Summary: A man complained that the Council unfairly reduced his priority on its Housing Register after he refused an offer of accommodation, and that it unreasonably made bids on his behalf for unsuitable properties. But the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has offered to review the man’s housing priority again, and it is unlikely we could achieve a better outcome for him than that. There is also no sign of fault by the Council regarding other matters in the man’s case.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complained that the Council unreasonably reduced his priority on its Housing Register from Band B to Band D after unfairly counting his failure to respond to an offer of a property as a refusal. Mr B also complained the Council had unreasonably made bids on his behalf for unsuitable properties.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe it is unlikely we would find fault or it is unlikely an investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr B provided with his complaint and his comments in response to a draft of this decision. I also took account of the Council’s responses to my enquiries in Mr B’s case.

What I found

4. Mr B lives in a room in a house with shared facilities which he rents from a private landlord.
5. Mr B applied to join the Council’s Housing Register. Last year the Council gave Mr B’s application Band B priority after his young daughter came to live with him.
6. Subsequently the Council started making bids for properties on Mr B’s behalf. The Council said this was because he had not been making enough bids himself.
7. Late last year the Council made a bid on Mr B’s behalf for a Housing Association property. But he missed the deadline for contacting the Association to arrange a viewing. Under its Allocations Policy the Council counts a failure to respond to an offer as a refusal. As a result the Council demoted Mr B’s Housing Register priority to Band D.
8. Mr B said he had tried to contact the Housing Association but was unable to get through. But he also said the property was not suitable as it was too far from his daughter’s school and his support network, and it would be difficult for him to get to work from there.
9. Mr B asked the Council to review this matter. But on review, the Council confirmed its decision to reduce his Housing Register priority. Mr B then complained to the Ombudsman.
10. I made enquiries to the Council about Mr B’s complaint. In response the Council said it had reconsidered its decision. In particular the Council said it had not taken into consideration the time it would have taken Mr B to get his daughter to school, and then to work, from the property it offered. As a result it said it would review Mr B’s case again with the intention of reinstating his priority.
11. The Council also said it allows Housing Register applicants to state a preference for areas of the city they wish to be rehoused in, but it cannot guarantee an offer of housing in a preferred area. As a result it advises applicants about whether their choices are realistic and achievable. The Council went on to say that if an applicant is not bidding as their area preferences are unrealistic, it will look to place bids on their behalf.
12. The Council said it discussed these matters with Mr B. The Council also said it considered Mr B’s preferred areas wherever possible when placing bids on his behalf.

Analysis

13. Having considered all the information provided about Mr B’s complaint, I have concluded that we do not have reason to start an investigation in his case.
14. First, I consider the Council has acted in line with its Allocations Policy in Mr B’s case. In particular I note that section 4.30 of the Council’s Policy says it will check if applicants with Band B priority are bidding consistently and realistically and, if not, it may place bids on the applicant’s behalf.
15. The Council provided a copy of Mr B’s bidding history which shows he made two bids for properties in the seven months or so before his Band B priority was removed. In the circumstances I do not see we would be likely to find fault with the Council for deciding to make bids on Mr B’s behalf.
16. In addition, I note the Allocations Policy says an applicant with Band B priority will receive one offer of suitable accommodation to satisfy their housing need. The Policy does not say the offer will be in a preferred area. But I also see no reason to doubt that the Council took Mr B’s area preferences into account when making bids for him, even if it could not exactly meet those preferences.
17. Mr B felt the Council had purposely failed to offer him properties in the areas he wanted. But if suitable properties had been available in those areas there seems no reason why Mr B could not have bid for them himself if the Council failed to do so.
18. Mr B also felt the Council had unreasonably removed his Band B priority after he was unable to arrange a viewing of a property it offered him.
19. But the Council has now offered to review again its decision to reduce Mr B’s priority and I consider that this addresses the main issue in his complaint. In the circumstances I do not see that we would be likely to achieve a better outcome for Mr B than a fresh review, even if we were to investigate his case. Therefore I also consider we would not be justified in pursuing this part of his complaint any further.

Back to top

Final decision

20. The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council unfairly reduced his Housing Register priority after he failed to respond to an offer of accommodation, and unreasonably made bids on his behalf for unsuitable properties. This is because the Council has now offered to review Mr B’s priority again, and it is unlikely we could achieve a better outcome than that. In addition there is no sign of fault by the Council in making bids for properties on Mr B’s behalf.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman