Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed processing her housing application, request for medical priority and an additional bedroom. We found the Council was at fault causing Miss X distress and uncertainty. The Council has already apologised and backdated her priority banding. This is a sufficient remedy, and the Ombudsman cannot add anything further.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about delay in processing her housing application and consider her request for additional priority on medical grounds and an additional bedroom. She also says the Council failed to award credit for her being in employment.
2. She says this caused distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. 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

Relevant law and guidance

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; and
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

The Council’s allocations scheme

9. The Council’s allocations scheme has four bands. Band A contains the applicants in the highest housing need, and Band D the applicants in lowest need.
10. Additional priority (insofar as it relevant to this complaint) within each band is awarded to applicants for those who are from a working household.
11. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
12. Applicants can request a review of a decision about priority banding. A response must be given within 21 days.

What happened

13. Miss X is a Council tenant living in a two-bedroom property with her two sons. Her eldest son, Y, requires regular medical attention. In July 2023, Miss X submitted a “change of circumstances” form because she wanted to be considered for a three-bedroom property, so Y could have his own bedroom. Included within her application were details of her employment. She expected to be awarded additional priority in the form of “working stars”
14. Miss X’s application was considered in December 2023, and was dealt with by Officer B. Miss X was awarded Band 4 priority. When she challenged this, Officer B invited Miss X to submit evidence to support her claim for additional priority. Miss X did so immediately. Miss X heard nothing further. This lengthy delay prompted her to file a complaint in July 2024. Upon receipt of the complaint, Officer B contacted Miss X to confirm she was now able to bid for available properties but explained she was unable to locate Miss X’s application and asked her to resend it. Officer B again failed to respond. Miss X made a further complaint in September 2024. In response, the Council acknowledge her application has been mishandled by Officer B and arranged an urgent medical assessment that took place in October 2024. A review of the initial decision determined that Miss X had Band 3 priority for a three bedroomed property. This was backdated to October 2024.
15. Her complaint was upheld. The Council apologised and awarded Miss X £275 in recognition of her anxiety and frustration caused by the lengthy delay.
16. Since bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman, Miss X’s priority has been increased to Band 2. She was not awarded “working stars”. Miss X believes this was because she was temporarily out of work whilst her application was being processed.
17. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquires, the Council explained that Miss X’s Band 2 priority was incorrectly backdated to January 2024. This was due to a “system error”. However, in acknowledgment of the delay she experienced, it did not intend correcting this mistake. It also explained that “working stars” were in the process of being withdrawn from the allocations scheme and there would be no benefit to Miss X to them being awarded.
18. The Council also confirmed, and provided evidence, to show that due to the excessive demand for very few properties, Miss X has not missed out on any housing opportunities since making her application in July 2023.

Analysis

19. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide what priority a housing applicant should be awarded. We investigate the processes a council followed, to assess whether it made its decisions properly. We 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 housing allocations scheme. The Ombudsman recognises the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We may not find fault with a council for failing to rehouse someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published policy.
20. The Council has already recognised the delay in processing Miss X’s housing application, taking four months to carry out an initial assessment and then a further ten months to conduct the medical assessment. This delay is fault and caused Miss X avoidable distress and uncertainty. She also had the time and trouble of submitting two complaints in order to progress her application.
21. The Council explained it was recruiting more staff to deal with the excessive demand on the service.
22. In recognition of the faults, the Council offered Miss X £275, and backdated her Band 2 effective date to January 2024. It also assured the Ombudsman she has not missed out on any housing opportunities in the meantime, nor will do so by not having “working stars”. I will not recommend backdating further because the supporting letter from Y’s support worker was only provided to the Council in December 2024. I cannot say with any certainly that Band 2 priority would have been awarded sooner had her application been processed more efficiently. The Council’s agreement to not correct its own mistake is a sufficient remedy.
23. Overall, I find this remedy appropriate and in line with our Guidance on remedies and the Ombudsman cannot add anything further to this.
24. I do intend making any service improvement recommendations, because of the work already taking place to address the capacity issues within the Council’s housing service.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has already taken action to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman