Summary: There were avoidable delays by the Council in assessing Ms T’s housing allocation application. This caused frustration and uncertainty to Ms T. The Council has offered a further remedy which remedies Ms T’s personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms T complains the Council delayed processing her housing application for 9 months from December 2023 when she submitted it. As a result, she was unable to bid on any properties. She also complains her daughter’s medical assessment was delayed due to the Council’s failure to process her application.

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 have
• discussed the complaint with Ms T and considered the information she provided.
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents it provided.
5. Ms T and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

6. 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))Choice based lettings.
7. The Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme sets out the rules for qualifying to join the Housing Register, how applicants are prioritised and how the Council manages the allocation of available properties.
8. 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))

The Council’s scheme

9. The Council has a banding scheme which prioritises applications from band 1 to 4. Band 1 is the highest priority and Band 4 is the lowest priority. The criteria for each band is described in the Council’s scheme.
10. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.

What happened
 

11. Ms T applied to the Council’s housing register in December 2023. She lived in a two bedroom flat with her two children, one of whom is autistic.
12. Ms T contacted the Council in March 2024, but it said it had not yet processed her application.
13. In May 2024 Ms T complained the Council at stage one of its complaint procedure. She said it had still not assessed her housing application which she had submitted 6 months before.
14. At the end of May 2024, the Council replied to Ms T. It apologised for its delay in assessing her application and said it would process her application within the next 7 working days.
15. Ms T did not hear from the Council and on 12 June she complained further. She said the Council had still not assessed her application.
16. On 16 July the Council replied to Ms T. It said:
• it had assessed her application on 9 July.
• it had a backlog of applications, and her application had been caught in this backlog. Its target was to assess applications within 28 days, and it had not met its target. It apologised for the inconvenience and uncertainty this caused.
• Ms T’s priority was band 3, and she could now bid for properties.
• it had referred Ms T’s case to its medical advisor to assess her daughter and decide if it should apply a higher priority band due to medical requirements.
17. The Council offered Ms T £160 as a remedy for the inconvenience and uncertainty due to its delays in processing her application and responding to her complaint.
18. In August Ms T complained to the Ombudsman. She said that in addition to the Council’s delay in processing her application it had only just recognised it should carry out a medical assessment.
19. Ms T started bidding on properties. The Council offered her a property after 5 months which she accepted.
20. In response to our enquiries the Council said it should have carried out a review in July to find out if Ms T missed out on any potential offers due to its delay. The Council has provided information which shows that Ms T would not have been successful in her bids if it had dealt with her application earlier.
21. The Council also noted its complaints team had not monitored the progress of the medical assessment after its stage two response. The Council has offered a further remedy of £285 in addition to the £160 it has already paid for the frustration and uncertainty these faults caused Ms T.

Analysis

22. There was fault by the Council because it delayed processing Ms T’s housing application, and it did not monitor actions following its complaint response.
23. I have considered the Council’s offer to remedy the injustice caused due to its faults. It is an appropriate financial remedy for the injustice caused to Ms T. I have not seen evidence Ms T missed out on any offers due to the delay.
24. We note that in response to other complaints to the Ombudsman about the Council’s delays dealing with housing register applications that the Council has taken steps to reduce its backlog. It has created an action plan and provided additional resources which have significantly reduced the backlog.
25. In addition, the Council says it now has a dedicated officer to monitor follow up actions after it sends its stage two complaint responses. This is an appropriate response to prevent these faults affecting other complainants. Therefore, I have not recommended any further service improvements.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. Within one month of my decision the Council will:
• Pay Ms T an additional £285 for its delays and its complaint handling faults.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

28. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy for the injustice it caused. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman