Summary: Ms D says the Council failed to assess her household’s housing priority correctly. We have found evidence of fault by the Council and uphold the complaint. The Council has agreed to the recommended actions.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Ms D) says the Council failed to correctly assess her household’s housing register priority in 2023.

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. 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

4. I have considered what happened between January 2023 to June 2024.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have spoken to Ms D and considered the information she provided. I asked the Council questions and examined its evidence.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background

6. Ms D, her partner (Mr D) and children lived in temporary accommodation provided by the Council. The property was on the first floor and had internal stairs. The Council assessed the household’s housing priority and awarded then band 3.

Events I have investigated

7. In June 2023 Ms D sent medical information to the Council and asked it to consider if the household had medical priority. She said that mould and damp at the flat affected her children who had medical conditions. In addition, Mr D had conditions that meant he needed to easily access the bathroom. He was unable to do so in the flat because of his limited mobility and stair access. On 7 July the Council referred the information to its Medical Advisor. It asked they give advice on a range of matters including an assessment of future property requirements for the family, how many stairs could be managed, if a certain floor level was needed and if adaptations were required. I have not seen any notes made by the Medical Advisor about how the application was considered or whether the questions put by the Council were responded to. On 21 July the Council wrote to Ms D that it had considered the case and found the household had no medical need and no specific type of property was required.
8. On 6 September Ms D, via a Representative, asked the Council to review her family’s banding and medical need. They referred to medical evidence recommending a ground floor property and medical professionals supporting the need for easy access to a bathroom. On 19 September Ms D, via a Solicitor, asked the Council to review the suitability of her temporary accommodation. The Council replied three days later that she was out of time to lodge the request, but it would carry out a non-statutory review of the accommodation. On 26 September a Housing Supply Officer inspected the property. They noted the family did not use the main bedroom and the room had a “really strong” smell of moisture but no obvious signs of mould.
9. On 2 October an Officer completed a temporary accommodation suitability checklist which forms the non-statutory suitability review. They noted Ms D had reported mould and damp but without “much detail”. The “full extent of the mould and possibly damp must be investigated as a matter of urgency. Upon investigation any mould found will be treated immediately”. They also noted Mr D stated he could not use the stairs to access the bathroom and recommended another assessment of the case by the Medical Advisor “immediately”. I have not seen any evidence of how the case was then referred to investigate the damp issue or sent back to the Medical Advisor.
10. On 30 October the Occupational Therapist was requested to inspect the property after Ms D contacted the Older Persons and Physical Disabilities Team at the Council requesting assistance. On 17 November Ms D complained to the Council about its actions. On 5 December the Council wrote to Ms D with its decision on her banding review. It apologised for the delay replying. It also noted her youngest child was not on the housing application and she needed to complete a change of circumstances form. The Council said it had considered the evidence provided and the family remained at band 3. There was “little evidence” of a medical need to move. On 8 December a report by the Occupation Therapist (OT) was sent direct to the Council. The OT had assessed the property and found the multiple stairs impacted on Mr D’s quality of life. He could not manage the stairs safely and was unable to easily use the bathroom or kitchen. He was also unable to access outdoor facilities and was essentially housebound.
11. On 22 December the Council replied to Ms D’s complaint. It apologised for the delay responding and said that a non-statutory review was still ongoing. On the same day the Council also wrote to Ms D’s Solicitor that it had received the OT report. The “pertinent details” were now in the “hands of the appropriate team” who were “actively managing” the case. I have no evidence to show what was done with the OT report including who it was allocated to or that any action was taken to review the findings until May 2024.
12. On 8 January 2024 Ms D requested the Council review her complaint. She came to the Ombudsman in February, and we asked the Council to complete its complaint review. The Council replied to Ms D on 3 April. It apologised for the initial complaint reply which did not meet its expected standards and had failed to address her concerns. It said that in relation to the non-statutory review on 2 October 2023 a Housing Supply Manager had now contacted the letting agent for the property to check if the damp issue had been investigated. The Council would let Ms D know the outcome. It offered her £100 for time and trouble. I have not seen any evidence of the Council contacting the letting agent or taking any additional action to investigate the damp issue.
13. On 22 May the Council updated Ms D’s housing register application with ‘disabled access’ bidding. It has not explained to me what prompted that action. On 25 June the Council referred the change of circumstances information submitted by Ms D in June 2023 to the Medical Advisor.

Events after my investigation started

14. I sent my enquiries to the Council mid-July. On 22 July the Council changed the family’s banding to band 1. Ms D secured new, suitable, housing from the Council and moved in September.

What should have happened

15. A social housing applicant applies to the Council to join the housing register. The Council will assess their housing need and allocate them a band. The bands range from 1 (highest) to 4 (lowest). Applicants then bid for advertised properties which are usually awarded to the applicant with the highest priority. An applicant can ask the Council to review their banding and decide if they have a medical need to be rehoused. This can be done by completing a change of circumstances form and submitting medical evidence. The Council will ask its Medical Advisor to consider the evidence and assess it. A Housing Officer makes the final decision about whether medical priority applies to the applicant. They should take account of the evidence and whether they consider it shows the applicant’s conditions are caused or made worse by their housing. The applicant can ask for a formal review of the decision within 21 days. The review should be completed within a further 28 days and the decision explained in writing to the applicant.
16. The Council or the applicant can ask for an OT to assess their housing. The OT will send their report to the Council’s housing team, the Council says it should consider the report’s findings within 28 days.
17. For applicants living in temporary accommodation, they can ask the Council to review the suitability of that accommodation. Requests made after 21 days of the temporary accommodation being offered are classed as ‘out of time’ and are dealt with as a non-statutory review. An Officer will assess the information provided and reach a decision. They may complete a temporary accommodation suitability checklist as part of that process.

Was there fault by the Council

18. There is significant fault in this case.
19. The Council failed to progress the information received in the OT report from early December 2023 until July 2024. The OT report clearly showed Ms D had been correct in stating her partner was severely impacted by their current accommodation and had been left, effectively, housebound and unable to easily access the bathroom. I have no evidence to show Ms D’s banding was reconsidered until 22 July, shortly after the Ombudsman’s investigation started. That is a period of more than seven months.
20. I also have concerns about the lack of action regarding assessment of the alleged damp/ mould issue at the property. The Council told Ms D in its complaint response in April 2024 that it had contacted the letting agent to check if the matter had been investigated and would update her. I have seen no evidence any contact being made or any updates provided to Ms D. Indeed, the only actions in respect of damp/ mould are the Council’s site visit in September 2023 where no visible mould was found. Soon after that on 2 October the Council noted the “full extent of the mould…must be investigated as a matter of urgency”. I have no evidence to show there was a follow-up to this. When I asked the Council about the lack of action it told me that damp was referred to in the April 2024 complaint response “but not actively reviewed” and the Council does “not have the resources for each case to be…consistently checked”. This does not accord with the duties of the Council as the provider of Ms D’s temporary accommodation where it has a requirement to ensure she is in accommodation that is not in need of significant repair (including damp). In addition, it contradicts what the Council itself told Ms D in its complaint response, namely that it was looking into the matter.
21. I also have not seen evidence of the Medical Advisor assessment or response to the 7 July 2023 referral. As such I cannot say with any certainty whether the correct process was followed for that assessment or whether the points flagged up by the Council were considered.
22. The Council also delayed at various points during this process. There was delay in its complaint responses and the initial response failed to address any of the points raised by Ms D. The second complaint reply did pick up on some issues but still failed to note the key error about the OT report not being progressed which I find a serious omission.

Did the fault cause an injustice

23. I have considered whether the period of delay where the Council failed to award band 1 status, from December 2023 to July 2024, meant Ms D lost an opportunity to successfully bid for a new home. The evidence shows me that, had the fault not occurred, Ms D could have successfully bid for and secured a suitable property in January 2024. That means her family had to remain in unsuitable accommodation for eight months longer than necessary.

Back to top

Agreed action

24. I welcome the Council took action once it recognised some errors in July 2024, it corrected the banding and backdated the award date. I also see the Council previously offered £100 for time and trouble caused by its poor initial complaint response. The Council agreed to pay Ms D £2,000 for the eight months she had to remain in unsuitable accommodation. That sum takes account of the impact on the household.
25. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed the investigation and upheld the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman