Summary: Mr X complains that his current property is overcrowded causing stress to him and his family. The information provided shows Mr X is in the correct priority band. The Council did place Mr X in a higher band in error in February 2020 but this has been rectified and it did not cause a significant disadvantage to him. The Council should provide Mr X with a written apology for this fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains his currently property is overcrowded and the Council has not properly assessed his application for rehousing.

Mr X says it is very stressful for his family of five people to live in a one bedroom property.

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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X applied to join the housing register in September 2013. His household was assessed at that time as having a two bedroom need and he was awarded one reasonable preference point for overcrowding.
6. In December 2014 Mr X provided medical information and completed a medical questionnaire. The Council considered the information provided but did not award any extra points.
7. In July 2016 Mr X’s household was assessed as having a three bedroom need as Mr X now had three children. Mr X remained in priority Band 3 as he was overcrowded. Although he lived in a one bedroom property, the living room is counted as a suitable sleeping space and so he was considered to be overcrowded by one room only.
8. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in December 2019. We referred his complaint to the Council for consideration as it had not been considered through the Council’s complaint process.
9. In considering Mr X’s complaint, the Council changed his priority to Band 2 on the basis he was severely overcrowded. The Council says this was an incorrect assessment. Mr X placed a bid on a property that put him in first place for it. The Council corrected the error and explained Mr X’s correct priority was Band 3. The bid was cancelled and Mr X was not offered the property.

Analysis

10. Mr X has been on the housing register for seven years and has not yet been allocated a property. The five members of the household are in a one bedroom property which Mr X says is stressful as there are not enough bedrooms.
11. When Mr X joined the housing register his family was assessed as having a two bedroom need. He was therefore placed in priority band 3. Mr X has one reasonable preference point because he is overcrowded by one room.
12. After the birth of Mr X’s third child, Mr X was assessed as having a three bedroom need. However, this did not change his priority band. Mr X was considered to be overcrowded but not severely overcrowded. This is because the assessment counts a living room as a sleeping space. As Mr X lives in a one bedroom property with a living room, he is considered to be short one room. Mr X would only be considered severely overcrowded if he was short two rooms.
13. In February 2020 the Council changed Mr X’s priority band. It wrote and informed him he was now in priority band 2. As a result of this change, a bid by Mr X put him in first place for a property. When checking the bids, the Council realised the error and withdrew Mr X’s bid. This was very distressing and confusing for Mr X as he thought he would be offered a new tenancy on a larger property.
14. The re-assessment by the Council moving Mr X to priority band 2 was fault. It did this in error as Mr X, while living in a one bedroom property and having a three bedroom need, is only short of one room as the property also includes a living room.
15. While I appreciate it was confusing and distressing for Mr X when the Council withdrew his successful bid and changed his priority back to band 3, the Council never formally offered the property to Mr X and he has not been significantly disadvantaged. I note that in response to my enquiries the Council offers an apology to Mr X but there is nothing to suggest it has made a direct apology to him.
16. Mr X raised the issue of the space standard. This is one way of determining whether there is statutory overcrowding. This method looks at the number of people in the household and the sizes of the rooms. For Mr X’s family they count as 3.5 people as his three children are over the age of one but under 10 years and so count as 0.5 each. Mr and Mrs X count as one each. A room of more than 110 square feet can accommodate two people. A room of between 90 and 109 square feet can accommodate 1.5 people. The Council is of the view that the rooms in Mr X’s current property are unlikely to contravene the space standards. It says that Mr X has not made any representations to it claiming the rooms at his property are smaller that specified in the space standards.
17. As there is no evidence to suggest Mr X is statutorily overcrowded according to the space standards, I am not persuaded there is any fault by the Council and Mr X is in the correct priority band. However, it is open to Mr X to provide evidence to the Council about the size of the rooms at his current property if he considers the room standard is applicable in his case.

Agreed action

18. To remedy the fault identified at paragraphs 14 and 15 above the Council should, within one month of my final decision, provide a formal written apology to Mr X for the confusion in February 2020 when he was incorrectly placed in priority band 2.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman