The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council was at fault for the delays Miss X experienced with her housing application. Miss X suffered distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Miss X to remedy her injustice.
The complaint
Miss X complained the Council delayed her housing application. She said it was not doing enough to move her and her son, Y out of unsuitable accommodation. She said the first floor flat is dangerous for her son and there is a pest problem which is affecting her and Y’s physical and mental health.
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) 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 have considered Miss X’s complaint and have spoken to her about it.
I have also considered the Council’s response to Miss X and to my enquiries.
Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Housing Allocation Scheme 2019 The Housing Allocation Scheme describes how the Council assesses applications for housing, prioritises each application and decides which applicant will be offered (‘allocated’) a council or housing association home.
The Scheme sets out those people with high levels of assessed housing need that the Council is required to give reasonable preference to. This includes people who: occupy unsanitary, overcrowded or otherwise unsatisfactory housing.
need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
need to move to a particular locality.
are homeless as defined in Part VII of the Housing Act.
It also sets out the banding scheme. With band 1 containing applications having the highest priority, and band 3 with moderate housing need and a less urgent need to move.
What happened
Background
Miss X approached the Council in early 2017 because she was threatened with homelessness. The Council placed Miss X and her baby (Y) in a one-bed flat in the private sector and discharged its duty. Miss X complained the Ombudsman in 2018 about the unsuitability of the flat and how the Council had handled her homelessness application. We found no fault with the Council’s actions.
I will not re-investigate the matters already dealt with by the Ombudsman. My investigation with consider matters arising since Miss X’s recent housing application in February 2021.
Housing application In February 2021, Miss X applied for the Council’s housing register.
In April, Miss X submitted a complaint about her current accommodation. She said she believed the one-bedroom flat was temporary accommodation and that there were many problems including a mouse infestation.
The Council responded. It said it apologised that she was made to feel that the accommodation was temporary. It explained that it had placed Miss X in the private sector which resulted in her being removed from the Council waiting list.
The Council acknowledged that Miss X had tried to re-join the housing register as she said that both her and Y’s medical conditions were made worse by the current accommodation. Miss X also said she submitted a new homelessness application as she felt the property was unfit. This application did not progress as the medical advisor did not support the alleged unsuitability of the property.
Miss X said Y had a recent diagnosis, so she was going to pursue another homelessness application.
The Council advised Miss X to contact the Council’s re-housing team with her son’s new medical information to enquire about re-registering onto the waiting list for social housing.
In July, the Council confirmed that there were currently delay times with application processing. The Council exercised its discretion and prioritised Miss X’s application.
In July 2021, the Council informed Miss X that she had no recognised housing need. It said it would look at her application on health-related grounds. The Council explained the requirements of health-related housing need to Miss X so she could provide the relevant information.
In August 2021, Miss X’s case was re-assigned due to officer sickness. Then between October 2021 and March 2022, Miss X’s case did not progress. The Council offered an explanation for the delay to Miss X and said it prioritised Miss X’s case.
In May 2022, the Council began a 56-day countdown for Miss X’s Housing Register Review.
During the course of my investigation, in June 2022, the Council held a hearing in relation to Miss X’s Housing Register Review. The Council said it had reinstated Miss X’s application on the Housing Register.
Pest Control This has been a recurring problem over the past 4 years. Most recently, Miss X reported the mice problem to her landlord in November 2021. He arranged for all visible holes to be blocked up and got in touch with pest control. Miss X reported the problem to the Council who also arranged for pest control to visit the property. I have seen emails between Miss X, the landlord and the Council between November 2021 and April 2022.
The Council arranged for treatments against the reported mice. Upon inspection, pest control concluded there was no evidence of an infestation. Pest control said it had completed its role.
Medical housing need In August 2021, the medical advisor submitted their recommendations to the Council. They did not identify that Miss X or Y had a medical priority for housing. They did not say that Miss X’s current accommodation was unsuitable on medical grounds.
In 2022, Miss X submitted further medical documents related to Y’s medical condition. It is not clear from the evidence whether this was the reason that the Council reinstated Miss X’s position on the housing register.
My findings
The Council delayed processing Miss X’s housing application. The Council has offered an explanation as to why most housing applications are taking over 12 months to process. However, this is fault which caused Miss X distress and uncertainty.
Following a review, Miss X is now on the housing register. There is no certainty that she would have been granted a place earlier if the Council had processed her application sooner. It seems that it was only when the Council was presented with new recent medical evidence that it identified Miss X’s housing need.
For the delay, the Council has agreed to issue an apology and pay Miss X £300. This should remedy the distress caused by the Council’s delays and the time and trouble Miss X has taken to pursue the complaint.
There was no fault with how the Council dealt with the report of a pest problem. It worked with Miss X’s landlord and pest control officers investigated and arranged for treatment of the issue.
Agreed action
Within 4 weeks of my decision, the Council will: Apologise to Miss X for the delays she experienced with her housing application.
Pay Miss X £300 for the distress and uncertainty caused by the Council’s delays.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. The delays caused by the Council when processing Miss X’s housing application was fault. Miss X suffered an injustice and the Council has agreed to apologise and pay Miss X to remedy this.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman