Summary: the Council failed to give the right priority to Mr X’s housing application. Because of this Mr X missed the opportunity of moving to suitable accommodation. The Council has not properly considered Mr X’s requests for extra priority. To put this right the Council will reconsider Mr X’s application and pay him £200 a month until it rehouses him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to add priority stars to his housing application, so he missed offers of accommodation. He says the Council did not offer a full remedy for this and his family still live in unsuitable accommodation.

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. 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

4. I considered the complaint Mr X made and asked the Council for information.
5. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on a draft version of my decision. I considered the comments made before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s allocation scheme

6. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  The authority must allocate accommodation in strict accordance with its published scheme.  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
7. The 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))

8. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. It advertises properties and applicants can bid for them.
9. When the Council accepts a housing application, it gives it a band from 1 to 4; with 1 being the highest priority. Within the band the Council prioritises applications first by a priority star(s) award and then by waiting time.
10. The Council awards band 2 to applicants who have a severe medical or welfare need and their current accommodation is not suitable for them.
11. The Council gives a priority star for the following

• Having any of the 4 reasonable preferences
• Working households
• Applicants contributing to the community.

12. Where the Head of Operations decides the Council can only resolve the applicant’s exceptional circumstances with an urgent move, it can award Band 1.
13. The scheme says the Council will tell the applicant about the right to ask for a review of a decision which could affect an allocation.

What happened

14. Mr X, his wife and four children live in a three-bedroom ground floor flat. Two of Mr X’s children are autistic. Mr X works.
15. In February 2015 the Council decided Mr X needed a four-bedroom property. It gave his housing application band 2 for a severe medical need. The Council did not give Mr X’s application the priority star for having a reasonable preference because of his need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
16. The Council accepts if it had done this, Mr X would have succeeded with a bid he made in December 2016.
17. In February 2017 Mr X provided proof he works. The Council did not add the priority star for this.
18. In November 2018 Mr X complained. The Council then added the two priority stars to his application.
19. Mr X wanted the Council to give his application extra priority because of the mistakes it made and the opportunities for rehousing he missed. The Council responded in February 2019. It said it could not increase his priority as its scheme did not allow this. It said it could consider making him a direct let, but this would still take time and could reduce his choice. It agreed Mr X could had lived in more suitable property since December 2016. It sent Mr X £2,250 for this.
20. The Council says it assessed this as £1,000 a year from when Mr X could have made a successful bid and £250 for his time and trouble. It says the only thing unsuitable about Mr X’s current home is that it lacks one bedroom. It says because Mr X now has the right stars and because of the lack of four-bedroom ground floor properties, it could not warrant continuing payment.
21. The Council then started major work on the block Mr X lives in. It started to build new homes attached to Mr X’s flat.
22. The construction company’s website says
23. “We will remove some of the concrete floors and walls. This work is very noisy and we apologise for any inconvenience caused. We will use noise reduction barriers where possible and will regularly monitor the noise to make sure it is kept within allowable levels”.
24. The construction company paid for Mr X’s family to stay in a hotel for five weeks.
25. On 24 April 2019 Mr X emailed the Council and asked it to put his application in band 1 or give it an extra star. He described the noisy work around his flat and said the company had told him this would continue for about seventy weeks. He said his two autistic children had constant high levels of discomfort due to the noise. His said another child had a referral to an audiologist and his wife now suffered from migraines.
26. The Council replied the next day saying the difficulties his family experienced from the current works was not exceptional and so it would not award band 1. It did not refer to Mr X’s alternative request for an extra star. The Council did not tell Mr X of his right to ask for a review of the decision
27. The Council says there are major works at the block Mr X lives in. It says it is rolling out major works across the Borough, so it cannot guarantee Mr X’s family would not be disturbed in a different property.

Analysis

Priority

28. The Council has not properly considered Mr X’s request to move to band 1. It refused this in one day without asking for any more information. Most families living with constant construction noise would find this unbearable. Mr X’s family contains two autistic children who are particularly affected by noise. The Council should have found out the level of the noise and how the noise affects the children with autism before it made its decision on exceptional circumstances. The Council did not do this. This is fault.
29. The Council could have considered if Mr X needed to move to avoid hardship. It did not do this.
30. The Council did not tell Mr X about his right to ask for a review of this decision. This is fault
31. We provide guidance on remedies. We often ask a council to enhance the applicant’s priority or waiting time. This is particularly appropriate if there has been a delay.

Financial remedy

32. Our guidance says here a person has missed out on a property; we may recommend the council allocate the next suitable property available. This is not always possible. An applicant may need a particular type of property and there may be a delay in finding this. In these cases, a higher financial payment may be appropriate to acknowledge the greater impact of the lost opportunity, and the additional time spent living in unsuitable accommodation.
33. Where someone has lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary due to fault by the Council, we usually recommend a payment of between £150 and £350 a month.
34. The Council says it decided not to award an ongoing financial remedy, in part due to the lack of the type of property Mr X needs. The lack of such properties means the Council caused greater injustice to Mr X when he missed the allocation of a suitable property in December 2016.

Agreed action

35. To put matters right for Mr X within one month of my final decision the Council will:-

• Pay Mr X £5,200. This is £200 a month for 36 months minus the £2,000 the Council has already paid him.
• Continue to pay Mr X £200 a month from 1 February 2020 until he makes a successful bid or the Council make a suitable direct offer.
• Investigate the level of noise and the effect on the children and then reconsider the award of band 1. If it does not award band 1, it should tell Mr X the reasons for this and that he can ask for a review of this decision.
• Consider if the level of noise means Mr X’s family need to move due to hardship. If so, it should award another priority star. If not, it should provide Mr X with reasons for this and tell him about his review rights.

Back to top

Final decision

36. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman