Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his housing register application because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions since December 2023. We will not consider the period from 2020 to December 2023 because the complaint about that is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council delayed awarding band A for medical priority and agreeing he needed an extra bedroom for a live-in carer. He also complained the Council had refused to backdate his application to 2010 and had wrongly placed him in the Council Tenants Transfer Queue, although he was eligible for the Physical Disabilities Queue because he needs an adapted property. He says the Council’s failings have had a significant impact on his physical and mental health, and mean he has lived for longer than he should have in unsuitable housing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to us in December 2024 about events from 2010. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events complained about. Mr X said health issues and a lack of support meant he could not complain earlier, although I note he made complaints to the Council in 2022 and 2023, and he had the support of a law centre from at least May 2022. I have concluded there are no good reasons to consider the period prior to December 2023.

What happened

8. In a complaint response in December 2023, the Council said:
• Mr X’s priority date could not be backdated to 2010. This was because changes to its allocation scheme in 2013 meant that applications with no points were not allowed to stay on the housing register, so Mr X’s application was lawfully closed;
• Mr X was not on the physical disabilities queue because there was no medical evidence that he needed a specially designed or adapted property, requiring features that are over and above those that may be provided in a general needs property;
• it had previously advised him he could make a homelessness application if he considered it was not reasonable for him to continue to occupy his current accommodation;
• it had carried out a review of the medical evidence and considered the advice of the Council’s medical adviser (CMA) and decided that “overriding housing priority should apply” due to the combined effect of Mr X’s circumstances and evidence of falls on the stairs. It therefore placed Mr X in band A, backdated to October 2023 when photographic evidence of falls was provided but with a one-bedroom need, pending a separate review of his bedroom need; and
• it would remind officers of the importance of referring assessments to managers for a discretionary decision where multiple needs applied.
9. In February 2024 the Council reconsidered the application and confirmed an award of band A with 150 points for medical needs. It assessed Mr X as needing one bedroom. It explained Mr X could ask for a review of its decision if he disagreed with it.
10. In April 2024, the Council issued a review decision in relation to his bedroom need after seeking further information from Mr X. It said, it was satisfied Mr X had various medical diagnoses and that he needed support, but there was no medical evidence to show he needed a live-in carer. It therefore concluded he needed one bedroom. It noted he currently had a bedroom for his own use and a living room that could be used as a bedroom for a carer.
11. In June 2024, the Council carried out a further reassessment, following receipt of an occupational therapist report dated May 2024. It light of that report, it said Mr X did need an extra bedroom for a live-in carer. It also said he needed a wet room, level access accommodation, and ground floor housing if there was no lift. It said that, as there was no indication he could not use a lift, where a lift was available accommodation on any floor would be suitable. The Council confirmed Mr X’s application was placed in band A, with priority rehousing status in the Council tenant’s transfer queue, in position 1 in the two-bedroom category.
12. In his complaint to us, Mr X said his application should be backdated to at least 2020, when he first told it about falls on the stairs. He provided an email showing he sent photos showing injuries due to falls on the stairs in 2021. He also provided a law centre letter to the Council in May 2022 referring to him stumbling on the stairs. In its response to my enquiries, the Council said priority rehousing was awarded on a discretionary in line with paragraph 3.8.1 of the Council’s published scheme and backdated to 16 October 2023, the date it received photos of an injury occurring that day. It did not explain why it had not backdated to May 2022 when a law centre reported falls on stairs or to 2021 when Mr X sent photographic evidence of falls.

My assessment

13. We are not an appeal body. Unless there was fault in the Council’s decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The law says councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme. This Council’s scheme includes “access queues” as well as priority bands to manage the demand for social housing.
14. The Council has placed Mr X in its council tenant’s transfer queue. Although Mr X requires level access accommodation and a wet room, he does not meet the criteria for the physical disability queue because he is not a wheelchair user and does not need “specially designed or adapted accommodation” that could not be provided in a general needs property, as the Council explained in December 2023. We will not consider this further because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision about the relevant queue.
15. The Council’s decision letters show it considered all the available evidence at each stage in the process and, given the need for additional enquiries at various points, there was no undue delay in making those decisions. However, in its complaint response in December 2023, it accepted it had not considered exercising discretion to award additional priority due to Mr X having multiple reasons for needing rehousing and it awarded “overriding housing priority” to remedy that. It decided to back-date this to October 2023 and, although it has not explained its reasons for not backdating to an earlier date, this was a discretionary decision that reflects the Council’s assessment of when Mr X met the criteria for priority rehousing and the published allocations scheme does not give any guidance on backdating that priority. Given this, it is unlikely that we would find fault with the Council for choosing that date because we could not say its decision was not in line with its published scheme. In any case, Mr X is now in position 1 for a two-bedroom property, so a further review of this decision is unlikely to benefit him. It is unlikely he has missed an offer due to any fault in the decision to backdate to October 2023 only, because he wanted a two-bedroom property, which was not agreed until June 2024.
16. The Council did not agree Mr X needed two bedrooms until June 2024, after considering an OT report prepared in May 2024. Although its published scheme does not explain when an extra bedroom for a carer will be agreed, the Council’s complaint response and decision letters show it considered his need for care but did not accept he had provided evidence of a need for overnight care until the OT report in May 2024. We will not consider this further because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman