Summary: Mr B complains about how the Council dealt with his priority for rehousing. The Ombudsman finds there was no fault by the Council in its allocations policy or the way it was applied in Mr B’s case.

The complaint

1. The complaint, whom I shall call Mr B, complains the Council has awarded him Band B1 priority for re-housing but only to bid on flats and maisonettes, which are in short supply, and not on three-bedroom houses, which are more plentiful and which applicants in the lower-priority Band C can bid on.

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 information submitted by Mr B about his complaint and the complaint responses issued by the Council.
5. I considered the Council’s housing allocations scheme, published on its website.
6. I provided Mr B and the Council with a draft of this decision and took account of all comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative information

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. The Localism Act 2011 introduced new freedoms to allow councils to better manage their waiting list and to tailor their allocation priorities to meet local needs.

The Council’s housing allocations policy

10. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. As set out above, reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants in housing need. To provide reasonable preference to applicants for housing the Council operates a banding scheme and within this takes account of the date on which the application for housing was registered or the date from which any higher priority was awarded.
11. The three priority bands are A, B and C. Band A is the highest priority and applicants considered for this band include council tenants moved out of their homes due to demolition or major repairs; those giving up a property too large for their needs; and those occupying a property which has been adapted where that adaptation is no longer required. Band B is that awarded where certain other specified grounds for priority are met, and this includes applicants who are severely overcrowded. Applicants in Bands A and B are housed in date order, from the date that priority was awarded. Band C is for all applicants on the Council’s register for housing, including those in bands A and B, and applicants in this band are housed in date order from the date their application was registered.
12. Within Band B, applicants may be placed in B1 if they have a connection with the borough, and B2 if they do not. Band B1 takes priority over Band B2.
13. The Council’s allocations policy says that a household is considered severely overcrowded where the group seeking to move includes, for example, five people living in two-bedroom accommodation.

Mr B’s family circumstances

14. Mr B and his partner live in a two bedroom flat with their three children, the youngest of whom was born in April 2019. Being a family of five, they applied to the Council for increased priority for rehousing on the grounds of severe overcrowding.

What happened next

15. At the end of May 2019 Mr B’s partner telephoned the Council to case progress of the request for increased housing priority. She reports that the officer she spoke to was unprofessional and did not give a timeframe for when they might expect to be notified about increased priority banding. She made a complaint about this the same day.
16. Responding the complaint the Council said it had no record of the telephone call but acknowledged this did not mean she had not called, and it could only conclude that the officer did not record the conversation: it said this was clearly unacceptable. It apologised and said all staff had been reminded to ensure that details of each telephone conversation with customers are recorded. Regarding priority banding for rehousing, it said the family had been awarded Band B1 priority from 3 June 2019 under the criterion of severe overcrowding. It said the family was eligible to bid for three-bedroom flats and maisonettes.
17. Mr and Mrs B were dissatisfied with the Council’s response and wrote back to escalate their complaint. They questioned how applicants in Band C could bid on three-bedroom houses while they were being restricted to using the higher Band B1 on bids on flats and maisonettes only.
18. In its reply, the Council said that in accordance with its allocations policy, houses are allocated to households with children aged 15 or less but that only Council tenants in Bands A and B who currently occupy houses are automatically considered for rehousing to another house. All other priority applicants will be considered for flats or maisonettes. Households with four or more children and where at least one child is under 15 years are excepted and may be considered for all types of accommodation, including houses, because of the short supply of larger flats and maisonettes. The Council explained that Mr B did not meet the criteria for this under Band B1 but could still bid for a house using his non-priority Band C. The Council said that restricting choice to houses would significantly increase the length of time before the family would succeed in securing alternative accommodation, given the high demand and short supply of this type of accommodation.

Analysis

19. I have considered whether the Council has correctly applied its allocations scheme in this case. Given the number of people in Mr B’s family, it is correct to say that under the Council’s policy the family is severely overcrowded being five people in a two-bedroom home. Based on that, the appropriate priority is Band B.
20. Turning the matter of the priority applying only to bids on flats and maisonettes and not to houses, the allocations policy sets out, as the Council has stated, that houses are allocated to those in the priority bands (including Band B1) only if those applicants currently occupy houses. Mr B’s family does not currently occupy a house. The Council’s policy goes on to say that its tenants housed through a priority band are generally offered a similar type of property to that they currently occupy but of the size they require, and that this is because rehousing is to meet needs and not to provide more desirable housing. In other words, while Mr B’s family has an acknowledged need for a three-bedroom home, that need can be met by a flat or a maisonette. The Council’s position is that if applicants want to improve the quality of accommodation, by moving from a flat to a house for example, then they must do so via Band C.
21. I understand that Mr B does not agree with the Council’s position in respect of how priority may be applied to his bids for housing. However, the Council is entitled to have the policy it has, it makes its position clear, and there is no fault in the way it has been applied to Mr B’s case.
22. There was some apparent fault in the Council’s record keeping when Mrs B telephone to ask about the application. However, the Council apologised for this, which was appropriate action to remedy any injustice caused by that fault. In addition, it took steps to remind staff of the importance of proper record-keeping.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have completed my investigation on the basis set out above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman