Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the priority the Council awarded to a housing register application. We have upheld parts of the complaint, and the Council has agreed to take appropriate action. It would therefore not be proportionate to investigate.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council awarded her the wrong housing register priority. She said it failed to properly consider the supporting information she had provided around her family’s medical needs and anti-social behaviour (ASB) they had experienced. She said that had left the family living in an unsuitable property; she said that was impacting on her mental health. She wants the Council to increase the priority awarded.

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 of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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
• we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) (7), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss X approached the Council in 2019 for housing support after she became homeless. The Council accepted the main housing duty and placed her in temporary accommodation. In 2021, the Council discharged that duty after Miss X accepted a tenancy for a housing association property. Miss X asked the Council to review the suitability of that property. The Council refused; it said Miss X made that review request late. Any complaint Miss X has about how the Council dealt with her review request in 2021 is late and we will not investigate. That is because we expect a person to bring a complaint to us within twelve months of becoming aware of a matter. Miss X did not complain to the Ombudsman until August 2024. There is no good reason to exercise discretion and consider this complaint now.
9. Miss X made a new housing register application in 2023. She said she needed to move because of ASB from neighbours and medical need. The Council awarded Miss X priority Band C based on medical need.
10. Miss X asked the Council to review its banding decision in June 2024. The Council’s review upheld its initial banding decision. Following this, Miss X complained to the Ombudsman about the outcome of her review. The Council asked for the opportunity to investigate Miss X’s concerns. It took the Council six months to provide a response to her complaint. In that response, the Council set out why its banding decision remained correct.
11. If we were to investigate this complaint, it is likely we would find fault with the Council for the following reasons:
• The Council’s banding review outcome letter issued in August 2024, did not set out how it made the original banding decision, or how it decided that decision was correct. There was no evidence of any consideration of medical needs. That is not in line with the homelessness code of guidance (2018).
• The banding review decision incorrectly stated Miss X had appeal rights to the County Court on the Council’s banding decision.
• It took six months for the Council to respond to Miss X’s complaint about the banding decision.
12. However, there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council awarded Miss X’s priority banding to justify our involvement. The Council’s allocations policy states applicants’ medical conditions are required to be “life threatening” or “terminal” to be awarded Band A. There is no medical award in Band B. There is nothing to suggest Miss X or her family have a life threatening or terminal diagnosis. The Council has awarded Band C based on her need to move on medical grounds.
13. The Council also considered Miss X’s concern about ASB. It sought information from Miss X’s housing association, the Police and considered the outcome of an Anti-Social Behaviour review. The Council did not consider there were any current risks to Miss X. It said if Miss X provided new information, it would review its decision.
14. The Council has considered information from the agencies involved with Miss X, its allocations policy and information from Miss X. It followed the appropriate procedures when making this decision, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Agreed action

15. Where we have identified possible fault, the Council agreed to resolve Miss X’s complaint by taking the following action within four-weeks of our final decision.
• Remind housing decision reviewing officers to:
1. Ensure reasons for their decision are included in the review in line with the statutory guidance.
2. Ensure they direct housing applicants to the correct process to challenge a banding decision in line with the Council’s Allocations Policy.
• Apologise to Miss X, in line with our Guidance Guidance on remedies - Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, for the delay in progressing her stage one complaint and make her a symbolic payment of £150 for avoidable uncertainty caused by the review response and the delay in the complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman