St Edmundsbury Borough Council (18 016 913)

Category : Housing > Allocations

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 25 Jun 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to properly consider his circumstances before reducing his housing register banding. The Council applied its allocations policy properly but failed to explain how the allocations policy worked to Mr C. That led to him having to go to time and trouble to pursue his complaint. An apology is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complained the Council failed to properly consider his circumstances before reducing his housing register banding from band B to band D.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  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 Mr C's comments;
    • made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
    • considered the Council’s allocations policy;
    • considered Mr C’s comments on my draft decision; and
    • gave the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

  1. Mr C was living in owner occupied accommodation when he applied for housing with the Council. Mr C told the Council he had recently had a heart attack which might prevent him continuing to work and that his property would become unaffordable. At that point the Council assessed Mr C as in band D as he had enough money to find his own property as he was living in a property which he owned.

Mr C sold his property in 2017. I understand Mr C received more than £185,000 following that sale. Mr C applied for housing with the Council again in April 2018. At that point Mr C was living in a privately rented property which was unsuitable for his wife’s needs. The Council at first awarded band B as the family had high medical needs. However, when the Council received information about Mr C’s savings it downgraded that banding to band D. The Council wrote to Mr C to tell him it had done that because he had enough money to resolve his own housing need. The Council reiterated that decision when Mr C asked for a review.

  1. The Council accepts its communications with Mr C have not been clear about how the Council decided to award band D priority. The Council accepts Mr C’s family has a high medical need for alternative accommodation and is threatened with homelessness but because he has enough money to resolve his own housing needs it has reduced his priority. The Council has offered to write to Mr C again to properly explain its decision.

The Council’s Allocations Policy

  1. This says if an applicant has income and/or capital which will means they can resolve their own housing need they will not receive any preference for social housing. It says the assessment will be based on the following:
    • the total income of the applicant/partner;
    • any capital available to the applicant/partner;
    • average property prices and rents in the area for the type of accommodation needed by the household;
    • the ability of the applicant/partner to rent a property in the private sector based on a realistic assessment of their financial position and commitments;
    • the ability of the applicant/partner to acquire a mortgage and maintain required repayments based on realistic assessment of their financial position and commitments.

Analysis

  1. Mr C says the Council failed to properly consider his family’s circumstances before reducing their housing banding from B to D. Mr C says because his wife has mobility problems and his son is autistic the Council should have granted band B. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council at first granted band B as the family have high medical needs. That is in accordance with the Council’s allocations policy. However, the Council’s allocations policy also makes clear if an applicant has income and/or capital which means they can resolve their own housing need they do not receive any preference for social housing. I refer to that part of the Council’s allocations policy in paragraph 7. In this case the Council was satisfied Mr C had significant savings which means he can rent privately. The Council therefore downgraded Mr C’s housing priority from B to D. In effect, the fact the Council considers Mr C can afford to rent privately overrides any other assessment of priority. That decision reflects the Council’s allocations policy and is not fault.
  2. I am, however, concerned about the way the Council communicated with Mr C about that. The Council’s communications both at decision and review stage simply say the Council allocated band D because it considered Mr C had enough money to resolve his own housing need. I do not consider that a satisfactory explanation, which the Council accepts. The Council should have explained the assessment of financial resources overrides any other assessment of priority and therefore although Mr C would have been entitled to band B on medical grounds that is overridden by the financial resources test which downgrades the banding to band D. If the Council had properly explained that Mr C would not have had to go to time and trouble to pursue his complaint. It would not, however, have altered the decision given the amount of Mr C’s savings.
  3. I also have some concerns with how the Council approaches assessments of financial resources. As I say in paragraph 7, the Council’s allocations policy says it should carry out an assessment of financial resources and the allocations policy says how that should happen. In particular, the allocations policy says the Council should consider average property prices and rents in the area for the type of accommodation needed by the household. In this case it seems to me the Council relied simply on the amount of savings. I do not consider it likely if the Council had considered average property prices in the area that would have resulted in a different outcome, given the amount of Mr C’s savings. Nevertheless, the Council should have followed its allocations policy and recorded its decision and then communicated that to Mr C. Failure to do that is fault.
  4. My second concern is with how the Council describes how it assesses rent levels. In its response to my enquiry the Council says it uses local housing allowance rates to estimate reasonable market rent. That, however, is not in accordance with the Council’s allocations policy. The allocations policy is clear the assessment should be based on average property prices and rents in the area for the type of accommodation needed by the household. If the Council wants to use the local housing allowance rate it will need to amend its allocations policy to reflect that. In this case I do not consider this has caused an injustice to Mr C. That is because the amount of Mr C’s savings are such the decision would not have been different even if the Council had considered the level of rent for the type of property Mr C needed.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
    • apologise to Mr C for failing to explain the test of financial resources overrode any other banding decision; and
    • consider amending its allocations policy to reflect its practice of using local housing allowance rates rather than average property prices and rents when considering a person has sufficient financial resources to resolve their own housing need.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused Mr C an injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy Mr C’s injustice.

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