Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his housing register application. The Council has agreed to take appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had not properly considered his application for medical priority. He says the Council did not obtain a report from his landlord to show how often the lift in his building breaks down, so it could not properly assess the impact of this. He also says it dismissed concerns by an occupational therapist (OT) who carried out an assessment at home and his social worker.
2. Mr X says, as a result of Council failings, he is housebound and that, without medical priority, he will remain in unsuitable housing for many years.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. 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
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

6. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Homelessness

9. Mr X is currently living in temporary accommodation provided by the Council, with his son, Mr Y, who is his full-time carer. As it is a one bedroom property, Mr X is using the bedroom and Mr Y is sleeping in the living room. The Council said it had not received a request for a statutory review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation. However, an occupational therapist (OT) reviewed the information the Council held in October 2024 and said the property was suitable temporary accommodation. They recorded Mr X:
• Mr X was not household because he was able to attend weekly worship with his local faith community;
• Mr X was supervised when using the balcony and used a chair so he was not leaning on it;
• Mr X would not be able to use the stairs, but they could not assess the frequency of lift breakdowns as the landlord had not provided the report they asked for and which had delayed completion of the assessment from early June 2024;
• Whilst the social worker said it was not appropriate for Mr Y to use the living room as a bedroom, this was permitted in temporary accommodation.
10. The assessment concluded the temporary accommodation was suitable. It is not our role to say whether this decision was correct. Unless there was fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
11. The OT considered the concerns Mr X and the professionals raised and explained their reasons for deciding the accommodation was suitable. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify further investigation.
12. In any case, Mr X has the right to ask the Council for a statutory review of the suitability of his temporary accommodation. If he disagrees with the outcome of that review, he can appeal to the county court on a point of law. It is reasonable for him to exercise those rights, particularly given we cannot comment on the decision in the absence of fault in the decision-making process.

Housing register application

13. The law says councils must allocate social housing in line with their published scheme.
14. When the Council accepted it owed Mr X a main homelessness duty in 2021, it also accepted him on to its housing register. At the time, it placed him in band 2B. Its published scheme says it will award band 2B if it has accepted the applicant has a housing need, but they have not satisfied the residency requirement.
15. In August 2023, it awarded band 2A because he now had three years’ residence in its area. It did not issue a formal decision to that effect, which means Mr X was not told he could ask for a review of that decision. We cannot say whether Mr X would have asked for a review if he had been told he could do so at the time, but the Council’s decisions in 2021 and 2023 appear to be in line with its published scheme. Given the lapse of time, and the fact that Mr X’s circumstances have since changed, it is too late for us to investigate any complaint about the priority band awarded in 2021 and 2023 further because we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome.
16. In 2024, Mr X asked the Council to add Mr Y to his housing register application as, by that time, Mr Y had moved in and had become his full-time carer. The OT assessment in October 2024, referred to above, confirmed Mr X needed two bedrooms because he needed 24 hour care. They also recommended he needed a ground floor property if there was no lift or, if there was a lift, a property no higher than the second floor. The Council has added Mr Y to the application and confirmed Mr X needs two bedrooms.
17. In his complaint, Mr X asked the Council to award band 1 priority, based on his medical needs. In its stage 2 complaint response, the Council confirmed it had considered all the circumstances and band 2A was appropriate. It did not address the request for band 1 priority.
18. Its published scheme says band 1 priority can be awarded where an applicant has a severe long-term life limiting illness or permanent and substantial disability where their quality of life is severely affected by their current housing. This includes situations where an applicant is effectively housebound or where there are critical concerns about safety, for example, through falls due to difficulties with access. Although the OT assessment does state Mr X is not considered housebound, it does record that he cannot manage stairs, and that Mr X reported the lift was frequently out of order.
19. If we were to investigate further, it is likely we would find the Council at fault for not explaining its reasons for deciding Mr X does not meet the criteria for band 1. This has caused Mr X an injustice because he is left with some uncertainty about whether the Council has properly considered this.
20. Therefore, we asked the Council to take appropriate steps to remedy the injustice and it has agreed to take the following action within two months of the date of this decision:
• Apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice; and
• Carry out a review of Mr X’s housing register application and write to him with its reasons. If it decides the application has not met the criteria for band 1, it should explain its reasons. If it decides the application does meet the criteria for band 1, it should backdate that priority to 4 June 2024, which is when it had all the information needed for the OT assessment.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will have upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his housing register application. The Council has agreed to take appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman