Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council housed her and handled her housing application. She said it affected her mental health and money, and made her feel distressed and uncertain. We find the Council at fault and this caused injustice. The Council will say sorry. The Council already offered Miss X a payment. The Council will keep that offer open to Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the way the Council handled her housing needs. Specifically, she complained the Council:
1. housed her in a property which was unsuitable for her for medical reasons, and she could not afford it;
2. delayed making a decision about her housing application; and,
3. delayed looking at her medical information.
2. Miss X said she had to take time off work. She said it had an effect on her mental health and money. She said it made her feel distressed and uncertain which was not necessary and could have been avoided.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also think about whether any fault has had a negative effect 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)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or what it says it will do, we can finish our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers and the limits of what we can investigate.
6. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. Miss X complained the Council housed her in a property which was unsuitable for her for medical reasons, and she could not afford it (part a of the complaint). She said the property was unsuitable from 2018 onwards.
8. Miss X complained to us in 2024.
9. As I have said above (see paragraph six) we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. I have decided there are no good reasons for us to use our powers and investigate that far back. So, I have not investigated part a of the complaint.
10. I have investigated parts b and c.

Back to top

How I thought about this complaint

11. I thought about the information provided by Miss X and the Council. I spoke to Miss X. Miss X and the Council were able to comment on an earlier draft of this decision. I thought about all comments I received before I reached a final decision.
12. I thought about the law, legal guidance, and policies, which I have set out below. I also thought about our guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

13. The law says councils must make sure all housing they provide to eligible people is suitable for their needs. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
14. We think councils should make decisions on people’s housing applications within eight weeks of having all the information they need to make that decision.
15. The Council’s policy says it will not normally offer a new tenancy to people on the housing register who owe rent.
16. The policy also says the Council can offer a new tenancy to people who owe more than four weeks’ rent if they need to move urgently because of a medical problem.

What happened

17. In summer 2023, Miss X applied to the Council for help with housing. The Council asked her for more information. Miss X gave the Council that information.
18. In March 2024, Miss X complained the Council had not done anything about her application.
19. The Council decided Miss X was eligible for help. It said it would assess Miss X in April.
20. In May, Miss X told the Council it had not done the assessment in April. The Council said it would assess her later in May, and it did. Miss X also gave the Council medical information.
21. The Council told Miss X it was a mistake that it had not assessed her in April. It said it did not contact her when it should have. It said it did not send her the letters it should have.
22. The Council said these mistakes meant Miss X was distressed and uncertain. It offered her £400.
23. A few months later, the Council said it did not do any work on Miss X’s application between September 2023 and March 2024. It also said it did not look at her medical information between May and October 2024.
24. The Council said it had now looked at Miss X’s medical information and decided she should be in a higher band. The Council said it should have put her in this band in November 2023, so it made sure the Council’s system showed she got that band in November 2023.
25. The Council said it did not think Miss X missed out on permanent housing between May and October. The Council said it delayed working on her application and thinking about her medical information. The Council said if it had not delayed, it would have decided earlier that her property was not suitable for her for medical reasons. The Council said it was possible Miss X could have got a property by now.
26. The Council said the delays meant Miss X was distressed and anxious. The Council offered Miss X £1650 (on top of the earlier £400 offer) because she was distressed and uncertain, and because she might have missed out on a suitable property.

Analysis

Housing application

27. Miss X complained the Council delayed making a decision about her housing application (part b of the complaint).
28. The Council said it did not work on Miss X’s application between September 2023 and March 2024. This delay of six months is fault.
29. The Council said the delay meant Miss X was distressed and uncertain, and she might have missed out on a property that was suitable for her. I agree. The distress and uncertainty were not necessary and could have been avoided. This is injustice.

Medical evidence

30. Miss X complained the Council delayed looking at her medical information (part c of the complaint).
31. The Council said it did not look at Miss X’s medical information between May and October 2024. We think councils should make decisions about applications within eight weeks of getting the information they need to make that decision. So, we think the Council should have made a decision about Miss X’s medical information in July. The Council made a decision in October. This is a delay of three months which is fault.
32. The Council said it did not think Miss X missed out on getting permanent housing between May and October. The Council told me it decided this because Miss X owed rent, and its policy says it will not normally offer a new tenancy to people who owe rent.
33. I find the Council was wrong to only use one part of its policy and not the other part. The other part says the Council can offer a new tenancy to people who owe more than four weeks’ rent if they need to move urgently because of a medical problem. This was relevant in Miss X’s case.
34. The Council told me it had looked again at this decision because it did not think about the other part of its policy before. The Council has now changed its mind and offered Miss X a property.
35. The Council said the delay looking at Miss X’s medical information meant she was distressed and uncertain, and she might have missed out on a property that was suitable for her. I agree. The distress and uncertainty were not necessary and could have been avoided. This is injustice.

Back to top

Action

36. The Council offered Miss X £1650 and £400. This is £2050. The Council said it offered this amount because the delays meant Miss X was distressed and uncertain, and because she might have missed out on a suitable property.
37. I have thought about our guidance on remedies. This says up to £500 is a suitable payment for distress and uncertainty which is not necessary and could have been avoided.
38. I have decided that £450 is suitable for the distress and uncertainty from the six-month delay working on Miss X’s application. This is a higher payment because of how long the Council failed to work on her application.
39. I have decided that £250 is suitable for the distress and uncertainty from the three-month delay looking at Miss X’s medical information. This is a lower payment because it was not as long as the other delay.
40. Miss X might have missed out on a suitable property for nine months (the six months delay working on her application and the three months delay looking at her medical information). Our guidance says a suitable payment for having to live in an unsuitable property because of a council’s mistakes is between £150 and £350 per month.
41. I have thought about Miss X’s living conditions and her family, and I have decided that £150 per month is suitable in this case.
42. £150 per month multiplied by nine months is £1350.
43. So, £450 plus £250 plus £1350 is £2050.
44. The Council has already offered Miss X £2050. The Council’s offer is in line with our guidance on remedies. So, I have decided this is a suitable offer.
45. The Council has agreed to keep this offer open to Miss X. It is her choice if she wants to accept it or not.
46. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to say sorry to Miss X in writing for her distress and uncertainty.
47. Our guidance on remedies is online. This says how we expect councils to say sorry properly. The Council should think about this guidance when it says sorry to Miss X.
48. The Council should give us proof it has said sorry and kept the offer of £2050 open to Miss X.

Back to top

Decision

49. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman