Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed in considering her housing allocation band after she provided new evidence. The Council took too long to consider this, but there was no fault which calls into question the banding outcome. The Council already apologised to Ms X for delays, which is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council delayed in considering her application for a re-assessment of her housing allocation band, after she provided new evidence in January 2024. She also says it delayed in responding to her complaint about this.
2. Ms X says because of this her family remained in unsuitable private rental accommodation and experienced distress. She wants the Council to:
• correctly decide the family’s housing band and apply this in line with its housing allocation policy; and
• pay financial compensation for the distress caused by delays and wrong information.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
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. 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

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council, and relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

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; and
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others.

(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

11. The Council’s allocations scheme has three bands. Band A contains the applicants in the highest housing need, and Band C the applicants in lowest need.
12. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

What happened

13. Ms X has been on the Council’s housing register, in Band C, since 2022. She has previously had other complaints with us about the Council’s consideration of her housing band. This complaint is about how the Council considered an application she made for a re-assessment of her housing band in January 2024.
14. In January 2024 Ms X put in a change of circumstances form to the Council to ask it to review her housing band. She said she had been diagnosed with a new medical condition and provided evidence of this. She also provided updated medical evidence about her children and their disabilities. The Council acknowledged Ms X’s request and told her it would take longer than its usual 28 days to respond to housing allocation applications, because it had a high volume of cases.
15. In March 2024, Ms X complained to the Council because it had taken longer than 28 days to respond to her request for re-assessment.
16. In April 2024, the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint to say it was processing the evidence she had provided and apologised for the delay. Ms X asked to escalate her complaint to Stage 2.
17. In late-April 2024, the Council then responded to Ms X’s request for re-assessment. It said it had considered the new evidence she provided in January 2024 and decided she should remain at Band C. It told Ms X she could seek a review of this decision within 21 days.
18. In May 2024, a charity Ms X was engaging with because of her medical condition wrote to the Council on Ms X’s behalf, with a supporting statement. It asked the Council to review its April 2024 decision because it had not accounted for all Ms X’s medical evidence, and said Ms X’s private rental accommodation was unsuitable for her family.
19. In June 2024, Ms X came to the Ombudsman because she had been chasing the Council about her complaint but not received a final response. We told her we considered the Council should have further opportunity to respond before we would consider it.
20. In August 2024, after further chasing by Ms X and the Ombudsman, the Council issued its final complaint response. It said:
• it was sorry for how long it had taken to respond to Ms X’s complaint;
• it would not comment on the April 2024 banding outcome. Ms X should use the review process, not the complaint procedure, if she disagreed with the outcome; and
• her complaint had been about delays in the banding re-assessment process, and it accepted it was at fault for how long this had taken. It said the delay was due to staff shortages but accepted it should have kept Ms X better updated during the delay and apologised.
21. After the Council’s final response, we began our investigation.

What I have and have not investigated

22. Ms X came to the Ombudsman in June 2024, and we began our investigation in August 2024, after the Council issued its final response to the complaint. Since then, Ms X has had further contact with the Council about her housing allocation. She contacted the Council in September 2024 to ask for homelessness support. She considered it should treat her as homeless because her private accommodation was unsuitable and so not reasonable for her to continue to occupy. In late 2024 the Council considered further evidence from Ms X, including occupational therapy assessments it arranged to consider the family’s circumstances within their private accommodation.
23. I can consider any continuing injustice arising from how the Council dealt with Ms X’s application up to August 2024. However, I cannot investigate how the Council considered new evidence or applications Ms X made from September 2024 onwards. The law says councils must have reasonable opportunity to respond to an issue first before we can consider it. If Ms X disagrees with housing allocation decisions made since September 2024, she would need to seek a review from the Council first. She can also use the Council’s complaints procedure to complain about events since September 2024. If she is not satisfied with how the Council responds, she can then make a new complaint to us to ask us to consider it.

My findings

Housing allocation

24. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide what priority a housing applicant should be awarded. We investigate the processes a council followed, to assess whether it made its decisions properly. We 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 housing allocations scheme. The Ombudsman recognises the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We may not find fault with a council for failing to rehouse someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published policy.
25. When the Council sent the re-assessment outcome in April 2024, it said this was in response to an application Ms X made in 2019. Although this typographical error may have caused confusion, I consider it was clear enough this was a response to Ms X’s latest January 2024 assessment request. The letter listed the evidence considered which included the January 2024 change of circumstances form and supporting medical evidence.
26. The Council considered the evidence Ms X provided in January 2024, and medical advice it sought about her application. It decided the family did not have serious or critical medical or welfare needs causing them to need to move accommodation, sufficient to meet the criteria for Band A or Band B under its policy. I found no fault in how the Council made this decision, which would call into question the outcome. As explained at paragraph 24, I cannot question the Band C outcome simply because Ms X disagrees with the Council’s judgment.
27. The Council took around twelve weeks to respond to the January 2024 application for re-assessment. It says it will take four weeks to respond, so the Council accepted it was at fault because it took too long to consider this. The Council already apologised for this delay in its response to Ms X’s complaint, and I consider this apology sufficient to remedy the injustice caused. The delay did not change anything in terms of Ms X’s housing position, as she remained at Band C.
28. The Council did not respond to the May 2024 contact from the charity on Ms X’s behalf, asking for a review of the April 2024 banding decision. It also did not action the review request when the charity chased this again in July 2024. Ms X had already given written consent for the Council to correspond with the charity on her behalf, so the Council’s failure to follow up on this review request was fault. However, I do not consider this changed anything for Ms X. Under the Council’s policy, any review would have taken 56 days, so should have been complete by mid-July 2024. In late-August 2024, in its final complaint response, the Council directed Ms X to seek a review of its April 2024 decision if she disagreed with it. This should have signalled to Ms X it had not considered a review, and she was still able to request this. Ms X did not request a review. As I explained at paragraph 22, Ms X then approached the service again in September 2024, after we began our investigation, and provided new evidence for the Council’s consideration. Therefore, I do not consider the Council’s failure to consider the May 2024 review request from the charity made a difference to Ms X’s housing situation, so did not cause her a significant injustice.

Complaint handling

29. The Council’s complaints procedure says it will respond within ten working days at Stage 1, then 20 working days at Stage 2. It took 26 working days to respond to Ms X at Stage 1, then 86 working days, with chasing from the Ombudsman, to respond at Stage 2. This delay of around 14 weeks was fault. The Council already apologised for this delay in its response to Ms X’s complaint. I consider this apology sufficient to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Decision

30. I find fault causing injustice, which the Council has already remedied.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman