Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's handling of her housing application, which she said prevented her moving from unsuitable accommodation that adversely affected her health and prevented her family from living together. We found fault in the Council’s handling of the application which caused Mrs X uncertainty. To put matters right, the Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and undertake a further review of her application.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council's handling of her housing application, which prevented her moving from unsuitable accommodation. Mrs X said her home adversely affected her health and prevented her family from living together. Mrs X wanted the Council to provide housing large enough for all her family and suitable to their health needs.

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. 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

4. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council and relevant law, policy and guidance. I also discussed the complaint with Mrs X and, later, shared Council information with her. I also gave Mrs X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement and considered any responses received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Every council that is a local housing authority must publish a housing allocations scheme. The scheme sets out how the council prioritises housing applicants and its procedures for allocating housing. Councils must allocate housing in strict accordance with the scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) and (14))
6. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
7. The Council is a partner in a local choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which are advertised.

Summary of what happened

8. Several years ago, Mrs X applied for and joined the Council’s housing register. The Council placed Mrs X’s housing application in its Band C category finding she had a low to medium medical priority for a move and needed a two-bedroom property.
9. A few years later, a change took place to Mrs X’s household.
10. Mrs X asked the Council to reassess her housing application because she needed a three-bedroom property. The Council reassessed the application but awarded no added priority and said Mrs X’s household needed a two-bedroom property. The Council told Mrs X about her right to challenge its decision.
11. A few months later, Mrs X sent the Council more medical information but it still assessed her application as Band C and a housing need for a two-bedroom property. The Council again said Mrs X could challenge its decision, which she did.
12. Having sought medical advice, the Council issued its review decision (‘the Letter’). The Council said Mrs X needed a two-bedroom property and a three-bedroom property was not a medical necessity. The Council also said it had noted the change to Mrs X’s household (see paragraph 9 of this statement), which had been continuing for some time. And Mrs X would “not be considered for alternative two-bedroom accommodation until” all members of the household were again living at the same address. The Council asked Mrs X to provide evidence when all the household were living together again. The Council said Mrs X had a right to appeal to the courts and also gave her information about the Ombudsman.
13. A few weeks later, the local Social Services Authority wrote to the Council. The Authority referred to its support for reuniting Mrs X’s family and explained why the family’s housing was impeding that outcome. The Authority’s letter set out why it considered the second bedroom in the family’s home was not suitable for the absent family member.
14. Mrs X complained to us saying she had waited many years for a suitable new home. Mrs X said she wanted to reunite her family and referred to difficulties linked to her wheelchair but the Council denied them a three-bedroom home. Mrs X pointed to the Letter but, despite the Council saying it would not consider her for a move, said she had continued to bid for properties.

What the Council told us

15. The Council said Mrs X could bid for any advertised two-bedroom property. It prioritised bids based on the applicant’s housing Band, their registered housing date and their local connection. If Mrs X’s bid was prioritised, it would consider if the property was suitable for, or with adaptations could meet, her medical needs. Mrs X had successfully bid for two two-bedroom houses but it could not adapt them to meet her needs. Mrs X had refused a third two-bedroom property that would have met her needs because she wanted a three-bedroom home. (Mrs X disputed what the Council said and provided copy emails about the offer of a suitable property which she said had been taken from her family.)
16. The Council said it was not aware Mrs X had difficulties involving her wheelchair. It had also received but not acted on an Occupational Therapist’s (OT) report in Spring 2023, which might increase Mrs X’s housing priority from mobility level 3 to 2. The Council said the failure to act on the OT report had not affected Mrs X’s housing application. This was because Mrs X only bid for houses and mobility level 2 properties were usually bungalows or ground floor flats. However, it would again refer the housing application to its medical adviser to consider Mrs X’s wheelchair use and the OT report. It would review Mrs X’s housing band and mobility level once it received the medical advice.
17. The Council said reuniting the family would not justify a higher banding for Mrs X’s housing application. But the Letter (see paragraph 12) had not affected Mrs X’s right to bid for two-bedroom properties. If, following a bid, it could offer Mrs X a two-bedroom property, it would check whether the family were still to be reunited before making that offer.
18. The Council said, limiting her bids to houses and refusing its offer of a fully adapted two-bedroom property meant Mrs X had waited longer than average to move home. (Mrs X disputed the Council’s comments saying she had bid for bungalows.)

Consideration

19. 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 a council 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 the complainant disagrees with that decision.
20. Here, a key issue for Mrs X was the Council’s decision that she and her family needed a two-bedroom property. Mrs X provided information to the Council seeking to show she had a housing need for a three-bedroom property. I considered how the Council assessed the information it received about Mrs X’s housing need and applied its allocations policy to her application. I found no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision that Mrs X needed a two-bedroom property. I therefore could not question that decision however strongly Mrs X might disagree with it.
21. However, in responding to Mrs X’s Ombudsman complaint, the Council noticed it had not properly taken account of an OT report. It also said it was not aware of what Mrs X told us about her wheelchair. These matters might affect the medical priority for Mrs X’s housing application. However, the Council could not take account of matters it was not aware of. But the failure to act on the OT report was fault. The Council said any increase in Mrs X’s mobility priority to level 2 was unlikely to have meant she missed an opportunity to move home. However, there would be uncertainty here for Mrs X until the Council’s further review decision on her application. I therefore also found injustice here.
22. The makeup of Mrs X’s household also became an issue for her housing application. I considered how the Council applied its allocations policy in taking account of the family member not currently living with Mrs X’s family. I found no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision not to award a higher banding than ‘C’ because of the circumstances of that family member.
23. The Council also said the Letter did not affect Mrs X’s right to bid for two-bedroom properties. Mrs X read the Letter differently and understood she could not bid for properties. I found the Letter unclear and could be read as meaning it was pointless for Mrs X to bid until her family were reunited. I saw no evidence Mrs X quickly contacted the Council on receiving the Letter to clarify or challenge what it said about bidding. If Mrs X had done so, the Council might have responded as it did to us: confirming she was entitled to bid and it would check whether the family would be reunited before making a housing offer. However, Mrs X told us she had continued to bid but received no housing offer. I therefore found the lack of clarity in the Letter did not cause Mrs X significant injustice.

Back to top

Action

24. I found fault causing injustice (see paragraph 21) and thank the Council for being open about the OT report and accepting it had failed to act on it. To put matters right, the Council agreed (within 20 working days of this statement) to:

• Send Mrs X a written apology for any uncertainty caused by its failure to act quickly on receiving the OT report.
• Refer Mrs X’s application to its medical adviser to consider the OT report and the information Mrs X has provided about her wheelchair use. The aim of the referral being to review Mrs X’s application and advise her of the review decision, without avoidable delay, on receiving the further medical advice.

25. The Council also agreed to provide us with evidence of its compliance with the actions set out at paragraph 24.
26. We publish guidance on remedies which gives information about apologies. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology referred to in paragraph 24.

Back to top

Decision

27. I found fault causing injustice. The Council agreed the actions at paragraph 24 to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman