Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to properly consider the evidence he provided when deciding on his housing application. We find fault with how the Council reviewed Mr X’s application, causing uncertainty. To remedy the injustice, the Council has agreed to arrange a new review.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider his medical evidence and information he provided about anti-social behaviour (ASB) he has experienced when considering his housing application and subsequent appeal. Mr X also says the Council did not give him an opportunity to present his case to the appeal panel. As a consequence, Mr X says he has incorrectly been awarded Band B, meaning he has been unable to move from a property that he says is detrimental to his 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. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr 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

7. 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))
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))
9. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

The Council’s allocations scheme

10. The Council has a banding scheme which prioritises applications from Band A to Band D. Band A is the highest priority and Band D is the lowest priority. The criteria for each band is described in the Council’s scheme.
11. Band A applicants include people who have a terminal or life-threatening medical need or disability which means their current accommodation is unsuitable, or where an applicant is due to be discharged from hospital with no accommodation available to them. Band B applicants include people whose illness or disability is made worse by their current home or where moving to a new home would improve their health.
12. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.

What happened

13. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
14. Mr X made a housing application explaining he wanted to move for health reasons and providing supporting evidence.
15. The Council accepted Mr X’s application and placed him in Band B.
16. Mr X then provided the Council with a letter from his doctor supporting his application. The letter acknowledged Mr X had been awarded Band B and he may not meet the requirements for Band A but said he had complex care needs and would benefit from moving closer to his family. The letter explained Mr X had taken his current property on being discharged from hospital, not realising how far away it was, and he does not get on with his neighbours.
17. The Council considered the letter but decided this was not enough to change Mr X's banding.
18. Mr X complained to the Council saying he believed he should be awarded Band A based on evidence he had provided. Mr X also explained he was bidding on properties when they went live and showing as first in the queue but this number would change by the time the advert closed. Mr X also told the Council he had experienced ASB at his current property but did not go into details on this.
19. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint to explain it had reviewed the evidence he had provided and was satisfied he had been correctly awarded Band B based on his medical need. The Council also explained Mr X’s position in the queue could change throughout the bidding cycle as other applicants either placed or withdrew bids. The Council said it would need further details of the ASB Mr X had mentioned in order to provide further support with this.
20. Mr X asked the Council to review its response as he disagreed with its decision not to award him Band A. Mr X also said he believed he should keep his original position in the queue after bidding on properties.
21. The Council responded to explain it believed it had banded Mr X correctly in accordance with its allocations scheme. It also explained queue positions would change throughout the bidding cycle dependent on other applicants. As Mr X disagreed with its decision, the Council explained his application would now be reviewed by an independent review panel. The Council acknowledged Mr X was now working with its ASB team in relation to the incident he had previously mentioned.
22. The review panel considered Mr X’s case and decided the decision to place him in Band B was correct in accordance with the Council’s allocations scheme.
23. In response to our enquiries, the Council said it could not evidence it had provided the review panel with all relevant evidence prior to it making a decision on Mr X’s case. The Council has offered to complete a new panel hearing for Mr X in order for his evidence to be reviewed before a decision is made.

Analysis

24. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means our role is not to consider what level of priority the Council should have awarded Mr X. Rather, we consider whether the Council decided on his application properly, having regard for the key factors and policies which are relevant.
25. If we consider the Council followed processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Mr X disagrees with it.
26. Mr X applied to the Council’s housing register with a medical priority and provided supporting evidence. The Council considered all the available evidence and awarded Mr X a Band B medical priority need. The Council followed its usual process when deciding Mr X’s application and I do not find fault with its decision-making process.
27. Mr X disagreed with the Council’s decision and provided further medical evidence. The Council considered this against its allocations policy but decided Band B was still the right band for Mr X’s application. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with this decision, but I have seen no reason to find fault with how the Council has considered the evidence he provided.
28. As Mr X did not agree with the Council’s decision, it agreed to pass his case to a review panel in line with its usual process. However, the Council cannot demonstrate that all the evidence Mr X provided was shared with the panel to be considered. This amounts to fault and has created uncertainty around whether Mr X’s review was properly considered, which is injustice. The Council has already agreed to offer Mr X a second review, and I find this is a suitable remedy to the injustice caused to him.
29. Mr X has also questioned why his number in the queue changes between the time he bids on a property and the time the bidding cycle closes. The Council has already explained that Mr X’s place in the queue may change by the end of the bidding cycle due to applicants with higher priority placing bids, or applicants withdrawing their bids. I do not find the Council at fault here.

Back to top

Action

30. To remedy the injustice identified above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions within one month of the date of this decision:
• Write to Mr X to apologise for the uncertainty caused by its failure to evidence all his supporting documents were provided to the review panel. 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.
• Arrange for a new review, ensuring all of Mr X’s evidence is shared prior to a decision being made and write to Mr X with the outcome of this.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find the Council at fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman