Summary: The Council did not persuade Mr X to move into his current accommodation or fail to help him consider a further move.

The complaint

1. Mr X (as I shall call the complainant) says he was persuaded against his better judgement to move into his current flat which he says is not suitable for him. He says the Council’s allocations policy disadvantages him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the written information provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X. Both Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement and I took their comments into account before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant background information

4. The Rural Allocations Criteria says: Northumberland Homefinder recognises that there may be a lack of affordable homes in rural parishes and aims to support rural communities by awarding additional preference to families with a strong local connection.
5. Housing band needs are categorised as:

Priority Band P for those with an urgent and severe housing need.

Band 1 for those who are in high housing need.

Band 2 for those who are in medium housing need.

Band 2R for those in reasonable preference categories but whose priority is reduced.

Band 3 for those who are adequately housed.

What happened

6. Mr X used to live in a two-bedroom property near the coast. He says now that this was perfect for his physical health (although at times when he was living there he said he could not wait to escape the cold and damp). He says problems with his neighbours prompted him to seek a move to different accommodation (although those neighbours had moved by the time he found new accommodation). A file note from April 2017 records Mr X as saying that he was “desperate to move”. He says that does not mean he wanted to move somewhere worse, away from the sea.
7. Mr X bid for a new (one-bed) tenancy through the Council’s choice-based letting scheme. The Council’s Adult Social Care officers say they were unaware of the intended move until the local NHS Trust, who were supporting Mr X, notified them. Mr X has produced a note from the manager at the new tenancy which implies his social worker thought it would be a good move for him, although there is no evidence that comment was made before the move was arranged.
8. The Council says Mr X was, unusually, given several weeks to finalise his decision. It says he voiced some reservations about the move before he completed it. Mr X says he didn’t want to complete the move but equally he did not want to stay where he was. He says in his view he was only looking at the new accommodation but considers he was “railroaded” into making a decision about moving there.
9. A team manager contacted Mr X on 13 November with details of how the Council would support his move. The Council agreed to a payment of 60 hours funding on a one-off basis to help him pack and would support him to visit the new tenancy before the final move date. Mr X denies that help was given to him to pack. (In a previous complaint to the Ombudsman he says two social workers unpacked some boxes he had already packed and as a result he lost some belongings.) It agreed to pay the service charge as the warden agreed she could meet Mr X’s needs.
10. Mr X moved into the accommodation on 4 February 2019. He wanted the Council to recognise he regarded this as an interim move. The local NHS Trust, when it ended its involvement with him after the move, wrote to him, “It is important to you that your move…is defined as an interim move. It has been agreed by social care that if you want to move out of Northumberland in the future that they will support you to do this.” Mr X says he did not realise that there was no official way of designating the move as ‘interim’.
11. The flat where Mr X lives is in block designated for people over 55. He says it is unsuitable because it is maintained at a higher temperature than is comfortable for him (although he initially reported feeling the benefits of a warm dry environment). He says he preferred living by the coast. He says now he is looking for new accommodation, the Council’s rural allocations policy means his priority is lower as he does not have a local connection as defined by the policy.
12. The Council says Mr X has support from his GP to be rehoused in a two-bed property again. Mr X is currently in band 1 (the second band) “for those who are in high housing need”. It says Mr X has made bids through the choice-based lettings scheme and the Adult Social Care department continues to support him with his desire to move. Some of his bids, as he wishes to move to a property along the coast again, have been affected by the rural allocations policy.

Analysis

13. There is no evidence the Council persuaded Mr X to move against his wishes. On the contrary, the evidence suggests Mr X was the instigator of the move from his previous home. There is no evidence of fault there.
14. The Council’s records show Mr X was given extra time to make up his mind about the move. He was supported practically by the Council after he made his decision.
15. There is no reason why Mr X should be exempt from the rural allocations policy.
16. I have not looked again at Mr X’s previous compliant that social workers unpacked some of his belongings which were then lost.

Back to top

Final decision

17. There was no fault on the part of the Council in the way it assisted Mr X with the move and considered his needs.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman