The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with his housing application. He said the Council produced a duplicate account, which meant he could not bid on properties. Mr X said the Council did not complete an allocation review within timescales. Mr X said this impacted his mental health. There was fault in the way the Council provided incorrect information to Mr X and did not record a visit to him. The Council has already taken appropriate action to remedy this fault.
The complaint
Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with his housing application. He said the Council produced a duplicate account, which meant he could not bid on properties. Mr X said the Council did not complete an allocation review within timescales. Mr X said this impacted his 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 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 read Mr X’s complaint and spoke to him about it on the phone.
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
Mr 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
Background information 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)) 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 Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9)) Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says: review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable; the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker; reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.
The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
The Council’s allocation scheme prioritises applications from band A to band D. Band A is the highest and applicants cannot apply for houses if they are placed in the lowest band, band D.
The Council policy detailed medical priority is awarded depending on how much the health of the applicant is affected by their current housing situation. The Council awards medical priority after its district medical officer completed an assessment.
What happened This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
Mr X applied to the Councils housing register in August 2019. The Council awarded him a band D priority.
Mr X’s MP discuss the banding of another person with a similar name, with the Council. The MP’s office confirmed Mr X was in band C, so he could apply for properties.
Mr X tried to bid for a property in March 2023. He could not bid.
An advocate, Y, contact the Council for Mr X in April 2024. Y asked why Mr X could not bid. The Council did not respond.
Y chased the Council again in May 2023, with no response.
Y submitted a complaint to the Council for Mr X in June 2023. He complained Mr X could not bid on properties and the Council did not respond to emails.
The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in July 2023. The Council advised it told the MP the other person, of the same name, was in band C. The MP’s office then told Mr X he was in band C. The Council confirmed Mr X was in band D. The Council apologised for the error and not responding to emails. The Council offered Mr X £300 for this error and his time and trouble. The Council said it would visit Mr X to discuss his application and send him a medical assessment form. The Council upheld Mr X’s complaint.
Mr X completed a new medical assessment form and requested the Council increase his banding priority. Mr X accepted the Council’s offer of £300.
The Council completed a visit to Mr X’s home in August 2023. The Council officer did not record this visit.
The Council medical adviser considered Mr X’s banding in August 2023. The adviser confirmed Mr X had no medical priority. The Council wrote to Mr X and confirmed he did not have a medical priority and he remained in band D. The Council offered Mr X a right of review.
Mr X asked the Council to review his medical priority.
The Council reviewed Mr X’s medical priority in September 2023. The Council decided Mr X’s home was not having a significant impact on Mr X’s health, so he should not have a medical priority.
Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two in September 2023. He stated the Council told him he was in band C so he thought he could bid for properties.
The Council provided its final complaint response in November 2023. It explained the letter sent to Mr X’s MP in 2021 was not about Mr X and assumed the MP’s office made a mistake. The response explained the medical officer confirmed Mr X did not have a medical priority. The Council did not uphold the complaint.
Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Mr X would like the Council to give him a higher priority on the housing register.
In response to my enquiries the Council stated the MP’s office told Mr X he was in band C, but this was an error and related to another person. The response advised the Council apologised to Mr X and paid him £300 for providing the wrong information and for poor communication. The Council accepted it did not record the visit to Mr X’s home.
My findings
The Council complaint response confirmed Mr X received incorrect information and it did not respond to his emails. This is fault and it raised Mr X’s expectations. The Council has already remedied this fault. It apologised and paid him £300.
Banding The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide what level of priority Mr X should have. It is the Council’s responsibility to make the banding decision. We can only consider whether the Council assessed his application correctly. We cannot criticise a Council when it has followed the correct procedures and reached a reasoned decision.
The Council assessed Mr X’s application and decided he was in the correct band, band D. Mr X asked the Council review its decision and provided more information. The Council considered the request and additional evidence. The medical assessor advised Mr X did not have a medical priority. The Council decided Mr X did not have a medical priority and he was in the correct band.
Mr X disagreed with the Council’s decision, but I am satisfied the Council considered all information and relevant evidence and followed a proper decision-making process. I do not find fault with the Council’s actions.
I recognise Mr X is unhappy about the Council’s decision, but it is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
Home visit The Council accepted the officer who visited Mr X’s home, did not record the visit. Without this information, the Council cannot evidence what happened. Not recording the visit is service failure. Mr X has not suffered any injustice because of this failure.
We expect a Council to keep a full record of all visits. The Council confirmed it has taken action to address the service failure with the member of staff involved.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. I have found fault by the Council, which it has taken appropriate action to remedy.
Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman