The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We found fault by the Council on Miss T’s complaint about the way it dealt with her application for rehousing. It failed to respond to correspondence, did not address her complaint fully, delayed acting on evidence she sent, and delayed deciding her review request. It did not correct a wrong decision made on her review. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.
The complaint
Miss T complains about the way the Council dealt with her application for rehousing and its failure to: transfer her on medical grounds due to her health issues after several years; respond to correspondence; and give her clear information which was not contradictory.
As a result, this affected her mental health as she is sofa surfing and continues to live in accommodation unsuitable for her needs.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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) When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
Council Housing Allocation Policy (2013) The Council has a choice-based lettings scheme called Homesearch. Applicants need to join its Housing Register to bid for accommodation.
Applicants are placed in one of four priority bands from band 1 (the highest) to band 4 (the lowest). Within each, priority is set by its priority system and the date of registration.
Band 1: this includes applicants who are statutorily overcrowded; Band 2: this includes applicants with severe medical, welfare award, or disability where the current accommodation is unsuitable, or it is unreasonable to remain there. This would include an applicant whose condition is terminal, or so severely affected by the accommodation it is likely to become life threatening; Band 3: this includes applicants who are homeless and to whom the Council owes a statutory duty to accommodate, along with those with moderate medical priority; and Band 4: this includes applicants who are homeless but to whom the Council does not owe a duty to house.
Within each band, applicants are prioritised first by its priority star system. Stars are awarded under five categories which include those owed a statutory homelessness duty, those in unsanitary or statutorily overcrowded housing, those with severe medical or welfare grounds, those needing to move to a particular area as failure to do so would be detrimental to their health and wellbeing and cause severe hardship, working households, and those doing a voluntary contribution.
For those in the same priority band bidding for the same accommodation, the Council will allocate it to the applicant with the highest number of stars, but if they are equal, to the earliest award date, and then registration date if they are the same.
The award date is the date an applicant first got the level of priority that placed them in the current housing band and will change with a move to a different priority band.
How I considered this complaint
I considered all the information Miss T sent, including the notes of the telephone conversations she had with a colleague, as well as the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Miss T and the Council. I considered the Council’s response.
What I found
In September 2022, Miss T applied to join the Council’s housing register. In her application she explained she had nowhere to stay and was sleeping on a floor at her parents’ home. She was pregnant, had health issues, problems with stairs, and said she had been threatened and harassed locally.
In November, after a Council request, she sent supporting medical evidence, copies of which I have seen. The Council accepted it delayed sending this to its independent medical assessor for about four months, which was probably due to a backlog of work at the time.
Miss T chased the Council about her application in January 2023, but the Council accepted that while an email was sent to the applications officer, the officer had left the team. It sent her no update.
She chased the Council again in February and sent a formal complaint about its actions. This was about the time taken to process her application and her not having a working bidding number.
In March, she sent further medical evidence. The same month, the Council carried out a medical assessment. This decided she did not have a medical need for a move and so had no medical priority. It also asked her for proof of 5 years residency in its borough. It responded to her first stage complaint and did not uphold it as the medical referral was sent the same month to its medical assessment team. There was no mention of the bidding number.
In May, the Council awarded her band 3 (overcrowding) under its housing allocation policy but delayed telling her until July. It accepted the automated letters stopped at this point, so it was possible she was not told about her bidding number. It has since addressed this problem so it cannot be repeated on other cases. The same month, she asked for a review of the March decision. The Council agreed as she said she had mental health issues.
She bid for her first property in June and bid frequently after this date. The Council cannot explain how she was told her bidding number although its records show she had called and was provided with it.
A further medical assessment was arranged in July which again found she had no medical need to move. This meant she was not entitled to medical priority under its allocation scheme. It awarded her band 3 (moderate medical requirement) but band 2 on alternative criteria.
The Council reviewed her request about the May decision but failed to send it to her until October, five months later. It explained the delay was because an officer moved roles which meant a reallocation of cases. The review did not uphold her request. It told her it did not change her band 4 award despite the band 2 assessment. It set out the medical evidence, the condition of the property, and harassment considered.
In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed there was no actual change in band as she remained in band 2 from July. The Council accepted this was an error as it was clear on the application notes she was assessed as band 2 based on multiple needs from July. It accepted there was miscommunication and an error by the reviewing officer. The officer failed to properly consult and review the whole housing file and only looked at the medical information. The Council also said the reviewing officer had been seconded to the department and may not have fully understood the banding process.
It never told Miss T her account was still band 2 after the October review decision. It will now write to her, explaining it will withdraw the October letter as it was incorrect.
The Council accepted it failed to address her complaint about it not responding to correspondence. It is happy to issue an apology as it accepted her requests for updates were not always responded to by the Council.
My findings
Complaint a): transfer her on medical grounds I considered all the evidence, including bidding information the Council sent which allowed me to check each bid she made against the successful bid to ensure it was allocated correctly. Having done so, I am satisfied there was no fault in the way the Council processed her bids for accommodation.
Complaint b): respond to correspondence and Complaint c): clear information I found fault on these complaints because the Council: failed to respond to Miss T’s correspondence sent in January 2023. She had to chase it again the following month, when she also made a complaint, before getting a response from the Council.
while it responded to her complaint the same month, it failed to address her complaint fully. It did not address her complaint about having no bidding number, for example. Although it did not uphold her complaint about the late medical referral, it failed to refer to the medical evidence she had previously sent back in November 2022.
did not accept, in its response to her complaint, that it delayed acting on the November evidence she sent, which needed sending to the independent medical assessor, until much later.
also later accepted it failed to address her complaint about it failing to respond to her correspondence.
delayed telling her the decision it reached in May until July, two months later.
delayed deciding her review request of its March decision which it received in May. This was not sent to her until October, five months later and three months after awarding her band 2.
sent her its review decision in October which was incorrect. It accepted the reviewing officer likely misunderstood the banding scheme, failed to take account of all the evidence on Miss T’s file, and in doing so, reached the wrong decision by telling her she remained in band 4. Miss T was not in band 4.
failed to correct this incorrect decision. It failed to write to her and explain the decision was wrong and that she remained in band 2.
I am satisfied the identified fault caused Miss T an injustice. This is because she suffered distress as it caused her: frustration; inconvenience; lost opportunity (for example, to have the bidding number earlier and having earlier consideration of her medical evidence, although I note in March, when it was considered, it made no difference); uncertainty and confusion with the review decision which was wrong and not corrected.
Agreed action
I considered our guidance on remedies. I also considered the action the Council took to ensure delays informing her of its banding decision cannot be repeated on future cases.
The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint: Send Miss T a written apology for its failure to: respond to correspondence; fully address her complaint; act without delay; give correct and accurate information; correct incorrect information given to her.
Pay £250 to Miss T for the injustice caused.
Review why there were failures to respond to correspondence and review request promptly and act to ensure these are not repeated on future cases.
Remind officers responding to complaints of the need to address all points raised.
Review why there was a failure to forward her medical evidence promptly to independent medical advisors and act to ensure this does not happen on future cases.
Review why it took so long to carry out the review she asked for and act to ensure this delay does not happen on future cases.
Ensure officers carrying out reviews, who are seconded from other departments, are reminded of the need to understand the banding scheme and take all evidence into account when reaching a decision.
Ensure there is a system in place for correcting wrong review decisions promptly.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
I found the following on Miss T’s complaint against the Council: Complaint a): no fault; Complaint b): faulting causing injustice; and Complaint c): fault causing injustice.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman