Summary: The Council was at fault for delays completing statutory reviews of its decisions about Ms Y’s homelessness and housing allocations. It was also at fault for wrongly recording the gender of one of Ms Y’s children. This meant she could not bid for the size of property she needed, which is an injustice. The Council was further at fault for making its offer of a remedy conditional on Ms Y not pursuing her complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payments, backdate Ms Y’s housing application and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on behalf of Ms Y that the Council:
1. delayed reviewing Ms Y’s medical priority on its housing register;
2. delayed carrying out a statutory review of the suitability of Ms Y’s accommodation;
3. wrongly recorded the gender of one of Ms Y’s children, affecting the size of property she is entitled to; and
4. failed to take actions agreed as a remedy to the complaint unless Mr X and Ms Y accepted it as “full and final settlement”.
2. As a result, Mr X says Ms Y remains in accommodation of the wrong size and has experienced avoidable frustration and distress.

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 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 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 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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
6. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. I referred to the Ombudsman's Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
8. Mr X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

9. Ms Y and her children lived in temporary accommodation in 2023 because the Council owed her a main housing duty. She has two children, a boy and a girl. Until May 2024, the Council had both Ms Y’s children recorded as the same gender.
10. In early 2024, the Council offered Ms X a two-bedroom social housing property to end its duty to her. She moved into this property.

Medical priority review

11. Ms Y sought medical priority on the housing register in November 2023. She said the condition of her temporary accommodation was causing medical issues for her and the children. The Council wrote to Mr X in December with its decision that Ms Y did not qualify for medical priority. Mr X asked for a review of this decision.
12. Mr X chased the Council for the result of the review several times. The Council completed the review in December 2024.

Findings

13. Reviews should take eight weeks. The Council’s delay of over 10 months was fault. However, this caused Ms Y limited injustice. This is because when Ms Y moved out of the property in early 2024, the medical issues arising from its condition were no longer relevant. However, the delay caused avoidable distress and frustration, which is an injustice.
14. Mr X says there is ongoing damage to one of the children’s health from the damp and mould in the temporary accommodation. We have already remedied the injustice to Ms Y and her family from living in unsuitable accommodation in another complaint. Any ongoing health matter is more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim and I have not investigated it. It is open to Ms Y to make a new application for medical priority on the basis of the impact of their current property.

Statutory homelessness review

15. Homeless applicants have a statutory right to review councils’ decisions about their cases under s202 of the Housing Act 1996. Mr X asked the Council for a review of the suitability of Ms Y’s accommodation in February 2024. There is a statutory timescale of eight weeks for such reviews. In April, he complained that the Council had not completed the review.
16. The Council acknowledged the review request in mid-April. It apologised for the delay. The Council completed the review in May 2024. It found the property was suitable for Ms Y and her family. But, because of the mistake about the gender of the children, the Council said it would not end its duty.

Findings

17. The Council’s delay starting the review was fault. Once it acknowledged the review, the Council completed it promptly. The injustice to Ms Y from the delay is limited because the review said the property was suitable. However, it did add to the delay identifying the mistake about the gender of Ms Y’s children and caused avoidable frustration. This is an injustice to Ms Y.
18. The injustice to Ms Y is aggravated because this is the fourth time the Council has delayed completing a statutory review in Ms Y’s case and Ms Y has had to complain to us. This caused avoidable added distress and frustration.
19. The Council says it has taken steps to improve its handling of reviews. It now as administrative support to deal with incoming reviews, an extra reviewing officer and is recruiting for a team leader to oversee the reviews process. These changes are welcome.

Wrong gender

20. The Council was at fault for wrongly recording the gender of one of Ms Y’s children. The evidence shows Mr X provided the Council a copy of the birth certificate in 2019, so the Council had the correct information available. I accept that this was a simple mistake in entering the information, but it had significant consequences for Ms Y’s housing application.
21. This is because once her second child was born in 2021, under the Council’s allocations scheme Ms Y was entitled to bid for three-bedroom properties. She missed out on the opportunity to do so, which is an injustice. It is unlikely Ms Y would have received an offer of a three-bedroom property given the demand for accommodation of this size. However, she must live with the uncertainty, which is an injustice.

Complaint handling

22. Mr X complained to the Council in April and May 2024. The Council responded to both these complaints in June. It said:
• It was sorry for the delay responding to the complaints
• It accepted fault for the delay completing the suitability review
• As a result of the mistake about the child’s gender, the Council had not ended its duty. That meant Ms Y’s property would be, in effect, temporary accommodation.
23. Ms Y decided she did not want the Council to owe her a homelessness duty any more. Mr X says this is because of the repeated failures she experienced. They asked the Council if, instead, Ms Y could remain in her property as a permanent offer but bid for social housing of the correct size.
24. In August, the Council wrote to Mr X. It offered £250 as “full and final settlement” for the delays in the review process. It agreed Ms Y could keep her tenancy and make a new application to join the housing register. It asked Mr X to sign a form accepting this offer. Mr X accepted the offer for Ms Y but did not agree that this “settled” his complaint. He said this prevented him escalating the complaint to the Ombudsman and that this was unfair. He asked to progress to stage two.
25. Mr X completed a new housing register application for Ms Y. He asked the Council to consider backdating this to reflect the time Ms Y could not bid for the size of property she needed.
26. Mr X contacted the Council throughout September asking it to progress with the actions agreed in August and acknowledge his stage two complaint. The Council acknowledged the complaint in mid-September.
27. In early October, Mr X asked the Council to consider additional matters as part of the complaint. The Council agreed to this but said it would take it longer to issue the response. Mr X accepted this and asked the Council to also include:
• The Council refusing to take the action it agreed in August to enable Ms Y to bid for social housing
• The Council’s attempt to close the complaint without a proper stage two outcome to prevent Mr X complaining to the Ombudsman.
28. The Council responded to the complaint at stage two in mid-October. It said:
• The Council had offered to make Ms Y’s accommodation a permanent offer “as part of the full and final resolution” it offered. It said that Mr X was “not acceptable to the offer”.
• It was sorry for the mistake in recording the gender of Ms Y’s children
• It had already apologised for the delay carrying out the suitability review. The £250 offered was a suitable remedy, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance
29. In reply, Mr X pointed out that the Council had not considered the additional matters as agreed.
30. In December, the Council activated Ms Y’s application to the housing register. She can bid for three-bedroom properties. Her priority date is the date in August 2024 when she applied.

Findings

31. Members of the public must have unrestricted access to the Ombudsman allowing independent investigation and redress for complaints. The Council required Mr X to sign a form accepting its offer as “full and final settlement” before it would take the agreed action. This meant Mr X understandably believed if he accepted the Council's offer, he could not complain to us. “Full and final settlement” is a legal idea, not appropriate to the complaint process.
32. The Council was also at fault for wrongly saying Ms Y and Mr X refused the offer in August 2024. They did not refuse. This was the result they wanted. They just also wanted to progress their complaint. Not to take the actions agreed because Mr X escalated the complaint to stage two was fault. This suggests the Council’s offer of a remedy was conditional on Mr X not continuing his complaint. The purpose of a remedy is to put right injustice caused by fault, not to pressure complainants not to continue their complaints or deny them their right to complain to the Ombudsman.
33. The Council was at fault for failing to consider the additional matters it agreed to include in the complaint in October despite telling Mr X it would do so. This caused further avoidable distress and frustration.

Back to top

Action

34. To remedy the injustice to Ms Y from the faults identified, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms Y in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology, recognising the number of times she had to complain about the same fault;
2. Pay Ms Y the £250 already offered;
3. Pay Ms Y a further £150 in recognition of the added distress and frustration caused by the Council repeating the same failure in her case for the fourth time;
4. Write to Ms Y confirming her accommodation is an offer which ends its main housing duty to her; and
5. Backdate Ms Y’s priority date on the housing register to the date in 2021 when her second child was born.
35. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
36. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
1. Stop the practice of offering remedies as “full and final settlement” of a complaint and requiring complainants to sign forms which imply they cannot continue their complaint further if they accept; and
2. Share this decision, our previous decisions about Ms Y’s case, and the actions identified with the relevant Cabinet Member or scrutiny committee to ensure democratic oversight.
37. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Decision

38. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman