Summary: Ms Y complains about the handling of Mr X’s homeless application. She says caused unnecessary distress which significantly impacted Mr X’s emotional wellbeing. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault which caused injustice to Mr X and Ms Y. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X and Y.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homeless application. Specifically she complains the Council:

1. Wrongly decided Mr X was not being evicted in 2023 and did not properly consider her appeal;
2. Wrongly assessed Mr X’s housing register application;
3. Communicated with her poorly; and
4. Handled her complaint poorly.

2. Ms Y says this caused unnecessary and avoidable uncertainty and distress to her and Mr X, and Mr X’s emotional wellbeing has significantly deteriorated as a result.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. Ms Y has not yet made a complaint to the Council about the delay in processing her appeal. I consider it is reasonable for Ms Y to make this complaint to the Council to give it the opportunity to investigate and reply. As I have said above, we cannot investigate matters which have not completed the Council’s complaint process where it is reasonable to do so.
7. Therefore, I have not considered part a of the complaint.
8. I have only considered parts b, c and d of the complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered the information and documents provided by Ms Y and the Council. Ms Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I have considered all comments received before making this final decision.
10. I also considered the relevant statutory guidance, and Council’s policy, as set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Housing allocation (part b of the complaint)

11. The regulations governing housing allocations in England are set out in the Housing Act 1996. The law says every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme.
12. The Council’s policy says bands B1 and B2 are for applicants with reasonable preference who the Council must prioritise for housing. It says applicants in these bands are housed in date order from when the priority was awarded. It says Band B1 is for households who fall within a priority category and meet the five year residency qualification. It says Band B2 is for households who fall within a priority category but do not meet the five year residency qualification. It says Band B1 applicants will be shortlisted before Band B2 applicants.
13. It is the council’s responsibility to consider all relevant information in its decision whether to allocate a property. Councils should not rely solely on the view of a medical assessor.
14. The Council’s policy says in allocating properties, it allows one bedroom for:
• Any other adult aged 16 or over; and
• A carer (or team of carers) providing overnight care.

Complaint handling (part d of the complaint)

15. The Council’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage one complaints within five working days. It says it will respond to the complaint within 10 working days of its acknowledgement.
16. It says it will acknowledge stage two complaints within five working days. It says it will respond to the complaint within 20 working days of its acknowledgement.

What happened

17. Mr X has several health conditions.
18. Prior to October 2023, Mr X joined the housing register. The Council allocated him priority Banding B2 and decided he could bid on eligible one-bedroom properties.
19. In November, Ms Y requested a review of the banding and bedroom allocation the Council gave Mr X.
20. In February 2024, in its review outcome letter, the Council told Mr X that he would meet its five-year residency requirement in September 2028 and is not eligible for a higher priority banding until then. The Council did not consider Ms Y’s review request of Mr X’s bedroom allocation.
21. In May, Ms Y made the stage one complaint to the Council about its assessment of Mr X’s housing application. The day afterwards, the Council acknowledged her complaint.
22. In June, in its stage one complaint response, the Council told Ms Y it had made an error in its case review letter. It told Ms Y that Mr X could join the main housing register in June 2025, not September 2028. It apologised for its mistake.
23. In July, Ms Y escalated her complaint to stage two. She told the Council the information the medical assessor relied on to advise the Council about Mr X’s medical needs was incorrect.
24. In September, Ms Y told the Council Mr X was going to be evicted. Ms Y told the Council Mr X’s health would deteriorate if he was placed in temporary accommodation. The Council accepted the prevention duty
25. In early October, the Council acknowledged Ms Y’s stage two complaint. The same day, it allocated Mr X’s case to a housing officer.
26. The day afterwards it issued its stage two complaint response. It did not uphold Ms Y’s complaint. It told her it closed Mr X’s homeless application. It told her if she wished to submit more information to support Mr X’s application she could do so. It also told her it would refer Mr X for another medical assessment. The same day, the homelessness team contacted Mr X for a homelessness assessment.
27. In late October, the Council decided Mr X met the criteria for additional preference priority and it would make him a direct offer of accommodation.
28. In November, the Council decided Mr X needed a two-bedroom property because he needed an overnight carer. It told Mr X that it would actively search for a suitable property and make him a direct offer. It told him this would not be immediate. It told him if he declined the offer, its duty to house him would end.
29. In January 2025, the Council made Mr X a direct offer of a two-bedroom property with the tenancy available to start in March.

Analysis

Housing allocation (part b of the complaint)

30. The Council initially allocated Mr X to Band B2 because it decided Mr X met the reasonable preference criteria and had not resided in the borough for five years. The Council considered Mr X’s address history in its decision. I am satisfied the Council made this decision in line with its policy and so find no fault in its decision.
31. The Council initially decided Mr X had a need for one bedroom property. The Council did not consider Ms Y’s request for it to review the bedroom entitlement in November 2023. The Council decided Mr X was entitled to a two-bedroom property in November 2024. The information the Council considered to make this decision was dated prior to November 2023, with one exception of a medical assessment which advised Mr X needs would be met in a one-bedroom property. For this reason, if the Council had properly considered the information available at the time Ms Y requested the review in November 2023, it is likely it would have made its decision to increase bedroom need to two-bedroom properties a year sooner. This delay is fault. I am satisfied that this delay did not cause Mr X to lose out on a suitable property during that time. This is because the average wait time for an applicant to successfully bid on a property is longer than the time Mr X was on the housing register. However, the delay did cause unnecessary and avoidable uncertainty and distress to Mr X and Ms Y.

Communication (part c of the complaint)

32. The Council wrongly informed Ms Y in its review outcome letter that Mr X would have to wait until 2028, rather than 2025, to join the housing register. It apologised for its mistake in its stage one complaint response and gave Ms Y the correct information. This was fault which caused Ms Y and Mr X three months of unnecessary and avoidable uncertainty.
33. The Council apologised to Ms Y and accepted it did not respond to Ms Y’s emails over several months between late 2023 and early 2024. I consider the Council’s apology did not reflect the efforts Ms Y made to contact officers and the avoidable and unnecessary stress, frustration and uncertainty its poor communication caused to Ms Y.
34. The Council also told Ms Y wrong information it its stage two complaint response. I have addressed this matter in the section below.

Complaint handling (part d of the complaint)

35. The Council acknowledged Ms Y’s stage one complaint within one working day, which is within the timescale in its policy. It responded to Ms Y’s stage one complaint within 12 working days of acknowledging her complaint. Although this is two days longer than its policy, I consider the delay is not significant enough to make a finding of fault.
36. The Council acknowledged Ms Y’s stage two complaint 55 days later than the five-day timescale in its policy. This is fault. It then issued its response the following day. The Council’s policy states the stage two response should be issued within 25 days of receiving the complaint. The Council delayed issuing its response by 35 days. This is fault which caused avoidable and unnecessary uncertainty to Ms Y.
37. The Council’s stage two complaint response contained incorrect information, including that the Council had closed Mr X’s homelessness application. The same day the Council sent its response to Ms Y, the Council contacted Mr X for a homelessness assessment. This fault caused avoidable and unnecessary distress and uncertainty to Ms Y and Mr X.

Back to top

Action

38. Within four weeks of this final decision, the Council has agreed tol:
1. provide a written apology to Mr X and Ms Y for avoidable and unnecessary uncertainty caused to them by its delay responding to their review request and its poor communication and complaint handling
2. make a payment of £200 to Mr X to recognise the avoidable and unnecessary uncertainty and distress caused to him by the delay in responding to his review request and its poor communication with Ms Y. In arriving at this figure, I considered our published guidance on remedies. I considered Mr X’s individual circumstances, and that he was allocated a property within the same time frame as if the fault had not occurred. I consider this amount is proportionate and appropriate to the level of injustice caused.
3. make a payment of £300 to Ms Y to recognise the avoidable and unnecessary uncertainty and distress caused to her by its delay responding to the review request and its poor communication and complaint handling. In arriving at this figure, I considered our published guidance on remedies. I considered the level of stress, frustration and uncertainty it caused Ms Y, which was compounded by the number of errors over a prolonged period of time. I consider this amount is proportionate and appropriate to the level of injustice caused.
39. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
40. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

41. I find fault causing injustice. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mr X and Ms Y.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman