Summary: Ms B complained that the Council failed to consider evidence she provided to support her request for additional priority on the Council’s housing register. We find the Council failed to properly assess her housing needs. This caused Ms B frustration and inconvenience, as well as uncertainty about whether she could have moved to suitable accommodation by now if there had been no fault. The Council has agreed to carry out a proper assessment, apologise and make a payment to Ms B. It has also agreed to make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains that the Council failed to consider evidence she submitted to support her housing application. She says this led to her being awarded insufficient housing priority, leaving her in unsuitable accommodation which is negatively affecting her 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. 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 Ms B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Ms B and the Council have 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

6. 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. According to the scheme Band B is awarded where:
• The applicant has been assessed as needing to move to give or receive care that is substantial and ongoing.
• The applicant is ready to move on from supported housing.
• There is an urgent medical need to move.
7. Band C is awarded where:
• The applicant has a low-level medical need.
• The applicant is overcrowded due to lacking one bedroom. An applicant living in a bedsit/studio or house of multiple occupation (HMO) is treated as not having a bedroom.
8. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority. 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.
• Reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

Background and key events

9. Ms B lives in supported accommodation in an HMO. She was accepted onto the Council’s housing register in September 2023, and placed in Band C, due to overcrowding.
10. In October 2023, Ms B submitted a change of circumstances form, selecting ‘care and support’, ‘medical’, and ‘move on from supported accommodation’ as her housing needs. She also provided supporting medical evidence.
11. In January 2024, the Council requested contact details for Ms B’s support worker, which she provided. The Council emailed the support worker in April and again in August, requesting completion of a move on referral form. It did not receive any responses.
12. The Council wrote to Ms B on 5 August 2024 confirming its decision that she qualified for a Band C award. The letter informed her of her right to request a review within 21 days.
13. In September 2024, Ms B complained to the Council about the banding decision. In the Council’s response, it said that it was unable to deal with her complaint, and advised that her only recourse was by way of judicial review. It also advised Ms B that she could contact our office.
14. After we contacted the Council, it acknowledged that its 5 August 2024 decision letter did not clarify which housing needs were assessed, or the outcome of those assessments, which meant that Ms B could not interpret the Council’s decision.
15. It also said that when it responded to Ms B’s complaint, it incorrectly referred to a previous review decision and did not take into account the latest decision which included a right to review. It said that it should have forwarded her complaint to the relevant team to consider carrying out a review.
16. The Council has offered to make a payment of £250 to Ms B in recognition of the lack of clarity regarding the assessment, and its failure to consider carrying out a review.

Analysis

17. The Council took too long to assess Ms B’s change of circumstances form. It took 13 weeks to begin the assessment after the form was submitted on 29 October 2023, and a further 27 weeks to issue a decision. We expect such assessments to be completed within eight weeks. This delay was fault.
18. The decision letter of 5 August 2024 did not explain why Ms B did not qualify for any additional housing priority. This was fault.
19. The Council’s records show that Ms B did not qualify for a ‘move on from supported accommodation’ award because her support worker did not submit the required confirmation that Ms B was ready to move on to independent housing. I have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided that Ms B did not qualify for this award.
20. When Ms B completed the change of circumstances form, she also selected ‘care and support’ and ‘medical’ as her housing needs. The Council’s records contain no evidence that these housing needs were considered. This was fault.
21. The Council’s procedures require it to check whether an applicant who has selected ‘care and support’ has had an individual or carer’s needs assessment. No such checks were carried out. Therefore, my view is that the Council failed to consider whether Ms B met the criteria for a Band B ‘care and support’ award. This was fault.
22. I also consider the Council failed to assess whether Ms B’s medical evidence justified a Band B award for urgent medical need, or a Band C award for low level medical need. This was fault. As a result, I cannot determine whether Ms B should have been entitled to a Band B medical award.
23. When Ms B complained about the Council’s decision, it failed to refer her complaint to the relevant team to consider whether to carry out a review. This was fault. Although Ms B’s request was submitted 35 days after the decision, beyond the 21 days allowed, the Council should still have properly considered whether to accept the late request.
24. The Council’s failings in this case have caused Ms B significant frustration and uncertainty. She does not know whether she might have been awarded Band B if the Council had properly assessed her application. If Band B had been awarded, she would have had a better chance of successfully bidding for independent housing.

Back to top

Action

25. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Reassess Ms B’s housing priority. It will check that Ms B has the same support worker and request that the support worker complete the move on referral form. It will also check whether Ms B has had an individual or carer’s needs assessment and it will consider the medical evidence Ms B has provided. It will then write to Ms B, clearly explaining its housing priority decision. If this results in a Band B award, it will be backdated to 24 December 2023, eight weeks after she submitted the change of circumstances form.
• Apologise to Ms B for the failings identified in this case. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance when making the apology.
• Make a payment of £400 to Ms B. This is in place of the £250 already offered by the Council. It is a symbolic payment to acknowledge the significant frustration and inconvenience Ms B has experienced, and also recognises the uncertainty she has been left with as to whether she would have been able to move to independent accommodation by now if there had been no fault by the Council.
26. The Council has also agreed to take the following actions within eight weeks of my final decision:
• Remind relevant officers to include their reasoning in housing priority decision letters.
• Provide additional training and/or guidance to ensure its complaints officers can identify whether there are any outstanding reviewable decisions before responding to complaints about reviews. Alternatively, it should ensure its complaints officers check with the relevant team.
27. The Council says that while there was a significant backlog in processing housing applications and carrying out reviews, this is no longer the case and it is assessing 95% of housing applications within eight weeks. It has recently agreed to provide evidence of this and so I have not recommended a service improvement relating to delays.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

29. I have completed my investigation and uphold Ms B’s complaint. There was fault which caused injustice to Ms B. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman