Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his housing application. Mr X said the Council offered unsuitable accommodation. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council’s decision that the property was a suitable offer of accommodation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his housing application. The Council made an offer of accommodation which it decided was suitable. Mr X says the property was not suitable as there was damp related damage in the property. Mr X also says the property agent did not provide accurate information about the property. This means Mr X has one offer of accommodation left.

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. 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)
4. 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

5. I spoke with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I sent a draft decision to Mr X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Housing register and nominations policy

8. Chapter five of the Council’s policy sets out how properties are allocated. It states the Council will nominate applicants for a property based on the suitability of the property to their needs. The Council will nominate to applicants with the highest priority on the housing register first.
9. The policy allows applicants to refuse one offer of suitable accommodation. A second refusal of suitable accommodation will result in the applicants being removed from the housing register for one year.

Background

10. Mr X and his partner are on the Council’s housing register. The Council has assessed Mr X’s medical needs and accepted he needs a level access, ground floor, two-bedroom property.

What happened

11. In October 2018, the Council nominated Mr X for a property. Mr X and his partner viewed the property and decided to refuse the property. Mr X said this was because the property had damp issues which would not be good for his health. Mr X also said he declined it because he was concerned about access to a walkway behind the property for the purposes of window cleaning, and because the letting agent had lied to him about there being no neighbours upstairs. Mr X said there were two noisy dogs in the flat above.
12. Mr X also raised concerns about the affordability of the flat as at the time he visited the property, he had not received confirmation he would get the two-bedroom local housing allowance rate.
13. On the same day, the Council told Mr X it considered the property to be a suitable offer as the property was the correct bedroom size, type, and was in his area of choice. The Council told Mr X of his review rights.
14. Two days after the refusal, Mr X asked the Council to review its decision. A Council officer visited the property the next day. She noted there were no visible signs, or smell, of damp. The letting agent also confirmed the previous tenant had decorated the corners of the room before moving out but that this was not due to damp or condensation.
15. The letting agent explained there was no clause in the tenancy agreement that allowed access to the back walkway, that tenants could clean their own windows without disturbing the ground floor neighbour, and that it could deal with any issues of anti-social behaviour with regards to the dogs. The Council also completed an affordability assessment.
16. Following its enquiries, the Council was satisfied the property was a reasonable offer of accommodation and that the property was affordable. The Council told Mr X this in December 2018 and explained its reasons for the decision.
17. Mr X made a complaint about the Council’s decision. Mr X questioned why the previous tenants would only redecorate the corners of the property if not for damp. Mr X also said because the Council visited the property four days after his visit, that gave the letting agents time to paint over the damp. Mr X also said the letting agent had been pushy, rude, and had given him incorrect information.
18. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in January 2019. The Council explained it was satisfied the review had considered the points raised. The Council also explained the letting agent had inspected the property in August 2018 and that there were no concerns about the condition of the property nor were there any identifiable mould issues. The letting agency told the Council there had been issues with mould with the block in 2013. The letting agency said there were no more reports of damp issues after it installed a ventilation system.
19. The Council also advised Mr X to complain to the letting agency with regards to the conduct of the letting agent.

Analysis

20. The suitability of a property is assessed with the needs of the applicant in mind. Mr X needed a level access, ground floor, two-bedroom property. Having reviewed his housing file, I am satisfied Mr X was not recorded as having any medical condition that would be negatively affected by damp. However, I do accept that Mr X has now said he does have a medical condition that would be affected by living in a property with damp.
21. My role is to look at whether the Council had made its decision properly. I cannot replace the Council’s decision with my own if the decision has been made properly. In this case, the evidence shows the Council had considered the issues Mr X raised.
22. The Council considered the issue of damp by visiting the property to inspect it and was satisfied there was no evidence of damp. Although Mr X has said the letting agent could have painted over the damp due to the time elapsed from when he viewed the property to when the Council visited, I am satisfied that, on balance, this was unlikely to have been the case.
23. I appreciate Mr X is of the view there was damp in the property. Equally, the Council was entitled to reach its own decision on whether there was damp. It decided there was no evidence of damp. I cannot find fault with the Council’s decision as the Council has demonstrated it took steps to satisfy itself whether there was damp.
24. Further, the Council made appropriate enquiries to consider the issues of access, the dogs, and affordability. This demonstrates the Council had considered Mr X’s reasons for the refusal of the property.
25. With regards to the letting agent and the information she provided to Mr X, I am satisfied this was not a relevant consideration for the Council when deciding the suitability of the property. This is because suitability is assessed with consideration of the needs of the applicant.
26. As discussed above, the Council had properly considered all the issues Mr X raised. This means the Council made its decision properly. Therefore, I cannot comment or find fault with the decision itself.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I find no fault with the Council’s decision that the property was a suitable offer of accommodation. I have therefore completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman