Summary: Ms X and Mr W complained the Council failed to properly handle their housing applications, causing them to live in an unsuitable property. The Council was at fault for a delay in awarding Ms X a higher housing priority, and processing Mr W’s application. This did not result in Ms X or Mr W missing out on a property but caused them frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X and Mr W to recognise the impact of its delay.

The complaint

1. Ms X and her son, Mr W, complained the Council has failed to properly handle their housing applications. They say this has resulted in their family living in an unsuitable property, which poses a safeguarding risk to Ms X’s youngest son. They want the Council to properly consider their housing applications, taking into account all relevant information.

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. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have decided there are good reasons to investigate Ms X’s complaint from May 2022, when Ms X asked to move on medical grounds. The Council gave Ms X conflicting information about her banding and delayed processing Mr W’s application and responding to Ms X’s complaint. They only became aware of the potential fault when the Council upheld their complaint in June 2023.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have discussed the complaint with Ms X and considered the information she provided on behalf of herself and Mr W. I have also considered information provided by the Council.
8. Ms X, Mr W and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing Allocations

9. 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))
10. 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))

11. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. The scheme uses rehousing bands to give reasonable preference to those as set out above. Applicants are placed into one of four rehousing bands (bands one to four with one being the highest). It also uses a priority star system which will increase priority within each band together with the priority award date.
12. 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.

What happened

13. Ms X lives in a 3-bedroom maisonette on the second floor, with two adult aged children, Mr W and Mr Z and one school aged child, Y. Y has a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder and displays challenging behaviour in the home because of anxiety. In May 2022 Ms X asked the Council to carry out a medical assessment. She said the family needed a four-bedroom property with more space to meet Y’s needs.
14. Ms X chased a response to her request in June 2022. In July 2022, Y threw an object out of a window which narrowly missed a child. A councillor immediately raised a safeguarding alert, and the Council completed an emergency request for the family to move because of a threat to life and based on police advice.
15. The Council’s records show it decided Ms X should have priority band one on 29 July 2022. Ms X already had one priority star and the records show the Council decided it should add another for severe welfare and medical priority. The Council also discussed Ms X’s eldest son, Mr W, making his own housing application for a one-bedroom property because of the lack of four-bedroom properties available. This would allow Ms X to bid for three-bedroom properties. Ms X says the Council then told her son to make the separate application.
16. In August 2022 the Council responded to the councillor’s safeguarding alert. It said Ms X had a moderate medical priority and was priority band two. It suggested Ms X contact its resident services team to review the locks on the property’s windows.
17. Mr W applied to join the Council’s housing register on 22 August 2022.
18. In October 2022 a key worker working with Ms X’s family asked the Council for an update on Ms X’s banding. The Council again said she was in band two. However, the Council’s internal emails show it accepted Ms X should have been band one and it needed to update her banding. On 2 November 2022 the Council updated Ms X’s banding to priority band one and backdated it to 29 July. It also added the second priority star.
19. Ms X complained to the Council. She said the Council had delayed updating her banding and had not processed Mr W’s separate application. The Council accepted it had delayed updating Ms X’s banding, but it had now backdated this. It said it had not processed Mr W’s application because of a backlog of applications, but it would now fast track the application. Ms X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two.
20. The Council offered Ms X a three-bedroom property on 30 November 2022. Ms X rejected the property as she said it was unsuitable.
21. In March 2023 a representative for Ms X asked for an update on her stage two complaint. The Council said it would need Ms X’s consent to communicate with her representative. Ms X gave consent in May 2023 and again asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two of its complaint procedure.
22. The Council processed Mr W’s housing application on 26 June 2023. It placed him in band four and asked Mr W for extra information to decide any banding change or priority star.
23. The Council responded to Ms X’s stage two complaint on 28 June 2023. It upheld the complaint and again said the delay in processing Mr W’s application was because of a backlog with applications. The Council received Mr W’s documents in September 2023. It allocated him band three and backdated the application to 11 July 2023.
24. Ms X continued to complain to the Council in 2024. The Council said Ms X was on its highest priority. In February 2024 the Council bypassed Ms X for a four-bedroom property as Mr W was no longer part of her application. In March 2024 the Council offered Ms X another three-bedroom property which she refused as unsuitable. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman in April 2024.
25. In response to our enquiries the Council accepted a delay in processing Mr W’s application. It proposed backdating the application to 19 September 2022, to allow for the delay and 28 days processing time from when Mr W applied. It reviewed Ms X and Mr W’s bidding history and said neither had missed out on properties because of the delay. The Council did accept its advice impacted Mr W’s decision to make his own housing application. It then bypassed Ms X for a four-bedroom property she would have been eligible for had Mr W remained on her application. The Council said it would ask Mr W if he wished to rejoin Ms X’s application and add Ms X to its direct offer list.
26. The Council also said it would adjust its processes because of the learning from Ms X’s complaint. It said a senior officer will make a more thorough assessment of cases with an urgent and severe need to move to ensure it considers all the information before deciding whether to bypass a case.
27. In June 2024 Mr W rejoined Ms X’s housing application.

My findings

28. The Council accepts it should have placed Ms X in band one and awarded her a second priority star on 29 July 2022. It did not do this until November 2022. This is fault. The evidence shows Ms X did not miss out on any properties because of this. However, while the Council backdated the award, it caused Ms X a period of frustration and uncertainty as the Council said Ms X was in band two.
29. Mr W applied to join the housing register in August 2022. The Council did not process his application until June 2023. Allowing for the Council’s 28-day processing time this is a delay of 10 months. This is fault. Mr W did not miss out on any properties because of the delay but he was also caused a prolonged period of uncertainty over the progress of his application. The Council has offered to backdate Mr W’s application to 19 September 2022. Mr W has since rejoined Ms X’s application, so this is no longer needed.
30. Following Mr W’s decision to make his own application the Council bypassed Ms X for a four-bedroom property. Ms X says Mr W only decided to make his own application following advice from the Council. The Council was entitled to advise Ms X there were more three-bedroom properties than four. It was for Ms X and Mr W to decide whether to make separate applications. The Council is not at fault. However, it does accept its advice impacted Mr W’s decision and it has offered to add Ms X to its direct offer list. I consider this an acceptable offer from the Council.
31. Mr W has now rejoined Ms X’s application. I am satisfied Ms X has the correct housing band, award date and priority stars. It is open to Ms X to bid on suitable properties and the Council will also consider direct offers. Whether the Council rehouses Ms X will depend on property availability and the needs of other applicants, but I am satisfied the Council has now properly considered her application.
32. In response to our enquiries the Council has said its current wait time to process a housing application is 20 months, with 3,378 people waiting more than 28 days to have their application processed. This is fault. The Council has put together an action plan to deal with its backlog. This includes recruiting more staff and updating its housing application form to reduce the time it takes the Council to process applications. We will monitor the Council’s progress through our casework and compliance with the actions below.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms X and Mr W for the frustration and uncertainty caused by its delay. 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.
2. Add Ms X to its direct offer list.
3. Pay Ms X £250 to recognise the uncertainty caused by the four-month delay in awarding her band one housing priority and the frustration of pursuing the matter with the Council.
4. Pay Mr W £500 to recognise the uncertainty caused by the ten-month delay in processing his housing application and the frustration of pursuing the matter with the Council.
34. Within three months of the final decision, the Council has agreed to provide the Ombudsman with a progress update on its action plan of how it intends to address its backlog in processing housing applications.
35. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have completed my investigation, finding fault causing injustice, which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman