London Borough of Hackney (19 005 082)

Category : Housing > Allocations

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 16 Dec 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s refusal to give her additional housing priority due to her multiple needs, causing her family to remain longer in unsuitable accommodation. The Ombudsman finds no fault affecting the Council’s decision but finds the Council delayed granting disrepair points. The Ombudsman recommends the Council provides an apology and payment for distress.

The complaint

  1. Ms X complains about the Council’s refusal to give her additional housing priority due to her multiple needs. She says the Council failed to consider relevant information. Ms X says her family has remained in an unsuitable property for longer.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I have investigated the above complaint. At the end of this decision I have set out why I have not investigated other matters.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, 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

  1. I spoke to Ms X and I reviewed documents provided by Ms X and the Council. I gave Ms X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and I considered the comments provided.

Back to top

What I found

Housing Act 1996

  1. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. Councils must follow their published scheme.

The Council’s Lettings Policy 2016

  1. The Council prioritises applicants using a points system. More points means a higher priority and band. The bands are:
    • Emergency 250-998
    • Urgent 100-240
    • Priority 40-90
    • Homeless 999+*
    • General 10-30
  2. The Council will award points for overcrowding, medical need, social needs and disrepair. If a person qualifies for points in more than one category, it will not add the points together. Instead the area that generates the highest priority defines the band it places a person in.
  3. In relation to disrepair the policy says:

“The final decision on whether an award is appropriate will be made by the appropriate designated officer based on the feedback he or she receives from the assessment team.”

  1. Sometimes, where a person qualifies in more than one area, the Council will consider whether to give additional priority because of multiple needs. The policy says:
  2. “The Council will not increase the priority of every household application that falls into multiple categories. In general, it will not be appropriate to simply aggregate the points of your households various needs and see whether that results in a higher banding. The decision of whether to accord additional priority to an application, and, if so, to what extent, is a discretionary and we will take into account”:
    • How the needs interact
    • Whether the accumulation of needs is significant
    • Where one need increases the other need
    • Whether preference should be given bearing in mind the needs of other applicants
    • The length of time other applicants have been waiting
    • Information from professionals where there are relevant health and social care factors
  3. If the Council considers a case urgent or complex, it will refer it to a panel.

What happened

  1. Ms X is a Council tenant sharing a one bedroom property with her two children.
  2. The Council gave Ms X 10 points for overcrowding and placed her in the general band on the housing register, with a band date of 2010. The Council says it assessed Ms X as needing two bedrooms but her property is only one bedroom.
  3. Ms X asked the Council for additional points due to disrepair and medical needs. However, the Council refused.
  4. In October 2018 the Ombudsman issued a decision finding the Council at fault because it did not follow a proper decision making process. The Ombudsman recommended the Council make its decision again.
  5. The Council made its decision again on 21 January 2019. Its records show it considered whether Ms X qualified for points either because of medical needs or disrepair. It found she did not. For disrepair, the Council said it had inspected the property and found no significant risks or defects that would cause harm.
  6. In April 2019 the Council told Ms X it would give her a further 10 points for disrepair. The Council says it awarded these points for mould and damp. It cannot explain why it did not award these points earlier. Ms X says she reported mould and damp in 2006, 2011 and 2013.
  7. Ms X say she complained to the Council it should have awarded her points for disrepair earlier. And, its decision in January 2019 was wrong as it failed to consider these points.
  8. Ms X says the Council refused to consider her complaint as the Ombudsman had already investigated.
  9. In response to my enquiries the Council explained it will consider at its discretion whether to award additional priority for multiple needs. It sets out its consideration of Ms X’s circumstances with reference to its policy and, confirms it will not give her additional priority.

Findings

  1. I cannot say the Council’s decision of January 2019 was wrong simply because Ms X disagrees with it. I must consider if there was fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
  2. Ms X believes the Council should have awarded her points for disrepair due to structural defects in her property ongoing since 2013. However, the Council has discretion to award points for disrepair. This means it is up to the Council. The Council’s records show it inspected the property in January 2019 and decided, on the information and evidence, not to give points for disrepair. I find no fault in the Council’s decision making.
  3. Ms X believes the Council should have awarded her points for disrepair for mould and damp earlier. And, the Council cannot explain why it awarded points in April 2019 and not earlier. Because the Council cannot explain the reasons for its action in April 2019 and, as it has not disputed Ms X reported mould and damp in the past, I find on balance the Council failed to award Ms X points for disrepair for mould and damp when it should have done. This is fault.
  4. Ms X considers the Council’s fault affected its decision of January 2019. Ms X believes the Council should accept her as a special case with multiple needs and give additional priority to her housing application. In response to enquiries, the Council considered whether to give Ms X additional priority with reference to its policy. The Council decided not to give Ms X additional priority. I find no fault in the Council’s decision making process. Although Ms X will be unhappy with the Council’s decision, I cannot say the Council’s decision is wrong simply because Ms X disagrees with it.
  5. The Council’s fault did not affect Ms X’s housing band, because she remains in the general band. I am therefore satisfied the Council’s fault did not cause Ms X to remain in her accommodation for longer than she might have done. However, the Council’s fault caused Ms X uncertainty and distress as to her housing situation.

Agreed action

  1. To remedy the injustice set out above I recommend the Council carry out the following actions within one month of the date of my decision:
    • Provide Ms X with an apology for its delay in adding disrepair points to her housing account;
    • Pay Ms X £100 for distress and uncertainty.
  2. The Council has accepted my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I find the Council delayed adding points to Ms X’s housing account causing distress. The Council has accepted my recommendations and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

  1. I cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of disrepair issues. This is because Ms X is a Council tenant and the Housing Ombudsman is the appropriate body to deal with such complaints.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings