Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain that the Council has failed to offer them suitable housing. Based on the evidence seen to date, the Council was at fault, but had remedied the situation before the Ombudsman’s intervention.

The complaint

1. The complainants, who I refer to here as Mr and Mrs X, complain that the Council has reneged on a promise it made in 2018 to prioritise them for social housing. Their complaints were upheld at Stage 2 and Stage 3 of the Council’s complaints process, which recommended that the family be supported to secure suitable social housing or affordable private accommodation. Mr and Mrs X say this has not been done.

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. 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)
3. 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

4. I spoke to Mrs X and considered information provided by Mr and Mrs X and by the Council. I have shared my draft decision with Mr and Mrs X and the Council and considered their comments before finalising my decision.

Back to top

What I found

Special Guardianship Orders

5. A Special Guardianship Order (SGO) is an order made by the Family Court that places a child or young person to live with someone other than their parent on a long-term basis. The person with whom a child is placed will become the child's Special Guardian.

The Council’s policy on social housing

6. The Council operates what it calls a “choice-based lettings scheme” which means it advertises properties and housing applicants choose what they want to bid for. The property is then offered to the highest priority person who bids for it.
7. Applicants are assigned a priority band according to their needs, with band A being the highest priority. Priority between applicants in the same band is based on date of their registration for a property unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as a need for emergency housing.

What happened

8. In 2018 the Council asked Mr and Mrs X to care for their young granddaughter. It agreed to prioritise them for social housing if they did so because their property was unsuitable to raise a child. Mr and Mrs X applied to become the child’s Special Guardians. The SGO Plan stated that Mr and Mrs X would be prioritised for social housing and that the Council would fund private rental accommodation for six months while they bid for properties. It stated: “Mr and Mrs X must actively bid for properties under the high priority housing band”. The Council did not abide by the plan. Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council and their complaints were upheld at Stage 2 of the process in January 2020.
9. Following the conclusion of the third stage of the process, which also upheld their complaints, Mr and Mrs X came to us. They said the Council’s housing department had still not agreed to prioritise them and had advised that they should be willing to accept high rise properties. They said that by July 2021 they had only viewed one property, which was unsuitable due to an open-plan living room and lack of disabled parking. They also said they had not been supported to obtain affordable private accommodation though in any case they felt this was likely to be too unstable. Mr and Mrs X stated as their desired outcome that: “Once we have identified a suitable property we should be offered it”.
10. In response to my enquiries the Council told me Mr and Mrs X had been awarded “Band A” priority for housing – the highest level - since April 2020. Within Band A they are prioritised according to their registration date, which is December 2018.
11. The Council said that in 2020/21 it had allocated 118 3-bed homes of which only 44 (37%) were allocated to people with Band A priority. In other words, someone in Band A would outbid all other bidders for more than 63% of all properties available.
12. It said that between June 2020 and July 2021 Mr and Mrs X had bid for 18 properties. The Council had reviewed these and found that they were mainly properties with gardens. It said very few of its properties had gardens and Mr and Mrs X faced competition from other people in Band A who had priority ahead of them by virtue of having waited longer than since December 2018. It said that even with Band A priority Mr and Mrs X may have to wait years for a property with a garden.
13. It said Mr and Mrs X had not been advised to bid for high rise properties and that 80% of the 3-bed properties it had advertised in the last year had been on the second floor or below, with only one above the fifth floor.
14. The Council told me that in August 2020 Mr and Mrs X asked to be offered a particular property even though they were not the highest priority bidder. The Council said it had agreed it should be offered to them ahead of the other applicants. Mr and Mrs X told me they refused the property after viewing for safety reasons connected with the open-plan layout and because it did not have disability parking. The Council told me that it does not offer housing with designated disability parking as this must be applied for separately.
15. The Council accepted that the SGO plan stated the Council would fund private rented accommodation for six months. It said that in November 2020 Mr and Mrs X had accepted a payment of £8,912.40 which was equivalent to a deposit and six months rent in settlement of this issue. It said Mr and Mrs X had not asked for further assistance to find private rented accommodation, but it would provide this if requested.

Back to top

Analysis

16. The Council was at fault in failing to abide by the SGO plan which stated that Mr and Mrs X would be prioritised for social housing. I am satisfied that it has remedied this fault.
17. It has placed Mr and Mrs X in the Band A highest priority list and provided them with a list of 3-bed properties to bid for. The plan did not state that the Council would meet all of Mr and Mrs X’s preferences for a property or that it would prioritise Mr and Mrs X above all other applicants in priority Band A.
18. The Council says that the reason Mr and Mrs X have not yet been housed is that they have only bid on a small proportion of the available properties. It says they will be housed more quickly if they widen their preferences. It has provided evidence to support its position.
19. In response to my draft decision Mr and Mrs told me that that they consider they are entitled to a property with a garden, which they say the Council promised to them verbally in 2018. If it were the case that a garden had been promised, I could not now order the Council to provide a garden property to Mr and Mrs X ahead of people who have been waiting for many years. Mr and Mrs X’s desired outcome of my investigation is that they are offered a property of their choosing. This is not something the Ombudsman can achieve for them. I will therefore not investigate further.
20. Mr and Mrs X also told me they still want the Council to negotiate a short-term private rental for them. Although the SGO Plan stated that the Council should offer support, this was in the context of a six-month period during which it was envisaged Mr and Mrs X would successfully bid on a council property. Mr and Mrs X have so far spent almost 18 months on the priority list without finding a property they deem suitable. They have expressed a preference for a garden property which will require a wait of many years. As the circumstances have changed, I find the Council is no longer under an obligation to negotiate short-term accommodation for Mr and Mrs X as directed by the Plan. Mr and Mrs X have been provided with the equivalent of six months’ rent and a deposit. They indicated to me they would not be satisfied with a private rental property in the long term as it would be too unstable.
21. There is no further fault by the Council with regards to support to Mr and Mrs X to obtain privately rented accommodation in the short or longer term.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault but had remedied this before the Ombudsman’s intervention.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman