Summary: Mr Y complained the Council failed to properly assess his housing register application. The Council was not at fault in its assessment of Mr Y’s housing register application.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council failed to properly assess his housing register application.
2. This led to him being in the wrong banding for housing. He said the Council is consequently not offering him suitable properties with room for his overnight carers.

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. 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 have considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
6. I gave the Council and Mr Y the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered the comments received before making this final decision.

What I found

Background

7. 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))
8. 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))
9. Priority can be increased if an applicant can show:
• At least one adult in the household who is working is or has been employed for 9 out of the last 12 months for a minimum of 16 hours per week; or
• That they have lived in an area for three years continuously, now or in the past. The Council call this a community contribution.
10. The Council’s published housing allocations scheme prioritises applicants by placing them in one of six priority bands to reflect the urgency of their housing needs. There are:
• Band 1 - Urgent need to move due to reasonable preference and an additional preference, for example following a hospital discharge;
• Band 2 – Need to move, with reasonable preference plus community contribution or is a working household;
• Band 3 – Need to move, with reasonable preference but no community contribution and not a working household;
• Band 4 – Want to move, with no reasonable preference but have a community contribution or is a working household;
• Band 5 – Want to move, with no reasonable preference or community contribution and not a working household;
• Band 6a – Need to move with reasonable preference but with reduced priority; and
• Band 6b – No reasonable preference and reduced priority.

What Happened

11. Mr Y moved to Manchester in 2016. He was then housed by the Council in a studio flat in a different part of the city in 2017. In August 2018, he applied to the Council to be rehoused, providing supporting evidence. Mr Y requested a two-bedroom property to be closer to amenities and support with his care needs caused by mobility issues.
12. The Council completed a desk-top medical assessment of Mr Y’s application. It found Mr Y’s existing property was suitable for him and he did not meet the criteria for additional bedroom. The Council therefore placed him in Band 5.
13. Mr Y provided further information on two occasions to support his medical request after the original assessment. The Council reviewed the assessment each time further information was provided. Mr Y said he had lived in Manchester for three years, and he should have therefore been given priority for a community contribution. The Council wrote to Mr Y to confirm it had upheld its decision in late September 2018. It said his needs did not require a two-bedroom property and although he had lived in Manchester for three years, he had not lived in the same area, but had lived in different part of the city. Consequently, the Council said he did not meet the criteria for a community contribution.
14. Mr Y also complained to the Council in September 2018. The Council responded but did not uphold Mr Y’s complaint. After further discussion of his complaint, the Council sent an occupational therapist to assess Mr Y’s condition.
15. Following this visit, the Council found that Mr Y’s studio flat was not big enough to meet his needs. It therefore awarded Mr Y Band 3 priority, to move him to a one bedroom flat with a separate sleeping area. The Council explained that the assessment showed Mr Y did not need a two-bedroom flat. It apologised for the delay in correctly assessing Mr Y’s housing needs, and using its discretion, backdated his application to where it would have been had the delay have not occurred.
16. However, Mr Y was not satisfied with the banding and complained again that he should have a higher priority of band 2. The Council explained its decision to Mr Y and did not offer him a higher banding, saying Mr Y needs did not require a two-bedroom property.

Findings

17. The Council reviewed Mr Y’s situation after its original assessment of Mr Y’s application. It reassessed his situation, including considering the opinion of an occupational therapist. It changed its banding. This ensures Mr Y is in the position he would have been in had the first assessment not happened.
18. As the Council carried out its reassessment based on the judgement of suitable professionals and has followed its banding guidance, I have found no fault in its decision-making process. It considered Mr Y’s points but remained satisfied with its conclusion to change the banding. It explained Mr Y would remain eligible for a one-bedroom property, rather than a two bed.
19. The Council therefore acted appropriately and without fault to review Mr Y’s situation.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed my investigation to find the Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman