Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council dealt with her housing application and for delays in resolving a system error that prevented her from bidding for properties. We find the Council at fault for delays in the process of assessing Miss X’s application and rectifying a system error, causing uncertainty for Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the way the Council dealt with her housing application. Miss X says the Council has not used the correct priority date, and there were significant delays fixing an issue she had with its bidding platform. Miss X says this means she was unable to bid for properties and remained in unsuitable accommodation, which impacted her physical and mental health.

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 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)
4. 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)
5. 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

7. We cannot usually consider complaints about events that took place more than 12 months before a complainant contacted the Ombudsman. We can only exercise discretion to look back further if there are good reasons to do so.
8. Miss X first contacted the Ombudsman in August 2024, which means anything that happened before August 2023 has been raised late. However, there was a delay in the Council reviewing Miss X’s August 2022 application to its housing register which was not completed until August 2023. Miss X then promptly began pursuing a complaint with the Council. I find the delay here was not caused by Miss X and so I have exercised discretion to look back to Miss X’s application from August 2022.
9. We also cannot usually investigate complaints unless we are satisfied the Council has had a chance to look into them first. This includes events that are linked to or ongoing from the complaint that has been brought to us.
10. The Council gave Miss X its final response to her complaint in May 2024, so I have investigated up to that point. If Miss X wants us to consider events that have taken place since that time, she would first need to raise a new complaint and give the Council an opportunity to respond.
11. Any reference below to events that took place either before August 2022, or after May 2024 are for reference only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Miss 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

Housing allocations

14. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. Councils must make all allocations in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, Section 166A(1) & (14))
15. Councils must tell applicants in writing whether they are eligible for an allocation and any reasonable preference, with its reasons.
16. Councils must also tell applicants of their right to request a review of these allocations decisions. (Housing Act 1996, Section 166A(9))
17. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• Homeless people.
• People in unsanitary, 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))
18. 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.
19. The Council places successful applicants to its housing register into one of five priority groups, with A+ being the highest priority and C- being the lowest priority. Priorities within the bands are then decided on a date order basis. How the Council decides which priority group to award is defined in its allocations policy.

What happened

20. I have summarised below some key events leading to Miss X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
21. Miss X was living in temporary accommodation and applied to join the Council’s housing register in January 2022 so she could bid on permanent accommodation. In April 2022, Miss X also asked the Council to review the suitability of her current accommodation.
22. In August 2022, following a decision on what homelessness duties it owed her, the Council accepted an application from Miss X to join its housing register. At this point, it awarded Miss X Band C.
23. Miss X provided the Council with supporting medical information in March 2023 and April 2023.
24. The Council wrote to Miss X on 14 September 2023 to explain that based on the information she had submitted, she had been awarded a Band A medical priority and could bid for two-bedroom properties. The letter explained it had recorded that Miss X’s mobility meant she could not manage more than one or two stairs or steps.
25. Miss X attempted to bid for two-bedroom properties but was blocked from doing so and reported this to the Council. The Council explained this was down to a system error but said if she saw any properties she wanted to bid on, she could email it directly to register these until the issue was resolved.
26. Miss X sent the Council information about properties she wanted to bid on, but as these had stairs, they were recorded as not suitable for her assessed mobility issues on the Council’s system.
27. Miss X complained to the Council as she was unhappy it had not amended its system to allow her to bid for properties directly.
28. The Council responded to explain it had raised the issue internally and was hoping to resolve this so Miss X could begin making bids. In the meantime, it said she was free to continue providing details of any properties she wished to bid on.
29. Miss X asked the Council to reconsider her complaint as she felt her application had been given the wrong priority and the Council had failed to resolve the issue that prevented her from bidding on properties.
30. The Council responded to explain it had reviewed Miss X’s medical evidence and awarded Band A in line with its usual policy. The Council explained it had recorded medical hardship with eligibility for a two-bedroom property from the date Miss X submitted her review request. The Council accepted there was a delay of around a year in assessing Miss X’s application but explained that even if this delay had not occurred, availability of suitable properties meant Miss X would still not have been successful in bidding for a property to that point. The Council also said Miss X should now be able to bid for properties directly.
31. In response to our enquiries the Council explained that due to the mobility issues recorded in Miss X’s medical evidence, she is only eligible to bid for properties that are on one level, or where the advert stipulates the property has been adapted to meet her needs. The Council explained Miss X would not have been successful in bidding for a suitable property even if not for the delays in assessing her application.

Analysis

32. Miss X applied to the Council’s housing register with a medical priority. The Council reviewed all the available evidence and awarded Miss X a Band A medical priority need for a two-bedroom property. Due to Miss X’s mobility issues, the Council recorded properties with more than one or two steps or stairs would be unsuitable for her unless specifically adapted. The Council followed its usual process when deciding Miss X’s application and I do not find fault with its decision-making process.
33. However, there was a delay of around a year between when the Council accepted Miss X’s application in August 2022 and when it finished reviewing this and provided her with the outcome. This is a considerable delay and amounts to fault which caused uncertainty and distress for Miss X, which is injustice.
34. The Council has confirmed Miss X would not have been successful in bidding for any properties that met her criteria even if it had promptly assessed her application. This being the case, I find Miss X has not missed out on the opportunity to move as a result of the fault. However, I find the Council ought to take further action to remedy the uncertainty caused to Miss X.
35. Miss X has said she believes the Council ought to backdate her priority date to January 2022. However, the Council has awarded this date from April 2022, which is the date it started a suitability assessment. While I appreciate Miss X disagrees, I find no fault with the Council’s decision to use April 2022 as this is the point it would have been aware of suitability issues on which to base her banding.
36. An error on the Council’s systems meant Miss X was not able to bid on properties herself. This is fault. The error was only temporary, and Miss X was able to contact the Council directly to bid to ensure she did not miss out on opportunity. However, the inconvenience and uncertainty this caused is injustice.

Back to top

Action

37. To remedy the injustice identified above, the Council should complete the following actions within one month of the date of this decision:
• Write to Miss X to apologise for the injustice caused by the delay in assessing her application and for the system error that meant she was unable to bid on properties directly. 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 in my findings.
• Pay Miss X £200 in recognition of the uncertainty and inconvenience she was caused by the identified faults.
38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

39. I find the Council at fault for delays in assessing Miss X’s application and for an error that meant she could not bid on properties directly, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to the remedy above, and I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman