their housing need. Band A is the highest priority and Band C is the lowest.
17. Applicants assessed as having no housing need and not attracting any priority points (for example, on medical grounds), are excluded from joining the register.
18. Applicants over 55, with no housing need, can join the waiting list but will only be considered for non-sheltered/retirement properties.
19. Housing applicants can ask the Council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

What happened

20. 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.
21. Mr X has been a Council tenant for several years. He lives in a one-bedroom flat (“the Flat”). In April 2022, he applied to join the housing register. He said the Flat was unsuitable because of longstanding noise nuisance and harassment from his neighbours. Mr X has several chronic health conditions that he says are affected by where he lives.
22. On 11 October 2020, the Council’s computer systems were subject to a criminal cyber-attack. As a result, it was unable to access its housing system and could not process any housing register applications, medical assessments or apply any change in circumstances.
23. This situation continued until October 2021 when the Council implemented a new housing allocations policy and online application portal. Over the following few weeks and months all housing register applicants had to make a new application and be reassessed under the new policy.
24. In October 2023, the Council invited Mr X to resubmit his transfer application. Mr X did so immediately and repeated his request for medical priority. In support of this he submitted his medical records.
25. In late January 2024, the Council requested evidence of his income. This request was made again in mid-February. Once the Council had all the required information, it referred Mr X’s to its medical adviser on 4 March 2024. The Council issued its decision letter on 25 June 2024. He was told he was in Band C, with no medical priority, backdated to November 2023, when he turned 55. Mr X requested a review of this decision. The Council confirmed its decision remained the same.
26. Frustrated by the excessive delay and outcome, Mr X complained to the Council and then to the Ombudsman.

The Council’s position

27. In response to Mr X’s complaints and the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council’s position is summarised below.

• Applicants can expect to wait six months for a medical assessment, caused by excessive demand.
• There was a substantial delay in dealing with Mr X’s case, caused by the backlog from the cyber-attack.
• Mr X’s application was backdated to November 2023. This is later than the date given to Mr X in the decision letter and response to his complaint.
• The Council apologised and offered Mr X £150 to acknowledge his frustration and uncertainty.
• Mr X’s prospects of being rehoused were not affected by the delay, due the chronic shortage of housing in London and excessive demand. Nor were they affected by the medical decision. This is because there are fewer properties available for those with a medical need.

Analysis

28. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for its decision about eligibility and priority if it has properly considered the information provided by the applicant and applied its allocations scheme correctly.
29. In this context I will consider Mr X’s areas of complaint.

Delay between 2022 and 2023

30. The Council has accepted there was a significant delay in dealing with Mr X’s application in April 2022. The cause of this delay was a combination of the cyber-attack, the resulting backlog and implementation of a new allocations system.
31. It is the Council’s function to provide a proper housing allocations service, that is one that takes account of people’s current circumstances in line with its allocations scheme.
32. The Council failed to provide that service following the cyber-attack until the new allocations policy was implemented in October 2021. Whilst recognising the unique challenges imposed by the cyber-attack, I consider that it was service failure. As a result, the Council was unable to start process Mr X’s housing application for 18 months.
33. Whilst there was fault, the injustice to Mr X is limited to his frustration caused by the delay. The fault did not affect his prospects of being rehoused sooner. The Council has provided both Mr X and Ombudsman with expected waiting times for a single person over 55 years old. This currently stands at six years. In accordance with the Council’s allocations policy, Mr X was not eligible to join the register until he was 55 because he did not have an eligible housing need. Even if the Council had processed his application in a timely fashion in 2022/22, the earliest he could have expected to join the housing register was November 2023. This should have been explained to Mr X sooner.

Delay and poor case handling in 2023/24

34. Mr X resubmitted his application in October 2023. The Council made its decision in June 2024.
35. The Council has explained that due the high numbers of applicants that request a medical assessment, the expected waiting time is six months.
36. The Council has also explained it backdates any award to when they first applied. This means applicants are not adversely affected by the delay. I accept this is a sensible way of managing this one aspect of the current and ongoing housing crisis in London. However, the Council should ensure applicants are informed about how long they can expect to wait for a decision, and advised if there will be further delay.
37. Mr X had to wait approximately eight months; two months longer than it should have taken. I have seen no evidence that Mr X was told about how long he could expect to wait and any point during that time. This excessive delay and failure keep him informed was fault.
38. Mr X says he was repeatedly asked for the same information. The records show he submitted some information in October 2023, and was asked for additional documents in January, February and May 2024. I have not seen evidence to show Mr X was asked to provide information he had already submitted, rather the Council asked for more up to date financial and medical information than was originally submitted by Mr X. While I understand this was frustrating for Mr X, the Council was entitled to request this information to ensure it had enough relevant, up to date information to reach an informed decision. There was no fault here.

Medical priority

39. Mr X strongly disagrees with the Council’s decision that he was not entitled to additional priority on medical priority. I have not identified any fault with the way the Council reached its initial decision. The notes from the medical assessor demonstrate they considered the information provided by Mr X but decided, whilst acknowledging he had health problems, they did not qualify for additional priority on its housing register by reference to the criteria set out in its allocations policy. This was explained to Mr X in writing.
40. The Council also advised Mr X of his right to request a review of this decision. In the absence of fault with the decision-making process, the Ombudsman cannot question the outcome, no matter how much Mr X may disagree.

Date of admission to the housing register

41. The Council gave confusing information to Mr X about when the date of his admission to the housing register. In its response to Mr X’s complaint, he was told it would be backdated to April 2022.
42. However, the decision letter stated it would be backdated to October 2023 (when the Council accepted his second application).
43. In its response to the Ombudsman, the Council has confirmed the correct date is November 2023. This being when Mr X turned 55. Prior to this he was not eligible to join the housing register because he did not have a need for housing.
44. This should not have happened and is fault. Mr X was understandably frustrated by this confusion.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. Within four weeks from the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following action.
1. Apologise in writing to Mr X.
2. Pay Mr X a further £100 to acknowledge his frustration and distress caused by the excessive delay in processing his application between 2022 and 2024 and giving incorrect information about his admission to the housing register.
3. Take action to ensure applicants are informed about expected waiting times and delay.

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

Back to top

Final decision

47. I found the Council to be at fault and the Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice to Mr X and improve its communications with applicants.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman