Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his housing application. We found fault by the Council that caused Mr X added avoidable distress when he and his children found themselves living in accommodation not suited to their needs. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a symbolic payment of £500 in recognition of the injustice caused by its fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his housing application. Mr X said the Council had not properly considered the seriousness of his family’s deteriorating housing situation and the adverse effect it had on their health, safety and quality of life. Mr X wanted the Council to help him find a suitable and affordable home for his family.

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 Mr X and discussed the complaint with him. I also considered evidence provided by the Council and relevant law, policy and guidance. I shared Council information with Mr X and gave both Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments 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. The council must allocate housing in strict accordance with its scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) and (14))
6. 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))

7. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
8. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:

• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process;
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker; and
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

9. The Council is a partner in a local choice-based lettings scheme named Gateway to Home Choice (‘the Scheme’). (Other Scheme partners include neighbouring councils that, in this statement, I refer to as ‘partner councils’.) The Scheme enables housing applicants to bid for properties, for which they are eligible, when they are advertised. The Scheme gives reasonable preference to applicants in line with paragraph 6.
10. To join the Scheme, housing applicants usually complete an online application form. The Council uses information from the form to assess the applicant’s housing need and their ‘priority band’. The priority bands, which range from Band A to Band F, reflect an applicant’s housing priority. For example, applicants in: Band A have critical or urgent housing needs; and Band B have serious needs.
11. Owner-occupiers and applicants owning another residential property may apply to join the Scheme. If successful, such applicants receive Band E priority, which covers ‘applicants who do not have a housing need’. Scheme housing must be an applicant’s main home. So, Band E applicants will not usually receive a housing offer under the Scheme if they still own their home or are paying a residential mortgage.
12. The Scheme also says owner-occupiers cannot move from Band E unless they meet the criteria for critical or serious medical or welfare priority. In assessing such medical or welfare priority, the Scheme says Council officers will take account of:

• the effect of the applicant’s current housing on their medical or welfare needs;
• whether they can afford to meet their housing needs from their own resources; and
• whether the accommodation they need is available in the private sector.

If applicants cannot buy or privately rent suitable accommodation and they have a serious or critical medical or welfare need, the Council may give them Band A or Band B priority.

13. The Scheme applies the statutory guidance time targets for reviews (see paragraph 8). So, applicants may ask for a review within 21 days of receiving the Council’s written decision about their application. And the Council should complete the review within 8 weeks. Applicants may also appeal the review decision. A senior Council officer will decide a review and an officer of a partner council will decide an appeal.

What happened

14. Mr X had a legal interest in a residential property, which property was home to his children (‘the Property’). Due to a significant change in circumstances, Mr X’s children moved from the Property to live with him. Mr X rented and occupied a one-bedroom flat. Months passed without any clear sign whether Mr X’s children might move back to the Property. Mr X, finding his home both unsuitable for his family and overcrowded, applied to join the Scheme. Mr X also sent the Council information from his children’s schools, doctor and support worker.
15. In assessing Mr X’s application, the Council sought more information about his legal interest in the Property. The Council accepted Mr X’s application and placed him in Band E. In writing to Mr X, the Council said Band E applied as he was a ‘homeowner’. The Council urged Mr X to seek legal advice about the Property if his family needed more space. The Council also provided contact details for its Housing Options Team (HOT), which could provide advice, should Mr X want to consider alternative privately rented property. The Council’s letter also told Mr X about this right to ask for a review and gave an advance apology that it might take more than 8 weeks to respond.
16. Mr X telephoned the Council’s HOT about alternative accommodation to his flat. He also telephoned the Council to further explain his position about the Property and his children’s housing needs. Mr X then wrote asking the Council to review and increase his priority banding. The Council confirmed receipt of the request and said that current workloads meant it was taking ‘a little longer’ than 8 weeks to complete reviews.
17. Mr X continued to contact the Council’s housing officers and sent added information to support his review request. Mr X found the advice provided by the Council’s housing officers unhelpful and expressed his dissatisfaction and frustration.
18. About 16 weeks after Mr X asked for the review, the Council sent its response, apologising for its significant delay. The Council said it could not complete a welfare assessment for Mr X’s case as he had no current housing need. The Council referred to Mr X’s legal interest in the Property and that he should seek legal advice about it providing a home for his children. The Council also referred Mr X to its HOT if, due to circumstances affecting the flat, he and his children risked becoming homeless. The Council’s letter ended saying Mr X could appeal its review decision.
19. Mr X contacted the Council to appeal the review decision. The Council replied saying it would pass the appeal to a partner council for decision. Emails between the Council and partner council raised issues, including about the Property and medical/welfare assessments. The partner council queried the Council’s review response saying the normal procedure was to carry out a medical/welfare assessment to decide if there was a housing need.
20. The partner council sent its written decision to Mr X about 8 weeks after he had appealed. The letter said Mr X had given no reasons for his appeal or why he disagreed with the Council’s assessment of his housing application. The letter referred to what the Scheme said about owner occupiers and the Property. The partner council said there was no information suggesting the Property was unsuitable accommodation for Mr X and his children. And there no information to suggest any legal reason prevented Mr X and his children from living at the Property. The letter said Mr X could continue to bid for a property under the Scheme but was ‘unlikely to be successful’. The letter confirmed the Council had correctly assessed Mr X’s application in line with the Scheme. The letter said, if Mr X remained dissatisfied, he should contact the Council to make a complaint.
21. Mr X emailed the Council asking for details of the person he needed to write to make a complaint. The Council referred Mr X back to the partner council’s appeal letter, saying it would have contact details for making a complaint. The Council then quickly recalled the email and sent Mr X a further email advising him to contact the Ombudsman.
22. Mr X complained to us and wrote to the Council. The letter to the Council said he had complained, in part, because of its failure to explain the appeal procedure. If it had told him to explain why he disagreed with its review decision and or given him an opportunity to provide more information, his appeal might have been successful. Mr X said his family’s housing conditions were distressing and asked that a Council manager consider their case. The Council said housing procedures could be stressful and apologised for any inconvenience.
23. (During our investigation, further unforeseen events took place affecting the lives of Mr X and his children. Mr X later confirmed he would be moving, with his children, to suitable family accommodation.)

What the Council told us

24. A general principle of the Scheme was that property owners received Band E priority. However, Mr X’s case was complex and the family’s circumstances unusual. It had recommended Mr X seek independent legal advice about the Property. With hindsight, it was disappointed it had not quickly talked to Mr X about any long-term plans for housing his children. Neither had it explored other housing options, for which it might have provided support to Mr X or other family members. Such discussions would have clarified whether Mr X’s children should be included in his housing application. (Its view now was they should not have been included as they might not live with Mr X long-term. But, if so, it should have discussed alternative housing options with Mr X.) However, the Council recognised it had not provided an acceptable service to Mr X. The Council explained it had long-standing staffing issues, including long-term sickness and recruitment difficulties, throughout the time it dealt with Mr X’s application. These issues were continuing and had affected the quality of service given to Mr X.
25. The Council recognised that information provided by Mr X with his housing application should have prompted an invitation for him to complete a medical/welfare form. It also accepted it should have considered all available information about Mr X’s application when dealing with his Banding review. It could then have assessed whether Mr X and his family had a ‘critical or serious medical or welfare’ priority. The Council could not explain why it overlooked some of Mr X’s documents during the review and offered its apologies.
26. The Council had also learned from Mr X’s complaint and acted to improve its handling of reviews and appeals. In future it would confirm requests by writing to applicants setting out the review/appeal procedure. It would also confirm that a senior Council officer would review a case and a partner council would deal with any appeal.
27. Despite its view about excluding the children (see paragraph 24), it had reassessed Mr X’s housing application. This was a ‘desktop exercise’ that took account of all the information provided by Mr X. It now considered it appropriate to assess Mr X’s application as Band B priority. It had therefore reviewed the bids Mr X had made for housing in the Braintree area to find out if he had lost any opportunity for a housing offer. The Council was satisfied that, even if Mr X’s bids had reflected a Band B priority, he would not have been offered a Braintree property before March 2025. (The Council had no access to partner council’s information and so could not review any bids Mr X made for Scheme housing outside the Braintree area.)
28. The Council accepted it should have taken a different approach to support Mr X and his family at a difficult time in their lives. Mr X had told it about recent events and that he and children now expected to move to suitable accommodation. The Council said it would continue to provide suitable support to Mr X. It also offered to apologise to Mr X and make a symbolic payment of £500.

Consideration

29. Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider the seriousness of his children’s housing conditions in dealing with his housing application.
30. In responding to the complaint, the Council accepted it should have fully explored Mr X’s housing circumstances and invited him to complete a medical/welfare assessment. And, if his children were included, it should have assessed his application as priority Band B and not E. The Council also recognised there were failings in its review/appeal procedures, including in its communications. The Council therefore accepted the service Mr X received was inadequate (see generally paragraphs 24 to 28). I agreed. There was also avoidable delay in the review procedure (see paragraph 18). I therefore found the Council at fault in its handling of Mr X’s housing application. While recognising the Council’s response to the complaint would be of little comfort to Mr X, I appreciated its acceptance now that things had gone wrong.
31. When making his housing application, Mr X was facing an unexpected and challenging situation, which would likely be stressful. The evidence also showed Mr X’s frustration in trying to secure the Council’s help in providing a suitable home for his children. The Council’s now admitted failures in handling Mr X’s housing application and communications would have caused added avoidable distress at a difficult time for Mr X and his children. I therefore found the fault identified at paragraph 30 caused Mr X injustice.
32. The Council said Mr X had, under the Scheme, mainly bid for housing within its area. It had reviewed those bids and found he had not missed an opportunity for an offer of suitable housing. I had no reason to doubt the Council’s evidence. However, the Council could not review the bids Mr X made for housing within partner council areas as it had no access to the personal data of the short-listed bidders. In considering Mr X’s bids, the partner councils would have been in the same position as the Council, that is, dealing with a newly added housing applicant with a Band B priority. So, bidders with a Band A priority and those placed in Band B before Mr X joined the Scheme, would have greater preference than Mr X. On balance, I found that Mr X was equally unlikely to have missed a housing offer from a partner council should they have considered his bids as a Band B applicant. But, I recognised there might be uncertainty here, which would add to Mr X’s avoidable distress.
33. Events unrelated to the Council’s handling of Mr X’s housing application recently resulted in Mr X and his children moving to a suitable home. So, Mr X had secured the key outcome he sought in approaching the Council and bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman (see paragraph 1). However, that neither detracted from nor addressed the injustice identified at paragraphs 31 and 32.
34. The Council had improved its procedures to ensure housing applicants received more information about reviews and appeals (see paragraph 26). However, the Council said it continued to face challenges with its housing services, including the time needed to deal with reviews. And, here, it took 16 weeks to deal with Mr X’s review request (see paragraph 18). While I recognised the staffing pressures facing the Council, given the time these had existed, I considered a service improvement appropriate aimed at addressing the continuing delays.

Back to top

Action

35. The Council made an offer to put right the injustice Mr X was caused by its failings (see paragraph 28). Having considered our guidance on remedies, I found the Council’s offer proportionate, appropriate and reasonable. So, within 20 working days of the date of this statement, the Council agreed to:

• send Mr X a written apology; and
• pay Mr X £500,

in recognition of the avoidable distress caused by faults in its handling of his housing application, including the lack of clear advice and guidance.

36. The Council also agreed, within three calendar months of the date of this statement, to:

• draw up an action plan with clear timescales for reducing avoidable delay when dealing with an applicant’s request for a review of their housing application. The aim being to ensure the Council can make decisions within 8 weeks of a review request in line with its housing allocations policy.

37. In making the apology referred to at paragraph 35, the Council should consider our guidance on remedies at guidance on remedies. This guidance includes information about making effective apologies.
38. The Council agreed to provide us with evidence it had complied with the actions set out a paragraphs 35 and 36.

Back to top

Decision

39. I found fault causing injustice. The Council agreed the actions at paragraphs 35 and 36 to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman