Summary: Mr X complains that South Tyneside Homes failed to adhere to an agreement to stay in band two of its housing allocations policy indefinitely. South Tyneside Homes is at fault as it did not clearly explain to Mr X that it was extending his band two priority as an exception to its housing allocations policy and it would not be extended indefinitely. South Tyneside Homes is not at fault for not placing Mr X in band two indefinitely.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that South Tyneside Homes:
1. Failed to adhere to an agreement it made with him in January 2017 to extend the time he could stay in band 2 indefinitely if he did not find a suitable property.
2. Failed to provide suitable support for Mr X to find a suitable alternative property as it undertook to do in its letter of 10 June 2019 in response to his complaint.

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 body in jurisdiction’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 have:
• Considered the complaint and the information provided by Mr X;
• Discussed the issues with Mr X;
• Made enquiries of South Tyneside Homes and considered the information provided;
• Invited Mr X and South Tyneside Homes to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. In late 2016 Mr X made an application to South Tyneside Homes as he wanted to move. South Tyneside Homes is South Tyneside Council’s housing company also known as an arm’s length management organisation.
6. South Tyneside Council’s Housing Allocation Policy places applicants into one of five priority bands according to their housing needs. Bands one plus, one and two are the highest priority bandings. The housing allocations policy provides applicants placed in these banding may be demoted to band four if they do not place a bid on a suitable property during the timescale allocated to the band. Band two has a timescale of six months so an application may be demoted if they have not placed a bid on a suitable property within this timescale.
7. South Tyneside Homes placed Mr X in band four when it approved his application in late 2016. Following an appeal by Mr X it awarded band two for a six month period. South Tyneside Homes advised Mr X to bid on properties and consider properties in a wider area.
8. In January 2017 Mr X sent an email to South Tyneside Homes. He said that due to his mental health condition he would only bid for properties in locations he felt comfortable with and close to his support network. Mr X also requested the timescale of six months be extended to prevent his anxiety from increasing due to feeling pressured to bid.
9. Officer A, housing officer, contacted Mr X by telephone and then sent an email to him. In the email officer A said

“I am pleased to inform you that following our telephone conversation I can confirm that I would be happy to extend your band 2 if you are not rehoused within the timescale we have given you. This relates to the issues we have discussed, ie that you live in a high demand area and so, you are hoping for a move into an equally high demand area, also, your issues will remain if you are not successful within the set timescale.”

10. Mr X considers this email shows officer A agreed to extend Mr X’s band two indefinitely.
11. South Tyneside Homes wrote to Mr X in July 2017 to notify him his band two had expired so he had been placed in band four. This was because it considered Mr X had not actively bid for properties. Mr X contacted officer A to request he be placed in band two as per their agreement. He also asked if his band two placement could be extended for 12 months as he felt anxious about the pressure of a six months timescale given his mental health condition.
12. Officer A sent an email to Mr X which said:

“..I am pleased to confirm that your band 2 has been re-applied to your application today. I must inform you that our Housing Allocations Policy does not allow me to award this banding for longer than six month timescales.”

13. Mr X sent an email advising he would contact officer A in six months. South Tyneside Homes sent a letter to Mr X advising his band two had been extended and he may be placed in the next appropriate band if he did not actively seek a home.
14. Mr X contacted officer A again in March 2018 as band two had expired and South Tyneside Homes had placed him in band four. Officer A replied by email stating she had reinstated Mr X’s banding as per their original discussion. Mr X’s placement in band two should have expired in September 2018 in accordance with the allocations policy.
15. Mr X contacted South Tyneside Homes again in March and April 2019 to request his options be extended to bungalows as he did not want a ground floor flat. Mr X also complained that South Tyneside Homes had not stuck to the agreement to keep him in band two indefinitely.
16. South Tyneside Homes’ records show officer B, a manager, contacted Mr X by telephone to discuss his complaint. The record of the call notes officer B advised Mr X he was not eligible for a bungalow. Mr X agreed to have an occupational therapy assessment to see if his circumstances were exceptional to be considered for a bungalow.
17. Officer C, occupational therapist, wrote to Mr X to advise she had tried to call him to discuss his housing as he was not eligible for a bungalow. She invited Mr X to call her. She later sent a letter to Mr X arranging a housing assessment for 9 May 2019. Officer C visited Mr X on this day to carry out the assessment but he declined the assessment as he was unwell. Officer C invited Mr X to contact South Tyneside Homes to reschedule the assessment.
18. Mr X escalated his complaint which was considered at stages two and three of South Tyneside Home’s three stage complaints procedure. South Tyneside Homes placed Mr X in band two for a further period of six months as it was unable to establish what support it had offered Mr X to enable him to understand his housing options. It also offered further support to consider his housing options. South Tyneside Homes did not consider there was evidence to show it had agreed to place Mr X in band two indefinitely but acknowledged its correspondence had not been as clear as it should have been.
19. In June 2019, officer D, housing officer, contacted Mr X to offer support with his housing options. The record of the call notes Mr X was aggressive and would not let officer D speak so she could not offer support. Officer D recorded she could not assist Mr X with bidding as he does not want help other than to be placed in band two indefinitely.
20. Mr X made a further complaint about the delay in carrying out a housing assessment. The assessment was carried out in October 2019. I refer to this information by way of background only and it does not form part of my investigation. This is because it is a new issue which has arisen since I commenced my investigation and South Tyneside Homes is considering Mr X’s complaint about this matter through its complaints procedure.
21. In response to my enquiries South Tyneside Homes has said there is no provision in the allocation policy for an applicant to remain in a band indefinitely. The review and extension of the period Mr X was in band two was exceptional and based on his specific needs and it was not intended to be an indefinite arrangement. It cannot allow Mr X to remain in band two indefinitely contrary to the allocations policy. South Tyneside Homes also considers an indefinite extension offers no assistance to Mr X as it does not have readily available accommodation in his preferred area. Mr X’s requirement for accommodation in a specific area limits his choice and availability is more restricted.

My assessment

Did the Council agree Mr X could remain in band two indefinitely?

22. There is no record of officer A’s telephone conversation of January 2017 with Mr X so I cannot know if she agreed to Mr X remaining in band two indefinitely. But, on balance, I understand why Mr X thought it was an indefinite arrangement. Officer A did not clearly advise Mr X that extending his time in band two was an exception to the allocations policy. She advised Mr X that she could only extend the band two for six months in accordance with the allocations policy. However, officer A did not clearly explain to Mr X the reasons for the six month time restriction or that Mr X’s band two may not be extended at the end of the six month period. So, it is understandable that Mr X thought the six month timescale was an administrative matter and South Tyneside Homes would automatically renew his band two if he contacted when it expired.
23. I am mindful South Tyneside Homes sent letters to Mr X advising that he could be moved from band two at the end of the six month period. However, officer A continued to renew Mr X’s band two between January 2017 and March 2018 without review. This was a benefit to Mr X. But the lack of clarity in officer A’s emails and the repeated extensions without review gave Mr X the expectation that he would remain in band two indefinitely.
24. But I do not consider South Tyneside Homes to be at fault for not extending Mr X band two indefinitely. Even if I could say officer A had agreed to place Mr X in band two indefinitely South Tyneside Homes would have to regularly review this arrangement and decide if it should remain.
25. South Tyneside Homes must also have regard to the allocations policy which provides that it can award band two for a six month period and it may demote applicants if they have not bid on properties within this timescale. There is no provision for applicants to remain in band two indefinitely.
26. I am satisfied South Tyneside Homes made exceptions for Mr X by extending his band two on a number of occasions, including in response to his complaint. South Tyneside Homes also advised Mr X of his housing options, including extending his preferred areas, and clearly explained to Mr X that it would place him in band four in December 2019. So Mr X was aware of what he needed to do and that he would be placed in band four if he had not bid on a property by December 2019.

Support provided to find alternative accommodation

27. On balance, I consider South Tyneside Homes did offer support to Mr X as it had undertaken to do. Officer D contacted Mr X to discuss his housing options and how she could assist. The evidence shows Mr X told officer D he did not want any support other than to remain in band two indefinitely. It is clear from South Tyneside Homes’ records that the call with Mr X was difficult. So it would have been better for South Tyneside Homes to have sent a letter to Mr X inviting him to contact officers if he wanted support. But this does not amount to fault as South Tyneside Homes contacted Mr X to offer support and, on balance, I consider he declined this offer.

Agreed action

28. That South Tyneside Homes:
1. sends a written apology to Mr X for giving him the expectation that he would remain in band two indefinitely as it did not clearly explain the extensions to the six month period were an exception to its allocations policy and it may not grant further extensions. South Tyneside Homes has taken this action.
2. ensures by briefing or training or other means that officers manage applicants’ expectations by clearly explaining to applicants when extending their time in a priority band that this is an exception to the allocations policy and it may not continue to extend their priority. South Tyneside Homes should take this action within three months of my final decision and explain to the Ombudsman the action taken to improve its practice.

Back to top

Final decision

29. South Tyneside Homes is at fault as it did not clearly explain to Mr X that it was extending his band two priority as an exception to its housing allocations policy and it would not be extended indefinitely. South Tyneside Homes is not at fault for not placing Mr X in band two indefinitely.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman