Summary: Mrs D complained the Council failed to correctly assess her housing need. I have upheld the complaint because the Council failed to show how it assessed the case. The Council accepts there is fault and will provide a full explanation of its decision to Mrs D, advise of her right to a review and pay redress for time and trouble.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mrs D) says the Council has failed to fully consider whether she is eligible for an award of Additional Preference under the Allocations Policy.

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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have considered the 12 month period prior to Mrs D receiving a final stage complaint response from the Council. My investigation looks at January 2024 through to January 2025.
6. I refer to repairs in the investigation as a background to the case, but I am not investigating how these were handled by the Council. That is because complaints about repairs to a property occupied by a social housing tenant are for the Housing Ombudsman to consider.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

9. Mrs D and her family are Council tenants and on the Councill’s housing register. Prior to 2024 the Council awarded the household cumulative Reasonable Preference on their housing application.
10. At the start of December 2024 Mrs D reported a leak into her home. She told the Council there was ongoing issues with mould and damp in the property. A Council contractor attended the next day to make the property safe. On 3 December the Council told Mrs D repairs to the property would be completed once it had dried out. Mrs D responded the next day. She stated she had endured poor conditions at the property for a few years. She wanted someone to visit her home. She also asked the Council to award her household Additional Preference on her housing application because they were severely overcrowded due to a bedroom not being usable because of the leak and because of damp and mould. On 5 December the Council told Mrs D an Officer could visit or she could provide photographs of the damage to the property for it to assess. The Repairs Team would contact her to arrange an inspection of the damp and mould. The next day Mrs D sent photographs of the property to the Council. On 6 December the Council arranged for a Surveyor to inspect the damp and mould caused by the leak.
11. On 10 December Mrs D told the Council she was concerned the Surveyor would only be looking at issues caused by the recent leak. Damp and mould spread throughout the property and needed a full assessment. She said the damp and mould were impacting on existing medical conditions of family members. Mrs D asked the Council to award her Additional Preference. The Council replied that day. It stated that based on current information the award of Reasonable Preference was correct. On 15 December Mrs D submitted a formal complaint to the Council. She said there were unacceptable conditions in the property. She felt an Officer should visit to assess the impact of the housing on her family and referred to health issues being made worse by the accommodation. She wanted the Council to award Additional Preference. In December the Council made appointments for repairs and asked Mrs D to submit medical evidence. Mrs D provided medical information about her spouse in December.
12. On 10 January 2025 the Council replied to Mrs D’s complaint. It said this was a final stage complaint response. The Council stated that based on medical/ welfare reasons an award for Additional Reference was not justified. It did not explain how that decision had been reached. It understood repairs at the property were ongoing. It also gave a link if Mrs D wanted to submit medical evidence.

What should have happened

13. The Council’s Allocations Policy sets out how the Council assesses an applicant’s housing need based on their personal circumstances. Reasonable Preference is awarded to applicants in overcrowded housing. Additional Reasonable Preference can be awarded on various grounds including medical/ welfare need and for applicants in employment. Where an applicant has cumulative Reasonable Preference, this means they have a higher priority for housing than an applicant with only one award of Reasonable Preference.
14. The Council can also consider if an applicant should be awarded Additional Preference. This is given to applicant if their circumstances fall within the Reasonable Preference categories and “there is an urgent housing need which makes it virtually impossible for the applicant to remain in their present home”. Any decision about an applicant’s housing need and priority should be put in writing and include details of the right to ask for a review of the decision.
15. If the Council is told accommodation is unsuitable on medical grounds it can ask for an Occupational Therapist (OT) to assess the property. The OT would produce a report for the Council and set out if any adaptations were needed or whether the property was unsuitable on medical grounds. The Council says the report would inform a decision on whether to award Additional Preference.

Was there fault by the Council

16. There is fault by the Council.
17. The Council accepts the complaint response in January 2025 was flawed. It failed to explain how the decision was reached not to award Additional Preference. It says “a more detailed explanation” should have been provided. It also accepts the complaint response failed to advise Mrs D about her right to a review of the housing application decision and this left her with the impression she had no right of appeal. I agree with those points.
18. The Council had an option to investigate the concerns raised by Mrs D in more detail. She told the Council the condition of the property was adversely affecting the health of her household. There is an onus of responsibility on Mrs D to provide supporting medical evidence, but the Council can also take steps to investigate the matters further. I would have expected the Council to assess whether it should request an OT assessment of the property. The information received from that assessment could then be used to inform a decision on awarding Additional Preference. The Council should now consider what additional investigation is needed to address Mrs D’s concerns and explain the reasons for any decisions to her.

Did the fault cause an injustice

19. The fault by the Council has meant Mrs D was not afforded the opportunity for a review of the decision about Additional Preference in January 2025. Mrs D was caused avoidable time and trouble.

Back to top

Action

20. To remedy the injustice caused to Mrs D the Council says it will apologise and write to her explaining how it reached its decision on the Additional Preference matter. It will also advise Mrs D about her right to request a review of the decision. This is a positive step by the Council. It has agreed to also:
• Pay Mrs D £100 for her time and trouble
• Assess what additional investigation is needed to address Mrs D’s concerns about whether the property is affecting the health of family members. The Council should explain to Mrs D about the actions it will take.
21. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of the investigation ending.

Back to top

Decision

22. I find fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman