Summary: Mr C complains that the Council did not properly consider his housing allocation banding level, after he reported he had been the victim of harassment and racist abuse. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mr C’s banding level, however, there was fault in how it dealt with his complaint. The Council has agreed to offer a financial remedy for the time and trouble Mr C went to pursuing his complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains about matters relating to his housing application banding. Mr C says:
• The Council has refused to change his priority banding despite he and his family living in a life-threatening situation and being subject to racist abuse.
• The Council delayed responding to his complaints in 2016 and again in 2019.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated how the Council dealt with Mr C’s banding level and his complaints from April 2018.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. 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

7. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and information received from Mr C; and
• reviewed and considered information received from the Council; and
• considered the relevant legislation and Council policy; and
• spoke with Mr C about his complaint.
8. I also sent a draft version of this document to both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s housing allocations policy

9. 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))
10. 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.
11. The Council’s housing allocations policy uses six priority bands ranging from A-F, which are used to assess and prioritise applications it receives for social housing.
12. Band A is for applicants assessed to be in urgent priority need. There are several criteria applicants need to meet in order to be allocated this banding, these include ‘severe incidents of violence where other temporary resolutions are not possible and where continued occupation of their current dwelling could place lives at risk’.
13. Band B is for applicants assessed to be in high priority need. The criteria for this banding include ‘victims of harassment, domestic abuse, victims of hare crime who need to move a significant distance to remove the risk’.

The Council’s complaints policy

14. The Council operates a two stage complaints procedure. Its policy explains that at stage 1 it will respond to complaints within 10 working days.
15. If complainants are unhappy with this response, they can request it be progressed to stage 2, when a senior officer will carry out a further investigation within 28 days.
16. The Council explain that it will provide complainants with updates if it needs to take longer to investigate their complaint.

Background

17. Mr C suffers from mental health problems, including depression. He lives in his home with his partner and three children.
18. In March 2015, Mr C submitted a housing application to the Council requesting he and his family be relocated. Mr C recorded that he had been subject to severe racial abuse which he had reported to the police. Mr C said that this had impacted on his mental health.

What happened

Priority banding

19. Mr C believes that his housing needs should be treated as a priority and he should therefore be placed in Band A. Mr C says that this is due to a number of incidents where he has been the victim of hate crimes.
20. Mr C has been in regular contact with two organisations who work to challenge hate crime. In September, one of these organisations wrote to the Council on Mr C’s behalf and sent a log of incidents that Mr C had reported to the other organisation.
21. The logs detailed incidents that Mr C had logged with the organisation between August 2017 and May 2018. The incidents included:
• A neighbouring property being used for drug dealing.
• Racial abuse aimed at Mr C.
• Guns being used on street and bricks thrown
• Mr C being intimidated by men who racially abused him.
• Mr C had been assaulted in 2017.
22. Upon receipt of this information, the Community Safety Officer wrote to Mr C and asked him to contact him to discuss the incidents. The Council say that Mr C told the Community Safety Officer that there had been no further incidents. The Council therefore concluded that no change should be made to Mr C’s banding level.
23. Upon receipt of Mr C’s complaints, the Council said that it has reviewed Mr C’s housing banding and considers he is in the correct band. It said that it has concluded that he is seeking rehousing because he has been the victim of harassment or hate crimes, and therefore fits the criteria for band B.

Complaints handling

24. Mr C also complains about how the Council responded to his complaints.
25. In 2016 Mr C complained about his priority banding, the Council responded, but in April 2018 Mr C contacted the Council and said he had not received a copy. The Council forwarded him a copy, and upon receipt Mr C asked them to progress this to stage 2 of the complaints process.
26. The Council did not provide a response, so when Mr C pursued this through the Ombudsman. In April 2019, the Council responded and apologised for the delay. Due to the time passed it said it was treating the complaint as a stage 1 complaint and responded to the substantive issues raised.
27. Mr C remained dissatisfied, and in early May 2019, requested the Council consider his complaint under stage 2 of its procedure.
28. In June 2019, Mr C contacted the Ombudsman to say he had not received a response. In early July, the Council provided Mr C with a stage 2 response.

Analysis

Priority banding

29. The Councils housing allocations policy allows for applicants to be placed in the ‘urgent priority’ band when the person is subject to ‘severe incidents of violence, where continued occupation of their current dwelling could place lives at risk’. Mr C says the Council has not given proper consideration to his request to be placed into this band on this basis.
30. My view is the Council’s consideration of Mr C’s request was not affected by fault. The Council has taken into account the reports received from the other agencies and spoken to Mr C before reaching its decision that he was in the correct banding.
31. Mr C disagrees with the Council’s decision. But, because the information does not suggest the Council’s decision was affected by fault, I cannot say the Council’s decision was wrong.

Complaints handling

32. In April 2018, Mr C asked his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the Councils complaint procedure.
33. The Council did not however provide Mr C with a response, despite its policy stating it would send a response in 28 days. It then responded under stage 1 of its process due to the amount of time passes. However, there was then a further short delay in providing a stage 2 response.
34. Although I do not consider that there would have been a different outcome, had the Council responded to Mr C’s complaints quicker. I do consider that Mr C went to a significant time and trouble raising his complaint with the Council and then the Ombudsman.
35. The Ombudsman’s remedy guidance explains that when a complainant has been to significant time and trouble pursuing their complaint, we recommend payments of between £100 to £300, which should reflect the level of difficulty experience by the complainant.
36. Having considered the 12-month delay followed by a further short delay in providing responses to Mr C’s complaint, I have decided that a time and trouble payment of £200 is suitable in this case.

Agreed action

37. The Council has agreed offer to pay Mr C £200, within one month of the date of this decision, to remedy the time and trouble he went to pursuing his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there was fault in how the Council dealt with Mr C’s complaints, but there is no evidence of fault in how it considered matters relating to his housing priority.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

39. I have not investigated matters prior to April 2018, because they are out of time and I do not consider there to be a good enough reason to exercise discretion in this case.
40. This is because, although Mr C says he requested his complaint to be progressed to stage 2 of the Council’s complaints process in 2016, he did not pursue this until some 18 months after.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman