Weymouth and Portland Borough Council (18 017 728)

Category : Housing > Allocations

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 11 Dec 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to allocate her properties she bid on and then failed to explain why this happened. The Council was not at fault for the way it allocated the properties. It was at fault for the delay in responding to her complaint about this and for failing to properly explain why she was not allocated the properties. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and to pay her £100 to acknowledge the frustration this caused.

The complaint

  1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to offer her family one of the properties they bid for on a new housing development even though they met the criteria and the properties were suitable. It failed to explain why this happened and failed to respond to her queries and complaint about this. As a result, the family remained in an unsuitable property for longer than they should have.

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) 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. I have considered the information provided by Mrs X and have spoken to her on the telephone. I have considered the Council’s response to my enquiries.
  2. I gave Mrs X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and considered any comments I received before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

  1. 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))
  2. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
    • homeless people;
    • people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
    • people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
    • people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others.

(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

  1. Housing authorities can adopt local lettings policies and plans to enable them to allocate to specific groups of people whether or not they fall into one of the reasonable preference categories.
  2. The Council’s allocations scheme places applicants into one of four bands:
    • Emergency band is for those with an exceptional housing need that takes priority over other applicants;
    • Gold band includes those overcrowded by two or more bedrooms, those with high medical/welfare needs and those suffering from severe or persistent harassment;
    • Silver band includes homeless households, those with medium medical/welfare needs and those overcrowded by one bedroom;
    • Bronze band includes those with low medical needs, applicants with housing related debts or who have deliberately worsened their circumstances and those who have accepted an offer that does not meet their housing needs.
  3. Applicants within each band are prioritised based on the length of time they have been in the band.
  4. Lifetime Homes are ordinary homes designed to incorporate specific design criteria so they can meet the needs of diverse households from the outset or through cost-effective adaptation. The Lifetime Homes website explains that ‘A Lifetime Home will meet the requirements of a wide range of households, including families with pushchairs as well as some wheelchair users. The additional functionality and accessibility it provides is also helpful to everyone in ordinary daily life, for example when carrying large and bulky items. Lifetime Homes are not, however, a substitute for purpose-designed wheelchair standard housing. Many wheelchair users will require purpose-designed wheelchair housing’.

What happened

  1. In 2017, Mrs X and her family were living in an unsuitable property. Mr X is disabled with mobility problems. He uses walking aids and a wheelchair. Mrs X joined the Council’s housing register in June 2017. The Council placed the application in gold band based on a high medical need to move.
  2. In July 2018, Mrs X bid for seven properties on a new build estate. Mrs X’s bids were unsuccessful and she complained to the Council. An officer responded and explained there was a local lettings plan in place for the estate which precluded her from some of the properties. Two properties were considered unsuitable for a wheelchair user. The officer said they would seek further information and update Mrs X.
  3. Mrs X did not receive a response and contacted us. We asked the Council for an update. The Council, in April 2019, said the complaint had not been fully considered through its complaints procedure and responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints’ procedure.
  4. The Council explained it used a choice-based lettings system so Mrs X’s position when she bid for properties could go up and down depending on who else was bidding at the time. Some types of property and some locations were more popular than others. It explained Mrs X was unsuccessful in her bid for a newly built home due to the property being unsuitable for her family’s needs.
  5. Mrs X was unhappy the properties were intended to be ‘Lifetime Homes’ and so adaptable for people with mobility problems and yet were considered unsuitable for someone in a wheelchair. The Council explained the homes were built as part of a developer’s obligations to provide some social housing under the planning permission. They were not as spacious or suitable for people with mobility problems as they would have been if they were designed by a registered provider themselves. It also stated that some agreements with the developer stipulated that priority should be given to applicants with the strongest local connection and this can sometimes lead to situations where those with a lower banding are successful over someone in a higher banding.
  6. Mrs X remained unhappy and asked that her complaint be considered at stage 2. The Council responded at stage 2 in mid May 2019. It apologised that she had not received a further response in August 2018. It explained Mrs X was refused the property due to its access, and the downstairs hallway and landing being too narrow for wheelchair access. Mrs X remained unhappy and contacted us. She said she had bid on seven properties and not just one and all were built to the Lifetime Homes standard so should have been suitable for adaptation.
  7. In response to my enquiries the Council explained there was a local lettings policy in place for the new development which meant properties were not always allocated to those with the greatest housing need. The plan set out that houses would be allocated as follows: 20% allocated to homeless households, 40% to those with reasonable preference, 30% to transfer applicants and 10% to those in bronze band in employment or voluntary work.
  8. The other properties went to households in the same banding as Mrs X but who had been waiting a shorter time. The Council said it had allocated the properties to other households as they were not suitable for a wheelchair, so it was not appropriate to allocate these properties to Mrs X.
  9. In September 2019 Mrs X was allocated a property she bid for.

Findings

  1. The Council delayed responding to Mrs X’s complaint. When she first complained, an officer provided a part response but did not provide the further information they had agreed. When the Council responded at stage 1 and 2 of its complaints’ procedure, it only referred to one property she had bid for on the new development and made no reference to the other six. It made no mention of the local lettings policy and how and why she was not selected for the other six. This is fault. This caused Mrs X frustration and left her uncertain over how the properties were allocated and whether she had missed out on a property.
  2. The Council has provided details of the priority of the applicants the seven properties were let to. Five were allocated in line with the Council’s housing allocations policy either to those with greater priority than Mrs X or as allowed for in the local lettings plan. There is no fault in the way the Council allocated these properties.
  3. The Council says the other two properties were not suitable for Mrs X’s family as they were not wheelchair accessible due to narrow hallways and landings and so were not suitable for adaptation. In addition, one of the properties had an uneven access abutting the road with no pavement for a wheelchair to manoeuvre.
  4. Although the new development was built to Lifetime Homes standard that is not a guarantee the houses were appropriate for Mrs X’s family. As the Lifetime Homes website explains, the homes should be suitable for a wide range of households but are not a substitute for purpose-designed wheelchair standard housing. The plans of the properties do show narrow hallways and landings. Although the properties would have been preferable to Mrs X than her current property, there was no fault in the way the Council reached the decision not to offer them to Mrs X.
  5. The demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Council has prioritised applications and allocated properties in line with its allocations scheme and I have found no evidence of fault in the way the properties were allocated.

Agreed action

  1. Within one month of the final decision on the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 to acknowledge the frustration caused by the delay in responding to her complaint and for the lack of explanation in the complaint responses.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

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