Summary: Mr C complains about the way the Council dealt with his housing application and says he missed the opportunity to bid and view properties and lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council but considers the actions it has already taken of an apology and offer of the next available suitable property with the additional agreed actions including a payment of £500 are enough to provide a suitable remedy to Mr C.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains about the way the Council dealt with his housing application. In particular, Mr C says the Council failed to:

• include an area of choice on his application
• offer him four-bedroom properties despite him being eligible
• make a suitable offer of accommodation despite agreeing to offer him the next available property

2. Mr C says because of the Council’s fault, he has missed the opportunity to bid and view properties and lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
5. 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

6. I read the papers provided by Mr C. I have considered some information from the Council and provided a copy of this to Mr C after removing third-party details. I have explained my draft decision to Mr C and the Council and provided an opportunity for comment.

Back to top

What I found

Background and legislation

7. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (the Ombudsman) will consider complaints that concern the handling of an allocation under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996.
8. 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 accordance with the published scheme (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14)).
9. 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)).

10. The Ombudsman will therefore consider complaints concerning:

• direct applications to a Local Housing Authority for housing
• applications from a tenant for a transfer if they fall within one of the ‘reasonable preference’ categories

11. The Housing Ombudsman will consider complaints about applications for a transfer that are made for any other reason. He will also consider complaints concerning succession, mutual exchange and decant accommodation from tenants and applicants.
12. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
13. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. He may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.
14. The Council’s Allocation Policy says it will allocate all qualifying applicants to one of nine bands with Band 1 having the highest priority. It also says when deciding whether a particular type of property is suitable to the applicant’s needs it will consider the circumstances of the applicant, the size and type of property, any special facilities provided and, where applicable, Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) restrictions which cap the amount of Housing Benefit applicants will receive.
15. Appendix C of the Council’s Allocation Policy gives examples of what size and type of property an applicant can usually expect to be offered. A family with three children would normally qualify for a three-bedroom property. The Council’s policy also says that where an applicant has a carer or carers providing overnight care they may qualify for an additional bedroom.
16. The Council’s policy also says it will usually only offer working age applicants the size of property for which they are entitled under the DWP bedroom standard. But if applicants can demonstrate they are able to pay rent with or without recourse to Housing Benefit it may consider them for a property with an additional bedroom subject to availability.

Key events

17. The Council received a completed housing register application on 31 January 2017. The application included Mr C and his partner and three children. The application provided information about Mr C’s medical conditions and attached an occupational therapist (OT) ‘aids and adaptations’ assessment. The OT assessment did not highlight a need for an additional bedroom.
18. The Council sent a medical form to Mr C for completion. The Council received a completed medical form on 17 February which provided additional information and evidence. The Council sent the completed form and evidence to its medical officer for a decision on 20 February.
19. The Council’s medical officer awarded medical priority on 30 March and Mr C’s application was placed in Band 4. The medical officer stated … ‘level access accommodation with appropriate aids and adaptations as advised by an OT (High Medical Need)’. The Council wrote to Mr C to confirm this decision on 3 April. This letter is silent about whether the application qualifies for an additional (fourth) bedroom. Given the information contained in the original application and subsequent medical form I consider it would have been preferable for the Council’s letter to have addressed the issue of number of bedrooms directly.
20. Mr C advised the Council he was receiving discretionary housing payment for an additional bedroom in February 2018. The Council amended the application to include four-bedroom properties from 5 February. The Council’s Revenue and Benefit section had awarded allowance for an extra bedroom from 18 October 2017. The Ombudsman would expect departments to share relevant information and the Council may wish to consider its procedure for doing so in future.
21. Mr C’s social worker contacted the Council on 29 June and it was identified that one of Mr C’s requested areas of choice for housing was not included on his application. Mr C telephoned the Council about this issue the same day. Mr C complained to the Council on 6 July as he had not received a response to his telephone contact above.
22. The Council responded to Mr C’s complaint on 11 July and apologised for officers not returning Mr C’s telephone call sooner. The Council confirmed Mr C had ticked the particular area and this should have been included on his application. This is fault. However, the Council confirmed all the allocations for three-bedroom properties in the missed area of choice during the period had been to applicants in a higher priority band than Mr C which meant he had not missed out on viewing or being offered a property. The Council also explained no four-bedroom properties had been allocated from 5 February 2018 when it had amended Mr C’s application to include four-bedroom properties.
23. Mr C escalated his complaint as he was not happy with the Council’s response. The Council provided a response at Stage 2 of its complaint procedure on 13 August. The Council accepted, on balance, that Mr C should have been considered for four-bedroom properties before February 2018. Therefore, the Council reviewed allocations to four-bedroom properties before that date and identified seven properties with one of these being allocated to an applicant in a lower priority band than Mr C at the end of July 2017. Mr C considers the Council previously lied to him about no four-bedroom properties being allocated as it subsequently identified seven such properties. However, this was after the Council had revised the period of review to include allocations before 5 February 2018.
24. The Council could not be certain if the property above would have met Mr C’s needs as it had not been inspected by an OT but accepted he had missed out on the opportunity to view the property. The Council decided to offer Mr C the next three-bedroom or four-bedroom property in his area of choice to provide a remedy. The Ombudsman welcomes the Council’s action here which is in line with the usual approach the Ombudsman would recommend.
25. The Council placed Mr C in priority Band 1 in August. The Council considered Mr C for a property in September. The Council visited Mr C in September and he confirmed he wanted a four-bedroom property or a three-bedroom property with an additional room downstairs which the Council describes as a ‘parlour’ type house. The property under consideration did not meet these criteria. The Council dismissed two further properties as they did not meet Mr C’s requirements.
26. The Council offered Mr C a four-bedroom property on 6 February 2019. The Council’s offer letter refers to the homelessness legislation with the usual warning about refusing the offer. The Council has accepted it sent the standard letter for a homeless applicant in error. The Council has explained that to ensure Mr C’s application was effectively at the top of the list for the next available suitable property it was placed in Band 1 which is for ‘homeless households, management decants and other emergency cases’. This was used as an administrative tool to ensure Mr C’s case was not overlooked. The Council has also accepted it referred Mr C to the Housing Ombudsman in error in its final complaint response. Whilst regrettable, I consider an apology is enough to remedy these administrative faults.
27. Unfortunately, after an OT visit to the above property it was not considered to be suitable for Mr C as it could not be adapted to meet his access needs.
28. Mr C says the Council has failed to offer him a suitable property. I am satisfied the Council has correctly recorded Mr C as qualifying for the next three-bedroom parlour type property or four-bedroom property in his area of choice and has increased his priority banding to ensure this. The suitability of any such property cannot be confirmed until an OT has visited the property to ensure it is either suitable for Mr C or can be adapted to meet his needs. I see no fault here.
29. Mr C also considers the Council should have identified his need for a four-bedroom property from the outset and its Allocations Policy is faulty in this regard. The Council’s policy sets out the usual criteria which will apply to an applicant’s household about the size of a property but does not fetter the Council’s discretion to allocate properties to meet the particular circumstances of an applicant. In any event, the Council has already accepted it should have considered Mr C for four-bedroom properties under its policy before February 2018.
30. Mr C says he feels the Council is treating him less favourably than other applicants and has provided the Ombudsman with his reasons for this view. Although it is regrettable that the Council has made some errors in the way it has dealt with Mr C’s housing application, I have seen no evidence to suggest these were part of a targeted campaign against Mr C as he has suggested.
31. Finally, I must consider if Mr C has lived in an unsuitable property for longer than necessary due to the Council’s fault. I note the four-bedroom property offered to Mr C which was subsequently found not to be suitable was at the same location as the four-bedroom property Mr C had previously missed out on viewing at the end of July 2017. This may well mean it also would not have been suitable for Mr C. However, I do consider Mr C has been caused a significant degree of uncertainty about this and spent unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing his complaint which has added to the already difficult circumstances he faces. I consider a further remedy is appropriate in these circumstances.

Agreed action

32. The Council has agreed to take the following actions:
1. to write to Mr C within one month of my final decision to provide an additional apology for its administrative errors of wrongly referring to homeless legislation in its offer letter and referring him to the wrong Ombudsman service at the conclusion of its complaint procedure;
2. pay Mr C £500 within one month of my final decision to reflect his uncertainty and time and trouble in pursuing the matter; and
3. continue to use its best efforts to identify and offer Mr C a suitable property.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault by the Council but consider the actions it has already taken together with the agreed actions above are enough to provide a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman