The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council took too long to determine Mr B’s housing application, and missed an opportunity to explain to him that he needed to re-apply. This caused Mr B uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to take the action I have recommended to remedy this.
The complaint
Mr B complains that the Council: Failed to give him full and timely information about re-registering his housing application; Took too long to assess his application; and Did not properly consider the application and his circumstances and should have awarded him a higher priority.
Mr B says that as a result of the Council’s shortcomings, he lost the opportunity to bid on available properties for several months, and he has less chance of getting a move, which he needs to escape harassment and hate crimes.
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 a council’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 considered the information provided by Mr B and discussed the issues with him. I considered the information provided by the Council including its file documents. I also considered the law and guidance set out below. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I have considered the comments of both before issuing my final decision.
What I found
The Council’s Housing Allocations Policy The Council’s housing allocations policy sets out how it decides the priority of applicants. It sets as Band one with an urgent need to move those who are “… fleeing violence, harassment or abuse with an urgent need to move (e.g. domestic violence, racial harassment incidents/ hate crime resulting in intimidation or serious threats or damage to property which are recurrent or an ongoing threat has been identified). Award of this priority will only be awarded with appropriate evidence from the Police, other statutory body, or support agency that the difficulties experienced are directed at the household and they must move from their current accommodation as a matter of urgency”.
The policy awards band three priority to those “Applicants who are experiencing ongoing and unresolved issues due to harassment, abuse or neighbourhood disputes. Award of this priority may require appropriate evidence from a landlord, Police, other statutory body or support agency where it is demonstrated that the issues are directed at the house (rather than general ASB in the local area) and it would be beneficial for the household to move from their current accommodation”.
What happened The Council agreed a new housing allocation policy in February 2020. This changed the qualifying criteria, and so the Council needed to reassess all applicants. It invited all existing applicants to reapply to the housing register.
Mr B is a housing association tenant. He is experiencing antisocial behaviour, and feels intimidated and threatened by his neighbours. Mr B was already on the housing register with a priority of 1b.
The Council messaged Mr B on the register’s computer system with this information on 15 June 2021. Mr B says he viewed the property listings and his account but he did not see the message, and the old system automatically deleted messages so that he could not check back to read this. The Council says that its information shows that Mr B opened the message on 22 June. The Council also had a message on its Housing homepage, and the main page of the lettings website.
Mr B renewed his application on 11 August by clicking a button on his housing register account. He had understood that this was all he needed to do to transfer his account to the new system. He did not receive any message to say he needed to do more. However, Mr B had only renewed his application he had not reapplied as required.
Mr B says that when he contacted the Council about this, he told the agent he was concerned about losing his bidding history and registration date. The Council did not tell him that he had only renewed his application on 11 August and that he still needed to reapply.
Mr B reapplied on 21 September 2021. He sent the Council a letter from his community psychiatric nurse. This gave details of his mental health, and also said Mr B had been subject to intimidation and homophobic abuse which had been reported to the Police and his Housing Association. The letter said that the situation was unresolved and that Mr B felt fearful about leaving his home due to threats. It expressed concern that Mr B’s mental health would deteriorate to the extent he would need hospitalisation and that he needed alternative housing. The letter was dated June 2020.
Mr B also sent the Council his original housing priority award letter from August 2020. This said the Council considered Mr B was experiencing violence, harassment or abuse and had provided evidence of this via the Police.
On 12 January 2022, the Council asked for further information from Mr B on his health and the harassment he was experiencing within the last six months. It asked for information from his landlord or the Police about this. Mr B sent a supporting letter from his GP dated January 2022. He says he also sent a crime reference number.
The Council decided Mr B’s housing application on 10 February 2022. The Council acknowledged that he has mental illness and that he has been chased down the street, and assaulted and does not feel safe to leave his home.
The Council decided that he did not the criteria either due to medical or social and welfare need. It said that although he has medical needs the evidence does not suggest that his accommodation is affecting him or that moving would help his symptoms. The Council said the evidence showed that he had been suffering threats and harassment but it had asked for evidence of reported incidents in the last six months and Mr B had not supplied this. It also advised Mr B that he could approach the Council as homeless if he is fleeing violence.
Mr B says that he submitted a crime reference number and his GP letter described the impact of his accommodation on him. He says the Police would not give more information unless he made a formal data request.
The next day, Mr B asked the Council to review its decision and sent it further information in support. The Council responded on 4 March. It says it considered its policy that social and welfare needs will be assessed according to their own individual circumstances and priority will be considered based on the impact of the present housing on the needs of the applicant. The policy gives examples of medium need as unresolved harassment, abuse or neighbour disputes. it says that this might require evidence from other agencies including the police.
The Council awarded Mr B band three on its housing register based on the problems with his neighbour. It considered that he also was entitled to band three based on his medical need but the neighbour dispute was more prevalent.
The Council backdated Mr B’s band three priority to take effect from the 9 June 2020. However, Mr B could not bid on properties between 7 September 2021 and 4 March 2022. During this time, Mr B has been experiencing antisocial behaviour (dealt with by a separate complaint to the Ombudsman) and he needs to move house. He say that if he had been told the re-registration was not going through from 11 August he could have corrected this sooner and may not have had to wait so long to be able to bid again.
Mr B considers his priority on the housing register should be higher. He had been awarded a Band 1b on the former policy. However, the Council says that whilst Mr B has sent them medical information, this does not show that he is experiencing violence, racial harassment, hate crime, intimidation, serious threats or damage to property.
The Council also says that medical professionals can give a medical opinion but cannot verify the facts, risk assess the situation or recommend that Mr B must be moved due to immediate safeguarding concerns that are not related to health matters. In order to be awarded this under the current policy, Mr B would need to send evidence from the Police, or other statutory body or support agency. The evidence must demonstrate that the difficulties experienced are directed at the household and they must move from their accommodation as a matter of urgency. The Council says that Mr B did not provide evidence that he meets this criteria.
The Council has explained that it awarded Mr B band three priority based on new evidence he sent it in March 2022. Copy emails between Mr B and his housing association showed there was ongoing and unresolved antisocial behaviour.
The Council took from 21 September 2021 until 12 January 2022 to consider Mr B’s application. It asked him for further information and then reached its final decision in February 2022 to determine Mr B’s housing application. It has explained that this was because of the large number of reassessments needed and due to staff shortages. The Council says that it is taking approximately 12 weeks to assess current applications. It has provided additional staff to deal with the delays.
The Council says that it has advertised 47 properties since March 2022 for which Mr B would have been eligible and he has bid on two of these.
In response to my enquiries, the Council has reported that it has been receiving an average of 190 new housing applications weekly, compared to 100 weekly under the old scheme, in addition to the 12,000 households it invited to reapply when the new scheme started. The Council could not predict the increased applications. It had already allocated more staff to assessing the re-applications, but has employed three new officers (full time equivalent) and a temporary officer to reduce the decision-making time. In all, the team has gone from two full time equivalent staff to seven.
Was there fault by the Council causing Mr B injustice?
The Council notified Mr B that he needed to reapply to the housing register via a message and general notices on the relevant web sites. However, it missed an opportunity to remind him of this when he renewed his application and when he contacted it in August.
The Council took from 21 September 2021 to 10 February 2022 to decide Mr B’s housing application. The Council acknowledges that this is too long.
Although Mr B was surprised that the Council initially decided he had no housing priority, there was no fault in how the Council decided this based on the information it had at that time. I have taken into account that Mr B gave it a letter from his GP and he says he could not get more information from the Police. But it is for the Council to weigh up the information it had and make a decision based on this. There was no fault in the Council’s decision making but it was not persuaded by the evidence it had.
The Council completed a review of its decision in good time and it awarded the correct priority based on the information it had. It has explained why Mr B’s priority is not higher.
The Council’s delays have caused Mr B uncertainty and distress, given his situation and his mental health. He could not bid on properties for five months. The Council has said the injustice is limited because it initially decided he had no housing priority and so he would not have been able to bid on properties until the review was decided. However, had the Council decided the application in good time, Mr B would have requested the review sooner and it is likely the Council would have awarded him band three priority sooner.
Mr B has not bid on many available properties since March. It may be that this is because he needs to live in certain areas to access support, and certain situations to feel safe. However, this does mean that on the balance of probabilities it is more likely than not that the Council would not have rehoused Mr B by now, even if it had acted without delay.
The Council has increased its resources to deal with the increased number of applications and has a plan to monitor its effectiveness in reducing the backlog.
Agreed action
Within one month of the date of this decision, the Council will show the Ombudsman it has: apologised to Mr B for the distress and uncertainty its delay caused him; and paid him £200 in recognition of the impact on him.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council causing Mr B injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman