Summary: We have found no fault with how the Council handled Mr X’s housing register renewal application. The Council followed correct procedure and used its discretion to Mr X’s advantage.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council handled his housing register renewal application. He said the Council provided wrong advice which meant he was awarded the wrong banding that did not reflect his partner’s medical condition. He said this has left his family in a property that that is too small and where his partner cannot access a bathroom.

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 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 received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

The published scheme

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))

Reasonable preference

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))

Decisions and review rights

9. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:
• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
10. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
11. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

Review procedures

12. 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.

What happened

13. Mr X lives in a two-bedroom council property with his partner (Ms Y) and their children. Ms Y has a medical condition that affects her mobility. The Council awarded the family a Band C priority.

Housing register renewal

14. In September 2024, the Council sent a housing register renewal to Ms Y. The Council deactivated the family’s account while it considered the renewal application. Ms Y chased the Council in October and again in November for a decision on the renewal application. The Council explained the delay was caused by a backlog of cases.
15. Mr X complained to the Council about the delay and the family’s urgent need for a three-bedroom property. He said the family had missed out on suitable properties as their account was deactivated and he could not bid. He also contacted his MP who chased the Council.
16. The Council apologised for the delay. It provided Mr X with evidence that showed the family had not missed out on properties between September and November. The only suitable three-bedroom property was offered a family with Band B priority. The Council said that Band C applicants would only be considered ahead of Band B applicants if the property had accessibility features and the Band C applicant had mobility needs.

Medical need and mobility issues

17. Mr X escalated his complaint. He said he had informed the Council of Ms Y’s deteriorating health and mobility needs. However, the Council allegedly told him not to disclose this information on the renewal form as this would limit the number of properties available to them.
18. Mr X asked the Council why it had not specifically asked for medical information during the renewal process. The Council said that it does not ask for medical information unless the applicant has ticked the relevant box on the renewal form. It said if the mobility section had been completed, it would have triggered the change in circumstances process.
19. As a gesture of goodwill, the Council agreed to consider new medical information as if it had been submitted at the time of the renewal. Mr X and Ms Y shared all the medical information they had as well as photographs of their existing property.
20. The Council assessed Mr X and Ms Y’s renewal application. It decided the family should remain in Band C, with a need for a three-bedroom home. The Council informed Mr X of his right to requests a review of the banding decision.
21. Mr X made a new complaint. He said the housing policy to determine banding was not fit for purpose and questioned the medical/physio qualifications and knowledge of the assessor.
22. The Council explained how it reached its decision. It said that Mr X had answered ‘no’ to the question whether Ms Y’s health and/or wellbeing made worse by their housing situation and stated ‘no mobility issues’.
23. Mr X requested a review of the decision. The Panel determined that there was insufficient evidence to result in a higher band award. The Council acknowledged that Ms Y was awaiting an occupational health assessment. It invited Mr X to submit further evidence, and the Council would fast track and reassess the application. It also offered to send Mr X’s application to another council for a peer review.

My findings

Delay

24. The Council delayed reaching a decision on Mr X’s housing register renewal application. It acknowledged this delay and confirmed that the family had not missed out on any suitable properties while their account was deactivated. I have fallen short of finding fault here. Although frustrating for Mr X, the delay did not cause a significant injustice.

Alleged misinformation

25. There is no record that the Council misinformed Mr X or Ms Y about whether to include medical information during the renewal process. The Council apologised if this had happened and agreed to provide training/information to staff in the customer support team to prevent similar incidents.
26. The Council also agreed to consider the medical information as if it had been submitted as part of the original renewal.
27. Therefore, if the Council provided incorrect information to Mr X, it remedied any injustice by agreeing to consider the information, and re-training frontline staff about the housing renewal process. I have found no fault here.

Banding decision

28. Mr X had the right to review, and he used this. I cannot question the Council’s decision if there was no fault in how it was reached. I have found no fault with the process the Council followed when reaching its decision to award Mr X Band C priority.

Conclusion

29. I have found no fault with how the Council handled Mr X’s housing register renewal application. Although slightly delayed, it followed the correct procedure and used its discretion to consider information Mr X provided outside the renewal process.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation. I have found no fault with how the Council handled Mr X’s housing register renewal application.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman