The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council significantly delayed reviewing its decision that Mr B does not qualify to join its housing register. We have recommended and the Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mr B. It has also agreed to make service improvements.
The complaint
Mr B complains that the Council wrongly decided that he does not qualify to join its housing register. He says that because of this, he remains living in accommodation which is affecting his 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 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) 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 the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant; considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. Any comments received were considered before this decision was issued.
What I found
Housing allocations The Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme sets out the rules for qualifying to join the Housing Register, how applicants are prioritised and how the Council manages the allocation of available properties.
The scheme places applicants in a priority band from Band A (highest priority) to Band D (lowest priority). It says Band B or C will be awarded when the applicant needs to move on medical grounds.
Applicants who have been assessed as having no housing need and whose circumstances do not warrant inclusion in any of the priority bands do not qualify to join the housing register.
Applicants have the right to request a review of a council’s decision. Government guidance suggests eight weeks as a reasonable timescale for completing reviews.
Key events Mr B applied to join the Council’s housing register in May 2022. He said he needed to move on medical grounds and provided a letter from his doctor supporting his application.
In July, the Council decided that Mr B did not qualify to join its housing register. It explained that the medical evidence he provided did not show that his current accommodation was having a direct detrimental impact on his health, in the opinion of a medical professional.
Mr B requested a review of the Council’s decision and provided further supporting medical evidence.
The Council carried out the review in October 2023. It upheld the original decision and explained that the evidence he provided did not confirm a link between his accommodation and the deterioration of his medical condition.
Analysis I have considered the Council’s housing allocations scheme and whether there was any fault in the way the Council decided that Mr B did not qualify to join the housing register.
The Council will only give an applicant a medical award if they see evidence from a medical professional which shows that in that professional’s opinion, the location or condition of the applicant’s accommodation is having a direct detrimental impact on the applicant's health.
The evidence Mr B provided shows that Mr B has told medical professionals that his accommodation is affecting his health, not that the medical professional is of the opinion that the accommodation is affecting his health. The Council is not at fault in the way it decided that Mr B does not qualify for a medical award, and therefore he does not qualify to join the housing register.
However, the Council significantly delayed reviewing its decision that Mr B does not qualify to join the register. Government guidance suggests eight weeks is a reasonable timescale for carrying out reviews. The Council took over 60 weeks to consider Mr B’s request. This delay was fault. It caused Mr B frustration and he was left with uncertainty for a prolonged period.
Agreed action
Within four weeks of the final decision, the Council agrees to make a symbolic payment of £200 to Mr B to recognise the uncertainty and frustration he experienced as a result of the significant delay in this case.
The Council recently provided us with its updated action plan which shows the action it is taking to reduce delays in processing housing applications and reviews, which we are continuing to monitor.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. The action it has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman