Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Ms D’s complaint about the shortlisting process for properties she bid for. An officer wrongly mistook money she paid for rent as housing benefit but, this caused her no injustice. While the Council accepted the wording of part of its allocation policy was misleading and incorrect, this caused no injustice to Ms D.

The complaint

1. Ms D complains the Council failed to treat her application for rehousing fairly because it did not:
1. short list her for several properties;
2. give her correct bidding dates from her file; and
3. correctly apply the allocations policy when it told her she could only be nominated for one property at a time.
2. As a result, she and her partner were caused stress, frustration, and possibly lost the opportunity to be considered for other properties.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I only investigated bids for accommodation Ms D made after January 2019. The paragraph at the end of this statement explains why.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
5. 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)

Back to top

Council’s Home Choice Allocation Policy

6. The Council operates a choice based letting system for social housing which involves applicants expressing an interest in being a tenant of any advertised property. Applicants are told of their banding, the reason for the banding, the application date, and the size of property for which they are eligible.
7. Homes are advertised to let every week. Applicants can view the details of the homes and bid for those for which they are eligible. (paragraph 1.3.3)
8. Once the bidding deadline has passed, the successful applicant will be selected from those that applied for the property based on: the band they were placed in reflecting their housing needs; their band start date; and, their local connection. (paragraph 1.3.5)
9. A nomination is made to the partner housing provider. (paragraph 1.3.6)
10. The Council places applicants in 1 of 4 bands which is decided by their housing needs. The bands are: Emergency Band (for example, those with urgent health needs); Gold Band (for example, those who have high disrepair needs); Silver Band (for example, those owed a full homelessness duty) and Bronze Band (for example, those who deliberately worsened their circumstances). (paragraph 3.4)
11. Applicants can apply for up to 6 homes each week. (paragraph 5.7.5)
12. Where an applicant has the highest band and earliest effective band date for more than 1 home in any 1 week, applicants need to choose which home they wish to view. They will be unable to view more than 1 home in any 1 advertising cycle. (paragraph 5.7.6)
13. Applicants who bid are prioritised by their band and then by their band start date within each band. (paragraph 6.1.1)
14. For each home advertised, the successful applicant will be the one in the highest band and with the earliest band start date. (paragraph 6.1.2)
15. Before making any final decision on the offer, the applicant will be able to view the property. As noted, the applicant with the highest band and earliest effective band date for more than 1 home in any 1 week, will need to choose which home they wish to view. An applicant cannot view more than 1 home in any 1 week. (paragraph 6.1.4)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

16. I considered all the information provided by Ms D, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent her. I did not send her a complete copy as some of the information needed to remain confidential as it contained details about third parties. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Ms D and the Council.

Back to top

What I found

17. Ms D is unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her application for housing. I now consider the individual complaints she has against the Council.

Shortlisting

18. Ms D asked the Council why she was not top of the waiting list for a property. She argued the Council failed to give her a proper explanation. Ms D also queries why she was not nominated for 3 properties during a 3-month period. During this time, the Council delayed withdrawing an offer of an unsuitable property. She complains the Council failed to tell her why her bid for another property failed.
19. The Council nominated her for property 1 in November 2018 which it offered to her as it considered it suitable. Ms D emailed the Council about its condition and the landlord said the works would be done the following month. The Council had contacted the landlord as it dealt with Ms D’s email as a request for a review of its suitability.
20. Following further contact with Ms D, she confirmed in December she wanted a review of property 1’s suitability. The Council invited her to a meeting towards the end of January 2019 to carry out a review. At the same time, the landlord told the Council the repairs would take until early January, then late January, to do. The day before the meeting with Ms D, the Council contacted the landlord who said it would take a further 4 weeks to complete. As a result, the Council withdrew the offer. It withdrew the offer within the 56-day period it had to consider her request for a review of the property’s suitability. The Council also accepts that during this period of delay, Ms D could not bid for other properties.
21. The Council explained each advertised property has its own shortlist generated from the bids placed. This is because households bid for different properties which makes each shortlist different. The shortlist for each property, therefore, takes account of who bid, their banding, and the band date. It follows, an applicant’s position on the short list is likely to change for each property an applicant bids for.

Analysis

22. As already noted, Ms D’s previous Ombudsman’s investigation looked at her complaint about events leading up to the end of January 2019. It found no fault. This means her complaint about the Council’s handling of the bids for property 1 and 4 have not been investigated. This is because they were within the timeframe looked at by the previous investigation.
23. In February, Ms D was nominated for property 2. The landlord accepted the Council’s nomination and offered the property to Ms D. Although she bid for property 3 at the same time, her bid for it was ignored because by the time of making the offer, Ms D already had the offer for property 2 which she accepted.
24. I am satisfied with the Council’s explanation about the shortlisting process, which is also set out in its allocation policy. I found no fault on this complaint.

Bidding dates

25. Ms D is concerned about incorrect information the Council has about her. This includes claiming she was in debt for unpaid rent when she was in B+B, while she received housing benefit at the time. I have not seen the correspondence from the officer which made this claim. Ms D said she did not qualify for housing benefit and is concerned about its failure to keep proper records of rent she paid.
26. The Council confirmed while in B+B, she did make a claim for housing benefit, but it was invalid. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed an officer wrongly referred to a payment on the system as housing benefit rather than a payment by Ms D. It also confirmed this error was corrected but, accepts there is nothing to show it told Ms D.
27. Ms D also claims the Council failed to nominate her for property 2 at the time she bid for property 3 which closed for bidding shortly before she provided information the Council asked from her for property 2.

Analysis

28. While the officer wrongly assumed the single payment on the B+B rent account was housing benefit, I am not satisfied this caused Ms D a significant injustice. This is because it had no bearing on her application for housing and the Council corrected this misunderstanding.
29. The Council had already offered Ms D property 2 before it could offer property 3. The Council offered it to her on 7 February. A Council email on 14 February confirmed the offer for property 2 was its final offer and if she did not provide the information requested, the Council would treat it as a refusal. Ms D accepted this property. The Council offered property 3 to another applicant on 19 February. I found no fault on this complaint as the Council followed procedure.

Allocation policy

30. Ms D complains she was wrongly told she could not be shortlisted for more than one accommodation at a time. She argued this was not correct under its allocation policy.
31. The Council accepted the wording of its policy (section 5.7.6 and 6.1.4) was misleading and incorrect. It referred to weekly bidding cycles rather than daily bidding. The Council apologised for any confusion caused and told Ms D it would amend the policy.
32. The Council went on to explain this did not apply to bids placed on her behalf which it did to make sure she did not miss the opportunity to be considered for accommodation meeting her needs. When applicants are under offer, the Council continues to bid in case a landlord refuses the nomination.

Analysis

33. The Council accepted the wording of its policy, which referred to weekly bidding cycles rather than daily bidding, was incorrect and apologised to Ms D for it. This error is fault. I am not satisfied it caused any outstanding injustice to her. This is because the Council apologised to her and she received an offer of accommodation which she accepted in February 2019.

Back to top

Final decision

34. The Ombudsman, on Ms D’s complaint against the Council, found no fault on complaint a), fault on complaint b) which caused no significant injustice, and fault on complaint c) which also caused no significant injustice to her.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

35. I did not investigate any complaint Ms D had about the Council’s actions before January 2019. This is because of her previous complaint to the Ombudsman (18 008 055) which investigated events up to that date, including bids for properties. I did not investigate events before this date because they had already been investigated. This includes any complaint she has about the Council failing to allow her to bid while she was under offer for property 1.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman