Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application. She said her son, Y, needs his own room. Miss X said the Council refused to increase her banding and she cannot bid for properties in her current banding. There was fault in the way the Council delayed completing the review decision. This frustrated Miss X and caused her uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and provide guidance to its staff.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application. She said her son, Y, needs his own room. Miss X said the Council refused to increase her banding and she cannot bid for properties in her current banding.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a Council’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. I read Miss X’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the phone.
6. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
7. Miss 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

Background information

8. 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))
9. 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))

10. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:

• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.

11. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
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 Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
15. The Council policy sets out how it allocates priority. It states the Council will assess an application and award a banding. Band D gives an applicant no priority to move and they cannot bid on properties.
16. The policy says the Council would respond to a review request within 56 days.
17. The policy also stated all living rooms and bedrooms were included in the Council calculations.

What happened

18. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
19. Miss X applied to join the housing list in September 2022. She stated she needed a separate room for one of her children, Y, because of his additional needs.
20. The Council assessed the application and informed Miss X in October 2022 it did not award her any priority. The Council placed Miss X in band D. Miss X asked the Council to review her priority.
21. Miss X continued to chase the Council about her review request. The Council asked Miss X for more information in May 2023.
22. Miss X provided the information in July 2023.
23. Miss X continued to chase the Council for a response.
24. The Council asked a medical assessor to consider Miss X’s request in February 2024.
25. Miss X complained to the Council in April 2024. She complained about the delays and not awarding medical priority.
26. The Council responded to the complaint in May 2024. The response said there was no statutory completion date for a part six review. It confirmed the guidelines gives a council 56 days. The Council apologised for the delay. The response reassured Miss X it did not ignore her concerns and would respond to her review request.
27. The Council responded to Miss X’s review request at the end of May 2024. The Council apologised for the delay. The Council confirmed the medical adviser stated there was not medical priority. The Council said Miss X needed three bedrooms for her family with three children. The Council said the family had three separate rooms that could be used as bedrooms including a living room. The Council said it had considered all the evidence and decided not to change Miss X’s allocation banding.
28. Miss X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Miss X would like the Council to recognise the family needs and help them move.
29. In response to my enquiries the Council stated a lack of staff caused the delays in this case. It confirmed it has recruited more staff and has changed the team responsibilities and this significantly improved its performance.

My findings

30. 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.
31. I have considered the steps the Council took to assess the housing banding. The Council policy sets out the bandings for medical priority applications. The Council places applications with no priority to move in band D. The Council assessed Y’s medical information, assessed the application and allocated Miss X band D priority in accordance with its policy. The Council considered all information and awarded priority in a manner consistent with its allocations scheme, as it is entitled to do.
32. The Council has followed its policy when considering medical priority. The Council assessed Miss X’s family as requiring a three-bedroom property. The policy confirmed a person who is overcrowded by one-bedroom, which Miss X is, is adequately housed due to the pressures on the Council to provide properties.
33. Miss X disagreed with the Council’s decision, but I am satisfied the Council considered the information and made an appropriate decision. There is no fault in how it took the decision, and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
34. However, the guidance and the Council policy says it should complete a review within 56 days, two months. The Council took 19 months to complete the review. This delay is fault. This frustrated Miss X and caused her avoidable uncertainty.
35. The Council has accepted it could not complete some reviews in a reasonable timescale due to high workloads and low staffing. The Council has shown it has recruited staff and amended its workload and the service has improved its review response times.

Back to top

Agreed action

36. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Miss X by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Miss X for the fault identified in this case. This apology should be in accordance with the Ombudsman’s new guidance Making an effective apology.
• Pay Miss X £250 as an acknowledgement of the frustration and uncertainty the Council fault caused.
• Remind staff of the importance of completing reviews within a reasonable timescale.
37. The Council should provide evidence of the actions taken to satisfy the recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Miss X.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman