The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed in assessing his housing application. Mr X said this meant he was not in the correct priority banding when he should have been. We find fault with the Council for delays in processing Mr X’s application and for how it dealt with his complaint. We recommend the Council apologise to Mr X, make a payment to recognise the injustice caused by the delays, and backdate Mr X’s priority banding.
The complaint
Mr X complains about delays in assessing his housing application. Mr X says the Council’s failure to process his medical assessment on time created a delay in him receiving the correct priority banding.
What I have investigated I have investigated whether the Council followed the correct process when assessing Mr X’s housing application.
I have not considered whether there was fault in the way the Council decided to place Mr X in Band 3. I have explained why at the end of this decision.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council 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 council of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5)) 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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered information he provided. I also considered information received from the Council.
Mr X and the Council responded to a draft decision, and I considered their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Housing allocations 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. (Housing Act 1996, Section 166A(1) & (14)) Councils must notify applicants in writing following an allocations decision and must give reasons for the decision.
Councils must also notify applicants of their right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, Section 166A(9)) An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories: Homeless people.
People in insanitary, overcrowded, or unsatisfactory housing.
People who need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
People who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others.
(Housing Act 1996, Section 166A(3)) The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
The Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme The Council uses a banding system for applicants on the housing register. The Council places applicants in a band based on their housing circumstances and need. Band 1 is the highest priority band and Band 4 is the lowest. The Council’s allocations policy sets out the criteria for the different bands.
The policy: Has a system where applicants choose which available properties they want to ‘bid’ for, with the tenancy going to the highest ranked applicant who wants to move; Says it usually decides priority within a band according to the time an applicant has been in that band; Has a starring system awarding extra priority within a band.
The policy says the Council will decide on an applicant’s priority within 28 days of receiving all the information needed to assess the application. If an applicant wants to request a review of the decision, they must request this in writing within 28 days of the date of the decision letter. The Council will then carry out a review and provide a decision in writing within 56 days of the request being received.
The Council’s complaints policy The Council has a two-stage process for dealing with complaints: Stage 1 – “complaint phase” –officers in the section providing the service complained about will deal with the complaint. The Council will provide a full response within 15 working days.
Stage 2 – “review phase” – if a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of their complaint, they can ask the Council to move it to the review phase. At this stage, the customer resolutions team will carry out an independent review and provide a response within 25 working days.
If a complainant remains dissatisfied at the end of the Council’s two-stage process, they can refer their complaint to the Ombudsman.
What happened Mr X submitted a housing application, asking for a medical assessment, on 24 March 2020.
An officer at the Council logged Mr X’s application on 26 March but left the Council shortly after and the application was not passed on to anyone else.
Mr X contacted the Council in November to find out what was happening with his application. The Council apologised for the delay and asked Mr X to provide supporting medical evidence.
Mr X emailed the Council on 7 December to provide his medical evidence but did not receive a response.
On 11 January 2021 Mr X emailed the Council to make a complaint. Mr X explained: He had made his housing application in March 2020 but received no replies.
When he did manage to talk to someone in November 2020, he was told his application would be marked as urgent but there was still no progress.
He did not feel safe as a Council tenant and felt the Council was not taking his situation seriously.
The delays were causing him huge amounts of distress and anxiety.
He wanted an apology, an explanation for the delay, to know when he could expect a decision, additional time on the housing register, and for the Council to take action to avoid this happening to anyone else.
The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 25 January. It: Apologised for failing to complete Mr X’s application.
Explained Mr X’s application had been processed on 26 March 2020 but not picked up by anyone else when the officer dealing with it left the Council.
Requested Mr X submit supporting documents to complete his application and have his case fully assessed.
Confirmed it had a handover process in place when officers leave to avoid a repeat of this situation in future.
Mr X provided the supporting evidence he had been asked for on 29 January. Mr X also asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two of its process. Mr X explained he had already submitted the medical evidence that had been requested and wanted further clarity on his complaint.
The Council marked Mr X’s application as a priority and completed a medical assessment on 1 February which resulted in Mr X being placed in Band 4.
As Mr X disagreed with the outcome of the assessment, he asked for this to be looked at again. Another medical assessment was completed on 10 March but this again resulted in Mr X being placed in Band 4.
Mr X wrote to the Council on 25 March to ask for a review of its decision and for it to explain why he was placed in Band 4 despite the evidence he had submitted. His MP also contacted the Council to ask for further clarity on its decision.
The Council’s review should have been completed within 56 days – meaning by 20 May. This did not happen.
The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at stage two on 9 July. It explained: It had found there had been numerous delays in completing Mr X’s medical assessment, in logging a review of the assessment, and notifying Mr X of the outcome.
It also found there was a delay in escalating Mr X’s complaint.
The housing team was currently reviewing the outcome of Mr X’s medical assessments and would provide a response by 12 July 2021. Any medical priority found would then be backdated to the appropriate date.
The Council apologised to Mr X for the frustration and inconvenience caused to him and offered £385 in recognition of this.
Mr X could refer his complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman if he remained unhappy.
The Council carried out a medical assessment for Mr X on 11 January 2022. Mr X provided supporting evidence of his change in medical circumstances which the Council had not previously asked for, and he was placed in Band 3.
Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in February 2022.
The Council wrote to Mr X on 10 June to respond to the review he had requested on 25 March 2021. The Council: Apologised for the delay in replying.
Acknowledged Mr X’s application had recently been reassessed and placed in Band 3.
Explained the outcome of the review of Mr X’s application was that he met the criteria for Band 3.
Analysis Assessing Mr X’s housing application We cannot investigate complaints that have been brought to us more than 12 months after the complainant ought to have been aware of reason to complain. We are only able to exercise discretion if there are good reasons to do so.
The issues Mr X complained about took place more than 12 months before he contacted us. However, it appears the delay was because the Council did not respond to Mr X when it should have done. This being the case, I decided to exercise discretion and investigate Mr X’s complaint from the point he made his housing application in March 2020 up until he brought his complaint to us.
The Council is at fault for failing to take any action on Mr X’s housing application from 26 March 2020 until November 2020. This caused Mr X an injustice and created uncertainty as he did not know what was happening with his application and had to chase for an update.
Mr X then submitted his medical evidence on 7 December 2020. The Council’s policy states a decision should have been made within 28 days of this – meaning by 7 January 2021. Mr X did not receive a decision until 1 February, after having to resubmit his documentation. This is fault and caused further injustice for Mr X as it created additional uncertainty.
To recognise the injustice caused to Mr X by the delays in processing his application and complaint, the Council has offered to pay him £385. That is a reasonable amount to reflect the injustice caused to Mr X on those matters.
However, the Council is also at fault for not completing the review Mr X had asked for on 25 March 2021, by 20 May 2021. The Council’s retrospective review of 10 June 2022 confirmed Mr X’s application satisfied the criteria to be placed in Band 3.
Had the Council correctly assessed Mr X’s original application in March 2020, he would have had a decision by 23 April 2020. This is when he should have been able to request a review and the Council would have had to respond to this by 16 July 2020 at the latest. If Mr X had requested a review at that point, on the balance of probabilities, I find it is likely he would have been able to provide the information the Council relied on when placing him in Band 3.
This caused injustice to Mr X as, had the Council assessed Mr X’s original assessment in its published timeframes, he could have requested a review and been placed in Band 3 by 16 July 2020.
To remedy this injustice, I recommend the Council backdate Mr X’s placement in Band 3 to 16 July 2020.
Handling Mr X’s complaint Mr X first complained to the Council on 11 January 2021 and the Council responded within its usual timeframes, giving a comprehensive explanation of its position.
Mr X then asked the Council to move his complaint onto Stage 2 on 29 January 2021. In line with the Council’s complaint policy a response was due by 5 March 2021. Mr X did not receive the Council’s final response until 9 July 2021 – more than four months late. This is fault and caused Mr X an injustice as it created further uncertainty at a time when the Council had already been responsible for other delays.
The Council has already offered to pay Mr X £385 to recognise the injustice caused by the delay in its complaint handling and assessing his application. That is an appropriate amount to remedy the injustice and I do not consider it necessary to make any further recommendation.
Agreed action
To remedy the injustice set out above, I recommend the Council, within one month of our final decision: Apologise to Mr X for the delays in assessing his application and responding to his complaint.
Pay Mr X £385 for distress and uncertainty.
Backdate Mr X’s placement in priority Band 3 to 16 July 2020.
Provide us with a copy of the Council’s handover policy to ensure cases are not lost when an officer leaves the Council.
The Council has agreed to these recommendations.
Final decision
I have found fault by the Council and make recommendations to remedy the injustice set out in this draft statement.
The Council has accepted my recommendations and I have now completed my investigation.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate I did not investigate whether the Council followed the right process when deciding what band Mr X should be in. This is because Mr X has only complained to the Council about delays in assessing his application so far. If Mr X feels the Council has made errors in assessing what band he should be in, he should raise this with it directly as a new complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman