Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to decide a housing review request within a reasonable timescale. She says the Council’s actions caused her avoidable distress and led to a deterioration of her mental health. We found fault. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and financial remedy to Ms X and to carry out a new assessment of her housing needs.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to decide a housing review request within a reasonable timescale. She says the Council’s actions caused her avoidable distress and led to a deterioration of her mental health. Ms X shares her accommodation with three male flatmates; she says this has caused her to be isolated in her bedroom and has led to heightened anxiety and a negative impact on her mental and physical wellbeing. Ms X would like the Council to reassess her housing needs with consideration to the severity of her mental health condition.

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 X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a previous draft of this decision. I considered any comments received and issued an amended draft decision statement. Ms X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the amended draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

6. 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))
7. 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))

8. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
9. 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.

The Council’s allocations scheme

10. The Council’s allocations scheme sets out how the Housing Register operates, who is allowed to be placed on the Housing Register and how the Council assesses applicants’ housing needs. The scheme says the demand for housing exceeds supply and the Housing Register exists to enable the allocations policy to prioritise those households that are in greatest need.
11. The allocations scheme states there are three Housing Needs Bands; Band A, Band B and Band C. Band A contains applications with the highest priority need, then Band B, then Band C.
12. The scheme says priority within Bands is determined by an applicant’s effective date, which is usually the date the application is received. However, when an applicant is moved from one Band to another, their new effective date will be the date when the change of circumstances causing the banding change is processed and accepted.
13. The scheme says, where an applicant has requested a review, the Council is required to respond to it in writing, within 56 days. This period starts from the date the Council receives the applicant’s request for a review.

What happened

14. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
15. Ms X lives in shared rented accommodation. She has sole use of a bedroom and shares kitchen facilities with three other tenants. Ms X has diagnosed mental health conditions including severe depression.
16. In July 2023, Ms X submitted a change of circumstances form to the Council. At this time, Ms X’s housing application was in priority Band C.
17. On 28 November 2023, the Council wrote to Ms X. It said it had considered Ms X’s application to the Council’s allocation scheme, including her representations, health assessment form and medical records. The Council said it was satisfied Ms X’s application should remain in Band C. The Council gave its reasons for its decision and told Ms X she could request a review of its decision.

What happened next

18. On 10 January 2024, Ms X asked the Council to review its banding decision; she considered her mental health condition fulfilled the criteria for her to be placed in a higher priority band. Ms X provided some additional medical evidence in support of her request.
19. Ms X complained to the Council on 18 April 2024. She said the Council had not contacted her following her review request on 10 January 2024. Ms X provided further copies of her medical evidence and said she had already provided this as part of her review request in January.
20. The Council replied on 1 May 2024. It apologised for the difficulties Ms X had experienced in communicating with the Council and said this was an area in which it was hoping to do better. The Council told Ms X it had passed her review request and accompanying documents to the relevant team. The Council said it would be in touch in due course but said it was processing a high volume of enquiries and was experiencing some delays. It told Ms X that if it decided to place her application in a different priority band, the effective date would be the date when the rebanding was processed and accepted.
21. On 22 August 2024, Ms X provided the Council with additional medical evidence in support of her review request.
22. On 31 October 2024, Ms X escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints process. She said the Council’s letter dated 1 May 2024 told her the Council would be in contact with her regarding her review request; Ms X said she had received no communication from the Council. She asked the Council to review its decision regarding her priority banding. Ms X provided some additional medical evidence in support of her request and explained why she considered her circumstances met the criteria for placing her in Priority Band A. Ms X said she had been living in her current accommodation for over four years, and this had led to a substantial deterioration in her mental health.
23. The Council provided its stage two complaint response on 29 November 2024. It referred to the apology in its stage one response and confirmed it had passed Ms X’s review request and supporting documents to the relevant team. The Council said it had previously received and assessed the documents Ms X submitted with her stage two complaint as part of a housing review in November 2023. The Council said it had considered Ms X’s information and issued a decision letter dated 28 November 2023 stating the banding decision remained unchanged. The Council said as it had previously considered and responded to Ms X’s submission, it had not reviewed its decision further. The Council acknowledged that its stage one response told Ms X it would contact her. It apologised to Ms X for not providing a reply and acknowledged this was indicative of a poor standard of service. The Council said its relevant team had experienced staff shortages which had placed increased pressure on its service levels. The Council acknowledged however that this did not excuse the lack of contact regarding Ms X’s case.
24. Ms X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and brought her complaint to us.

Analysis

25. The Council’s policy says it is required to respond to applicant’s requests for a review within 56 days. Ms X requested a review on 10 January 2024; the Council’s stage one complaint response acknowledged and apologised for ‘communication difficulties’ following this request. It also told Ms X it had now passed her request to the relevant team.
26. The Council did not respond to Ms X’s request of 10 January 2024 within 56 days. This is not in accordance with the Council’s allocations policy, and is therefore fault.
27. The Council’s stage one response said the Council would be in touch with Ms X regarding her review request. Ms X says the Council failed to do this. The Council acknowledged this in its stage two response and apologised to Ms X for not contacting her. The Council’s failure to contact Ms X despite saying it would do so is fault.
28. The Council’s stage two response said it had assessed Ms X’s case as part of a housing review in November 2023; it said the documents submitted with Ms X’s stage two complaint were assessed as part of this review. The Council said it sent a decision letter following this review on 28 November 2023 advising it had considered the information and evidence provided by Ms X. The Council’s banding decision subsequently remained unchanged. The Council told Ms X it had not reviewed the decision further because it had previously considered and responded to her submissions. This relates to the letter dated 28 November 2023.
29. The documents provided with Ms X’s stage two complaint were all dated in July and August 2024. As a result, the Council could not have considered them as part of a review carried out in November 2023. The Council’s explanation for not reviewing the decision further is therefore flawed and is fault.
30. Having identified fault, I must consider if this caused a significant injustice to Ms X. She says the Council’s actions have caused avoidable distress and a deterioration in her mental health. Ms X says her anxiety is heightened and she feels isolated in her own room as a result of having to share her accommodation with three male tenants. Whilst it is positive the Council has apologised for the delay in responding to Ms X, this does not fully address the injustice caused as a result of the fault identified.
31. The Council has previously told us it has seen a significant rise in the number of requests for reviews; it says this is a result of increasing demand for housing assistance and an ongoing shortage of available local accommodation.
32. The Council says it has taken action to improve its housing reviews service and is making substantial progress in this regard. The Council says it has:
• increased its resources by appointing new officers,
• reduced the number of outstanding reviews where applicants have waited between six and 12 months for a review decision by almost 50%,
• reduced the number of outstanding reviews where applicants have waited 12 months or longer for a review decision by more than 50%,
• improved its review response time so that applicants who requested a review in 2025 waited on average 48 days for a review decision.
33. The Council says it projects that by mid-June 2025, it will have no reviews overdue by 12 months. It also projects it will have eliminated its backlog by mid-July 2025.
34. It is positive the Council has taken the above action, and I acknowledge its comments regarding the steps taken to address the backlog of reviews. I have taken this into consideration when making the recommendations set out below.

Back to top

Action

35. To address the injustice to Ms X, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:
1. Provide an apology to Ms X for the fault identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings;
2. Make a symbolic payment of £200 to Ms X in recognition of the distress caused;
3. Carry out a new assessment of Ms X’s housing needs, taking into account the additional medical evidence provided, and providing Ms X with a right to request a review of the Council’s decision if she disagrees with it.
36. In addition, the Council has agreed to take the following further action by 1 August 2025:
1. Provide evidence of the reduced backlog regarding the number of requests for reviews.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

38. I have found fault causing injustice to Ms X. The Council has agreed to take the above action to remedy the injustice identified and I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman