Summary: Mr X complained the Council should have awarded his household higher housing priority. He said the Council did not have regard for the available evidence, or the impact of the accommodation, when it made its decision. We have found the Council at fault for a delay in completing its review of Mr X’s housing priority. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice we believe this caused. We have not found the Council at fault for how it made its decision about Mr X’s housing priority. We cannot therefore question the merits of that decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, is represented by Mr M.
2. Mr X complained the Council should have awarded his household higher housing priority. He said the Council did not have regard for the evidence submitted, or the impact of the accommodation on the household, when it made its decision.
3. Mr X wanted the Council to review its decision, increase the household’s priority and allocate suitable accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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

How I considered this complaint

8. I discussed the complaint with Mr M on Mr X’s behalf and considered the information he provided.
9. I considered information the Council provided about the complaint.
10. Mr M, Mr X and the Council were able to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Housing allocations scheme

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. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
13. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:

• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process;
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

14. The Council’s current allocations scheme shows it has three priority bands: Band A, Band B and Band C. Band A is highest, while Band C is lowest. The Council previously had a further lower priority, Band D.
15. Relative to this complaint:
1. The Council awards Band A priority on medical grounds when an applicant or a member of their household has a life-threatening condition, which is seriously affected by their current housing. It also awards Band A when current housing conditions directly contribute to a significant deterioration of the applicant or a household member’s health and rehousing would alleviate this. This must be supported by clinical evidence.
2. The Council awards Band B priority on medical grounds when an applicant’s housing conditions are unsuitable and having a major adverse effect on the applicant or a household member’s medical conditions, which could be alleviated by rehousing. This again must be supported by clinical evidence. The scheme says this priority would not apply where the effect of the housing conditions on the household’s health is comparatively moderate, slight or variable.
3. The Council awards Band C priority on medical grounds when an applicant’s housing conditions are not suitable and have a moderate effect on their medical conditions, or the medical conditions of a member of their household, which could be alleviated by rehousing. This must be supported by clinical evidence.
16. 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 failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

Back to top

What I found

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. In early 2023, Mr X submitted a change of circumstances form to the Council. These forms are used to tell the Council about any changes in an applicant’s housing circumstances that may affect the priority or property size a household should have.
19. In February 2023, the Council wrote to Mr X. It said it had assessed his application based on the information provided, but Mr X’s household would remain in the same priority. The Council said it had applied priority Band D to Mr X’s household and identified they needed properties with three bedrooms.
20. In March 2023, the Council’s medical advisor returned an assessment of Mr X’s household and recommended the Council apply Band C priority. The advisor also made recommendations about the property size and location. They recommended properties up to first floor level, with window locks and access to secure outdoor space where possible. They also recommended that one of Mr X’s children, referred to as J in this statement, have their own bedroom due to their identified medical needs. The advisor said the kitchen in the property should be separate from the living area, with a door in place to prevent risks to J.
21. The Council reassessed Mr X’s application and adopted these recommendations. It wrote to Mr X to confirm it had increased the household’s priority to Band C for medical reasons. It also said Mr X could bid on four-bedroom properties. It applied these changes as of March 2023. Mr X had the right to request a review of the Council’s decisions.
22. The Council said Mr X sought a review of his housing priority in April 2023.
23. On 30 June 2023, the Council wrote to Mr X to confirm his review request. It asked Mr X to provide any evidence he wanted the Council to consider in writing by 28 July 2023. It said it intended to complete its review by 25 August 2023.
24. On 29 September 2023, the Council and Mr X had a telephone conversation so Mr X could provide information relevant to the review. According to the Council’s summary, Mr X said:
1. They were currently living in a second-floor property, which had window restrictors. There was a door separating the living room and kitchen. Mr X said the property was too small, with limited space for toys and equipment for J.
2. J continually moved around the property. J had also ripped a sibling’s homework and damaged multiple television sets.
3. Nearby playgrounds sometimes closed early, but Mr X would take J to other parks and gardens to play outside.
4. J was unaware of danger and consequences. Mr X said J needed constant care and attention.
5. There was no working lift, meaning J had to be carried on the stairs when entering or leaving the property.
6. The household had recently received a notice to quit the property. There was also mould and damp in the property.
25. On 17 October 2023, the Council sent a letter to Mr X with its review decision:
1. The Council said it had carefully considered the household’s circumstances and the information available. It upheld its decision to award the household Band C priority.
2. The Council set out the information considered. This included relevant legislation and guidance, information on the household’s housing file, medical and professional submissions, and the medical advisor’s recommendations.
3. The Council set out the background leading to the review. It detailed Mr X’s representations on the matter.
4. The Council set out what its allocations scheme said about priority banding.
5. The Council set out occupational therapy (OT) observations and recommendations made by a pediatric psychiatrist:
1. The kitchen in the current property posed dangers to J. The observations said J could potentially climb to access the kettle and oven.
2. The submission said having more space would allow J to move around and help regulate movement needs. The submission said the current property was crowded and J had difficulty settling and engaging in daily activities. This affected the family’s sleep.
3. The submission said a level-access property with restricted access to the kitchen would be beneficial. The submission also recommended J should have their own bedroom and, ideally, access to outdoor space.
6. The Council detailed submissions from a counsellor about the impact of the property and circumstances on Mrs X. This submission detailed heightened anxiety and stress, affecting wellbeing.
7. The Council accepted caring for a child with J’s needs would cause anxiety and stress. It recognised the possible risks and safety issues in the current property were contributing to Mrs X’s worry and anxiety. It noted J to be unaware of dangers. It noted there was no lift and the property was on the second floor, which led to an increased risk of falling, as well as the physical effort needed to enter and exit the property. It noted J could open windows.
8. The Council said it accepted there were adverse conditions in the household’s accommodation and it had awarded priority Band C as a result. It said the circumstances set out would not meet the criteria for Band B or above. The Council said this was because the accommodation was not having a major adverse impact on the household and the existing difficulties and risks could be managed. The Council said familial supervision and vigilance could keep J safe. It highlighted the access the family had to local parks and leisure centers, which it said could be used to provide space for J. The Council said despite the property being open-plan, it noted Mr X had confirmed there was a door between the kitchen and living-room. It said J’s siblings could use local library services to study if required. It said there was no evidence of an emergency medical situation or threat to life from the accommodation, so Band A did not apply.
9. It said it was satisfied it had assigned the household the correct banding. The Council said it had adopted its medical advisor’s recommendations. It said it had made the household eligible to bid for four-bedroom properties, with a separate room for J. It noted these properties should be lower than first floor, or could be higher if there was a lift, with a garden where possible.
10. The Council noted the family’s landlord had served a section 21 notice. The Council said the notice did not indicate the family were at immediate risk of losing their home. The Council said the family should contact the Council if these circumstances changed and provided details of its homelessness services.
11. The Council set out how it had considered its duties under the Childrens Act 2004 and Equality Act 2010 in its decision.
26. On 25 October 2023, Mr X’s solicitors wrote to the Council. They said the Council had not accounted for J’s welfare and wellbeing in its decision, relying on the medical advisor’s recommendation. Mr X’s solicitors invited the Council to reflect on opinions offered by other professionals and asked the Council to consider awarding higher priority. They cited contributions from J’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, J’s school, and medical professionals.
27. Mr X also complained to the Council about its decision. Mr X said the Council’s medical advisor said the household needed ground floor accommodation with access to a garden, but the Council had not changed the household’s priority. He said he wanted to appeal this decision.
28. On 8 January 2024, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint:
1. The Council set out the grounds for the complaint. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s decision on his housing application and the priority awarded. This decision had been upheld at review, so Mr X wanted to appeal this further. He also sought clarification on why the Council had disregarded advice from its own medical advisor.
2. The Council said it had assessed Mr X’s application and concluded Band C priority applied, in line with its allocations scheme. It had also decided the family had a housing need for four-bedroom accommodation, which included an extra room for J. It said its review letter clearly explained the reasons for this decision. It said it had considered the medical advisor’s recommendation and all available information before making the decision.
3. The Council said there was no further right of review and Mr X would need to consider legal action if he remained dissatisfied. The Council said it was satisfied the household had not been disadvantaged from being placed in Band C. It said there was no evidence Mr X’s application had been unfairly handled. It did not uphold Mr X’s complaint.
29. On 6 February 2024, Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two, as he remained dissatisfied.
30. On 23 February 2024, the Council responded to Mr X’s stage two complaint:
1. The Council said it was satisfied with the explanation provided in its previous response and in its review letter. It said its review letter explained how it had reached its decision and accounted for the evidence submitted.
2. The Council said it had checked Mr X’s application and was satisfied it would not meet the criteria for priority Bands A or B, based on the evidence available.
3. The Council recognised Mr X disagreed, but said this did not mean its decision was incorrect. It said Mr X had not provided any new information that would cause the Council to reconsider its decision.
4. The Council said its decision in Mr X’s case was consistent with the priority applied in other cases with similar levels of housing need. It said it could not conclude it should make an exception in Mr X’s case. It said it was satisfied there was no evidence of discrimination or unfair treatment in its decision.
31. On 21 March 2024, the Council wrote to Mr X again. It said it had assessed his housing priority and bedroom need again, considering all the information it had on file. It reached the same conclusion, awarding Band C priority. It offered Mr X a further right of review against this decision.

Analysis

Review timescales

32. The Council’s allocations scheme is silent on its review timescales. I therefore consider the recommended good practice set out in the statutory guidance applies. Paragraph 13 sets out these timescales.
33. The Council made its initial decision in March 2023. Mr X sought a review on 3 April 2023. The Council should have completed its review and issued a decision within eight weeks, on or around 2 June 2023.
34. The Council did not acknowledge the review until the end of June 2023 and did not issue its review decision until 17 October 2023. The total time taken by the Council to issue its review decision was around 28 weeks, a delay of around 20 weeks. I recognise part of the time taken was to allow Mr X to provide information to the Council. However, by any measure, the time taken to complete the review is excessive. I have therefore found the Council acted with fault by delaying completing the review.
35. This fault caused Mr X an injustice. The Council’s delay caused Mr X avoidable frustration and uncertainty by prolonging the period awaiting a decision.

Review procedure and decision

36. 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 a complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
37. In early 2023, the Council told Mr X his household was in priority band D, with an identified three-bed need. Shortly after this, the Council’s medical advisor assessed Mr X’s evidence and recommended the household’s priority and bed-need be increased. The medical advisor also made specific observations about the property layout and location. The Council adopted these recommendations, increasing the household’s priority from band D to band C. It also increased the household’s bed-need from three bedrooms to four, meaning Mr X was eligible to bid on larger properties that benefit from the characteristics recommended by the medical advisor.
38. The Council increasing the household’s priority and bed-need shows a regard for both the evidence Mr X submitted and the opinion of its medical advisor. I have not found the Council at fault for how it applied its allocations scheme and made its initial decision about Mr X’s priority and housing entitlement.
39. Mr X sought a review of the Council’s decisions about his housing priority. The Council issued its review decision in October 2023, following the delay noted above. This prompted complaints and submissions from Mr X and his solicitors. The crux of these submissions was that the Council had relied too much on the recommendations of the medical advisor, disregarding other evidence received and reaching an incorrect conclusion.
40. I do not believe the available evidence supports this assertion. The Council’s decision letter sets out in some detail the evidence that informed its decision. It sets out the medical advisor’s assessment and recommendations, confirming it adopted these fully. However, it also reflects direct submissions Mr X made, as well as evidence submitted by professionals involved with the family.
41. The letter also explains why the Council decided priority band B did not apply to Mr X’s household. This principally related to the Council deciding the evidence showed the property was having an “adverse” impact on the household, rather than a “major adverse” impact.
42. I recognise Mr X strongly disagrees with the Council’s decision, believing it should have come to a different conclusion about his level of priority. However, it would not be fault for the Council to reach a different professional view than Mr X. The Council considered the evidence available to it and applied the criteria in its allocations scheme when reaching its decision. I have identified no fault in how the Council reached this decision. I cannot therefore question the merits of the decision taken.
43. The Council’s final complaint response confirms it explored whether there were grounds to exercise discretion in Mr X’s case. It concluded its decisions about Mr X’s priority were consistent with its approach in other similar cases and there were no grounds to exercise discretion. Once it completed its complaints procedure, the Council conducted a further assessment of Mr X’s housing priority in March 2024. The Council reached the same decisions about Mr X’s priority and bed-need. It provided Mr X with a further right of appeal against those decisions, should he remain dissatisfied.
44. I am therefore satisfied the Council has duly considered the facts of Mr X’s case when reaching its conclusions. Aside from the delay already noted, I believe it completed the review procedures correctly, explained its decisions, duly considered whether it should apply any discretion, and provided the appropriate rights of review at the correct times. I have not therefore found the Council at fault for how it assessed Mr X’s priority and conducted its review.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Mr X for the faults and injustice identified in this statement. The Council should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on “Making an effective apology", set out in our Guidance on Remedies document.
2. Pay Mr X £150 in recognition of the avoidable uncertainty and distress caused by the Council’s delayed review.
46. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
47. As a result of a recent investigation, the Ombudsman recommended the Council develop an action plan to reduce delays in completing housing reviews and ensure it can complete these reviews within the eight weeks recommended in statutory guidance. The Council accepted this recommendation and the Ombudsman will seek evidence of the Council’s compliance. I have not therefore made any further recommendations on this point.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman