Bournemouth Borough Council (18 013 903)

Category : Housing > Allocations

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 05 Nov 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Ms C complained about how the Council considered her housing application, meaning she has continued to live in unsuitable accommodation. However, there is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered the matters raised by Ms C.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms C, complains about how the Council considered her application for housing. Ms C says she Council has failed to offer her a property, despite being on the housing register for 16 years. Ms C says the Council should place her in a higher priority banding for housing because her current property is in disrepair and she has suffered from anti-social behaviour in the form of harassment from the agent who manages the building she lives in.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
  2. 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

  1. As part of the investigation, I have:
    • considered the complaint and information received from Ms C; and
    • reviewed and considered information received from the Council; and
    • spoke with Ms C about her complaint.
  2. I also sent a draft version of this document to both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation & policy

  1. The law says the following categories of persons must be given 'reasonable preference' through the council’s allocations scheme:
  • people who are homeless (within the meaning of homelessness law)
  • people owed a duty as a homeless person under certain sections of the Housing Act 1996
  • people occupying insanitary overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing
  • people who need to move on welfare or medical grounds
  • people who need to move to a particular area to avoid hardship to themselves or others.
  1. Since 2012, the Council has operated a housing allocations policy which places people in one of four bands of either emergency, gold, silver or bronze. The circumstances in which gold priority is awarded include:
    • those with severe medical conditions;
    • those living in severe or consistent harassment or abuse;
    • where there are category 1 hazards, under the housing health and safety rating system, which cannot be resolved or reduced to category 2 hazards within 6 months.
  2. The circumstances where silver banded is awarded include:
    • Have a moderate medical need;
    • Where there are category 1 hazards that are fixable, or have been reduced to category 2 within six months.

What happened

Background

  1. Ms C lives on her own in a privately rented first-floor studio flat, in a building with no lift. In 2003, she contacted the Council seeking housing. In 2012, the Council carried out a reassessment after introducing its new policy and placed Ms C in the Silver banding, due to the difficulties she faces using the stairs in her property, which the Council consider to be a moderate medical need.

Complaints

  1. In January 2019, Ms C complained to the Council’s Home Choice Team, the department responsible for banding levels. She said she had been subject to antisocial behaviour from the agent who managed the property she lives in, but the Council had not acted. She also said her property was in disrepair, due to the presence of damp mould and ants.
  2. Ms C said that because of the issues she raised, the Council should change her banding from Silver to Gold.
  3. Records show the Home Choice Team made enquiries with the Private Sector Hosing Enforcement Team and Community Enforcement Team about the issues Ms C had raised in her complaint.
  4. In response to Ms C’s complaint, the Council said that in 2017, Ms C had contacted the Council and said she was suffering from harassment from the agent who managed her property. The Community Enforcement Team considered the matter, but concluded that there was no evidence of anti-social behaviour at the time.
  5. The Council said if circumstances had changed she should contact the Community Enforcement Team who would investigate the matter.
  6. The Council said that for anti-social behaviour to have an influence on her banding there would need to be evidence of severe or persistent harassment or violence, and that Ms C had not provided sufficient evidence to support her claims.
  7. The Council then addressed Ms C’s claim that her property was in disrepair. It said that when she reported this issue in 2017, the Private Sector Hosing Enforcement Team wrote to Ms C’s landlord, and subsequently arranged an inspection of Ms C’s property.
  8. The inspection found several issues included the presence ants and signs of damp and mould, which the Council rated as a Category 2 hazard. The Council issued a ‘Request for Improvement’ notice to the landlord. A further inspection was arranged and the Council concluded that the Request for Improvement notice had been complied with. The case was subsequently closed and Ms C had not been in contact with the department since.
  9. The Council said that if she felt these matters were ongoing, she would need to contact the Private Sector Hosing Enforcement Team who would investigate. However, as there were no Category 1 hazards identified it could not change her banding level.
  10. In its response to Ms C’s complaint, the Council said that since 2012 there had been 56 properties that Ms C would have been considered for if she had bid, and if Ms C wanted the Council to bid on her behalf it could do so, but suggested Ms C be more flexible with where she wanted to live due to a shortage of properties in her desired locations.

Analysis

  1. It is clear that Ms C disagrees with the Council’s decision to refuse to place her in a higher priority banding. It is not for the Ombudsman to say whether the Council should or should not have refused the request. Rather, we look at whether there is fault by the Council in how it reached its decision.
  2. Ms C says she has been subjected to anti-social behaviour in the form of harassment by the agent who manages her building. However, this matter has been investigated by the relevant department who concluded that there was insufficient evidence to proceed.
  3. I therefore cannot find fault with the Council’s conclusion that there is insufficient evidence of the severe or consistent harassment or abuse required under the Gold band
  4. Ms C also said her current property was in a state of disrepair. However, this matter was investigated by the relevant department, which found a Category 2 hazard, which was later addressed by her landlord.
  5. I therefore cannot find fault with the Council’s conclusion that there is insufficient evidence of the Category 1 hazard required under the Gold band.
  6. In the absence of any identified fault in the Council’s decision-making process, or how it applied its housing allocations policy, the Ombudsman cannot challenge the decision reached by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings