Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to offer her family a property even though she was top of the list on several occasions since 2016. There is no fault in how the Council considered Mrs B’s bids for various properties.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs B, complained the Council failed to offer her family a property even though she was at the top of the list of bids on several occasions since 2016.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))
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 Mrs B's representative’s comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• gave Mrs B’s representative and opportunity to comment on my draft decision; and
• gave the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs B has been registered on the Council’s housing register since 2012. Mrs B has a large family and needs a four-bedroom property. One of Mrs B’s children is disabled and needs an accessible property.
6. On 15 January 2016 the Council’s medical adviser reviewed medical information for Mrs B’s housing application. The medical adviser did not recommend more priority but awarded the application a MOB 4 categorisation under the terms of the Council’s accessible housing register. The Council wrote Mrs B to tell her. In that letter the Council told Mrs B she could bid for properties which did not fall within her mobility category. The letter told her the Council could not carry out adaptations before letting and there was an extensive waiting list for adaptations. The letter told Mrs B the Council would not allocate a property it considered would put her or a member of her household at risk while waiting for adaptations.
7. On 1 March Mrs B was in second position on the housing register for a property. The Council allocated the property to the bidder in first place.
8. On 1 March Mrs B provided medical letters. On 12 April the medical officer awarded one medical need and the Council changed the categorisation to MOB 3. The Council placed the application in band 3 with seven needs.
9. On 25 May Mrs B was in second position for a property advertised as MOB 5. The Council allocated the property to the bidder in first place. Mrs B was in first position for a different property. The Council arranged for occupational therapists to visit the property to assess its suitability for Mrs B’s son. Because of those observations the Council bypassed Mrs B for the vacancy as it did not consider the property suitable without further adaptations. The Council told Mrs B it had bypassed her application but it is not clear whether it explained its reasoning. The Council later apologised for that.
10. On 14 February 2017 Mrs B’s bid for a property was placed in 37th position.
11. On 13 March the Council placed Mrs B in temporary accommodation as she and her family were homeless. The Council says it failed to suspend Mrs B’s housing register application awaiting an assessment of her changing circumstances and eligibility as it should have done, which allowed her to bid on a property. The Council bypassed that bid as it needed to reassess Mrs B’s circumstances.
12. On 21 June the Council accepted a full housing duty towards Mrs B and her family. The Council placed her application in band 2 with an effective date of 21 June 2017.
13. On 19 September Mrs B’s bid for a property came in 60th position.
14. On 26 September Mrs B’s bid for a property was placed in fifth position. The occupational therapy manager provided advice on the suitability of the property. The resulted in the Council shortlisting the bid subject to verification of Mrs B’s application.
15. On 18 October an officer carried out a visit to Mrs B’s property. The officer identified issues with the condition of the property. The Council gave Mrs B an opportunity to put the issues right by 23 October.
16. The officer revisited on 23 October and noted Mrs B had not completed all the works. The Council decided not to authorise the offer of accommodation due to breaches in Mrs B’s license agreement relating to the condition of her property.
17. On 16 January 2018 Mrs B’s bid for a property was placed in sixth position and the Council allocated the property to the bidder placed in first position.
18. On 17 April Mrs B’s bid for a property was placed in 37th position.
19. On 22 May Mrs B’s bid for a property was placed in eighth position and the Council allocated the property to the bidder in fourth position.
20. On 3 July Mrs B’s bid for a property was placed in sixth position with the property allocated to the bidder in first position.
21. On 29 August the Council wrote to Mrs B about a vacant Council owned property. The Council told Mrs B it intended to offer her the tenancy on completion of adaptation works. The Council encouraged Mrs B to continue to bid for any suitable properties advertised. I understand work to that property is to complete in around September 2019, following which the Council will allocate it to Mrs B.

The Council’s allocations policy

22. The Council’s allocations policy contains the following information:
• once bidding has closed, the Council will offer the property to the bidder with the highest priority on the housing register. The Council will give those with a MOB code that matches a property preference over those who do not need adaptations. The Council’s MOB codes relate to adapted properties with the code depending on the level of adaptations carried out;
• the Council will give applicants requiring a specific type of accommodation or adaptations because of disability/health issues preference for vacancies more suited to their needs;
• the Council will not prevent applicants with specific needs from expressing interest on general needs accommodation. However, where an applicant successfully bids on a property that does not contain the necessary adaptations the Council will assess whether it is reasonable to carry out the adaptations;
• the Council will restrict applicants from being allocated properties in certain circumstances. This includes where a risk assessment suggests an allocation would put a vulnerable person at risk;
• the Council will place in band 4 those applicants who have breached the terms/conditions of the tenancy or license;
• where a property has specific adaptations the Council will give priority to applicants who require the adaptation in the property;
• at the point of shortlisting the Council will verify an applicant’s circumstances. This is to ensure the application has been correctly assessed and there have been no changes to the applicant’s circumstances since assessment of the application that would alter the priority awarded to the application or the household’s eligibility. If any changes have occurred that would alter the priority awarded or eligibility the Council may overlook an application; and
• the Council may need to withdraw an offer of tenancy on occasion. That includes when there are changes to an applicant’s circumstances, where an offer might put a vulnerable person at risk or where extensive works are required to the property.

Analysis

23. Mrs B says the Council failed to offer her family a property even though she was top of the list on several occasions since 2016. I have carefully considered the documentary evidence. That evidence satisfies me there was only one occasion between 2016 and 2019 when Mrs B was in first place for allocation of the property she had bid on. I am satisfied in that case the Council did not offer Mrs B the property because it did not consider the adaptations in the property made it suitable for Mrs B’s family. I am satisfied the Council reached that conclusion after arranging for an occupational therapist to visit the property. That occupational therapist told the Council Mrs B’s disabled son could only access the property if the Council carried out further adaptations to remove the stairlift and either install a through ceiling lift or build an extra bathroom on the ground floor. On that basis the Council decided the property was unsuitable for Mrs B’s household.
24. I recognise Mrs B is dissatisfied with that decision. However, the Council told Mrs B in 2016 it would not allocate a property it considered would put her or a member of her household at risk while they waited for the Council to complete adaptations given the Council could not carry out adaptations before it let the property and there was an extensive waiting list for adaptations. That is in accordance with the Council’s policy which I refer to in paragraph 6. I therefore cannot criticise the Council for deciding not to offer Mrs B that property.
25. There have been two further properties which, although Mrs B was not in first place for, she would have been considered for between 2016 and 2019. For the first of those properties the Council bypassed Mrs B’s application because she had recently been made homeless and housed in temporary accommodation. The Council says it should have suspended Mrs B’s housing register application at that point pending a reassessment because her priority would likely have changed. That again is in accordance with the Council’s allocations policy. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it.
26. The final property which the Council would have offered to Mrs B was withdrawn following an officer visit. At that visit the officer identified issues with the condition of the property rented by Mrs B and a further visit had identified the issues had not been resolved. The Council therefore bypassed Mrs B’s application. Again, I recognise Mrs B will be disappointed with that decision. However, the Council’s allocations policy allows it to reduce a person’s priority if it considers they have breached their tenancy or licence conditions. As the Council reached that decision after visiting Mrs B’s property twice and giving her an opportunity to resolve the issues I could not say the Council had reached its decision with fault. I therefore cannot comment on the merits of that decision.
27. So, I have found no evidence to suggest fault by the Council led to Mrs B missing out on a suitable property. Nor have I found any evidence Council officers encouraged Mrs B to withdraw her bid to allow another family to secure accommodation she would otherwise have been offered. I understand Mrs B’s frustration about not yet being able to move into a suitable property. However, it is clear from the documentary evidence Mrs B needs a large, adapted property and the Council has limited access to those types of properties, which is why it has now agreed to adapt a void property which I understand will be available in around September 2019. The circumstances relating to that property do not form part of my investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman