Summary: There is some fault in how One Vision Housing, acting on behalf of the Council, dealt with Mrs X’s application for housing. OVH is not at fault in how it considered Mrs X’s medical evidence. Its failure to tell Mrs X about a change in her band was fault but did not cause injustice. OVH sent a letter in error which caused avoidable confusion. It also signposted Mrs X’s complaint to the wrong ombudsman twice, putting Mrs X to significant time and trouble. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mrs X £350, and take action to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about how One Vision Housing (OVH), acting on behalf of the Council, dealt with her application for housing. In particular, she says OVH:

1. changed her priority band from B to E without telling her, denying her an appeal;
2. denied that her application was ever in Band B and accused her of forging a letter;
3. ignored relevant medical evidence when assessing priority band;
4. wrongly advised her to complain to the Housing Ombudsman;
5. included her in an email exchange in which an officer was rude and dismissive about Mrs X and her complaint.

2. As a result, Mrs X says she has missed opportunities to move to a more suitable home and has experienced avoidable uncertainty and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. 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

7. I considered the information Mrs X provided with her complaint.
8. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
9. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
10. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

11. 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))
12. 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))
13. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

The Council’s allocations policy

14. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council’s allocations policy says it will award Band B (High Priority) to households who:
• Need to move on health and welfare grounds
• Are under-occupying their current home.
15. The policy says applicants will be in Band E (No Priority) if they are not in employment and have no housing need or do not meet the criteria of any other band.

What happened

16. In October 2018, Mrs X applied to One Vision Housing (OVH) to join the Housing Register. OVH manages the scheme on behalf of the Council.
17. In the application, Mrs X said she needed to move for medical and welfare reasons. This included her own health and that of her children. She also said her family were being harassed in their home.
18. OVH awarded Mrs X priority Band B in November 2018 because the family had one more bedroom in the house than they needed. This is called under-occupying.
19. However, Mrs X provided evidence which showed her children needed their own bedrooms. This meant they were not under-occupying their house. As a result, OVH changed Mrs X’s priority band from B to E in April 2019.
20. Mrs X says she received a letter dated April 2019 confirming she was in Band B. OVH says it created the letter in error, but it did not send it. It says the only letter it sent was in May, to tell Mrs X she was now in Band E.
21. Mrs X asked OVH to review its decision to award her the lower priority. She provided more medical evidence in May and July 2019. In July, OVH decided she was eligible for Band B and awarded her this priority.
22. Mrs X complained to OVH about its handling of her application. At the end of its complaint process, it directed her to the Housing Ombudsman. The Housing Ombudsman is another ombudsman service which investigates complaints from tenants of certain landlords, including councils and housing associations.
23. In June 2020, Mrs X received an email from an OVH officer. The Officer had included Mrs X in the email exchange in error. The content and tone of the email was disparaging about Mrs X. Mrs X complained to OVH. OVH investigated the matter and directed Mrs X to the Housing Ombudsman if she was unhappy with the outcome.
24. Since making her complaint to the Ombudsman, Mrs X has moved into a new property.

My findings

25. The Ombudsman does not investigate complaints about things that happened more than 12 months ago, unless there is good reason. In this case, Mrs X was directed to the Housing Ombudsman first. She complained to the Housing Ombudsman within 12 months and had to wait for it to tell her that she should direct her complaint to us. I consider this a good reason to exercise discretion to investigate the complaint. The passage of time is not so significant as to materially impact my ability to investigate.
26. I will deal with each of Mrs X’s complaints in turn.

Telling Mrs X about a change of priority band from B to E

27. OVH changed Mrs X’s priority band in April 2019 because it decided she was not under-occupying her property.
28. The Council says OVH decided this in April but did not tell Mrs X until May. And then only because she called. All decisions about priority should be communicated to the applicant in writing. Failure to do so is fault.
29. Mrs X says this denied her an opportunity to appeal. However, once it did tell her, OVH allowed Mrs X to ask for a review the decision. The outcome of this review was to award Mrs X Band C in May 2019.
30. In July, Mrs X provided further information about her family’s medical needs. The Council then awarded Band B.
31. Had OVH told Mrs X about the change in priority in April, I find it likely she would have asked for a review, and therefore provided the additional information which led to a Band C award, a month earlier. This means OVH would have awarded Mrs X Band C status a month earlier, giving her an earlier priority band date.
32. The evidence which led the Council to award Band B was from June 2019. Therefore, the Council could not have awarded Band B before this date.
33. The Council confirms that even if Mrs X had been in Band B since April she would not have received an offer. This is because all the properties Mrs X applied for after that date went to applicants with a higher band and earlier priority date. Since she has now been awarded a property, there is no ongoing injustice to Mrs X requiring a remedy.

Denying the application was in Band B

34. Mrs X says OVH denied it awarded her Band B. She also says OVH accused her of forging the letter she says she received in April 2019.
35. Mrs X was awarded Band B in November 2018. OVH does not deny this. The issue is whether OVH confirmed Mrs X remained in Band B despite not under-occupying her property in April 2019.
36. OVH says its records show it created a letter awarding Band B in April 2019 in error. OVH says it never sent the letter. However, Mrs X provided me with a copy of the letter. Therefore, it seems likely OVH sent it to her. OVH says it may have sent the letter in May but it has no way of confirming this.
37. Mrs X says OVH accused her of forging the letter. I have seen no evidence to support this.
38. I have found OVH did tell Mrs X in April 2019 she remained in Band B when it had actually decided to change her priority to Band E. Providing inaccurate information is fault. This created avoidable confusion for Mrs X, which is an injustice.

Medical evidence

39. Mrs X says OVH ignored relevant medical evidence when it changed her priority band from B to E.
40. OVH says it changed the priority because Mrs X was not under-occupying her property. This is in line with the allocations policy which says Band B is awarded to those under-occupying by one bedroom.
41. However, in her application Mrs X provided medical information from her children’s specialists about their health. Band B also includes applicants who need to move for health and welfare reasons. OVH says the medical evidence it already had was not sufficient to award a higher band than E on medical grounds.
42. In response to a draft of this decision, OVH provided evidence which shows that in January 2019, it explained to Mrs X that the information she had already provided did not warrant a higher priority band if the award for overcrowding was removed.
43. Mrs X provided more information in May and July 2019. OVH says this information was sufficient to result in a change in priority band. The review in July 2019 awarded Band B on health grounds.
44. The evidence shows OVH considered the medical evidence it already had in January 2019. It alerted Mrs X that were she to demonstrate her children needed separate bedrooms, on the evidence it had her application would be in Band E. Therefore, there is no fault in how OVH considered the medical information before changing Mrs X’s priority band.

Housing Ombudsman

45. Mrs X complained to OVH. At the end of its complaint process, it directed her to complain to the Housing Ombudsman if she was still unhappy. This is fault.
46. The Housing Ombudsman would have been the correct ombudsman if Mrs X’s complaint had been about OVH’s actions as her landlord. However, Mrs X had applied to the housing register under one of the reasonable preference categories listed in paragraph 12. This means OVH should have directed her complaint to us.
47. It is not for complainants to know which ombudsman scheme is the correct one for their complaint. OVH’s failure to provide accurate information means Mrs X has experienced avoidable delay and frustration in resolving her complaint. This is an injustice to Mrs X.

Officer email

48. In June 2020, Mrs X was copied into an email in which an Officer was rude and dismissive about her and her complaint. This is fault.
49. Mrs X understandably found this insulting and it has negatively affected her confidence in OVH’s ability to deal with her fairly. This is an injustice to Mrs X. OVH has apologised and provided staff training. This is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.
50. OVH says it dealt with the matter through its complaints process and then directed Mrs X to the Housing Ombudsman. This is fault.
51. Mrs X’s email asked for more information about a property she had applied for. This means it was about an allocation and her complaint should have been directed to us.
52. Mrs X had to go to time and trouble to make sure her complaint came to the right ombudsman. This is an injustice to Mrs X.

Back to top

Agreed action

53. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I found fault with the actions of OVH, I have made recommendations to the Council.
54. To remedy the injustice to Mrs X from the fault I have identified the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Mrs X and her husband in writing.
• pay Mrs X £350 in recognition of her avoidable confusion and time and trouble.
55. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
56. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Provide guidance or training to OVH about which of its functions are in the jurisdiction of which ombudsman scheme and amend any policies accordingly.
57. The Council should take this action within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

58. I have completed my investigation. There is some fault by One Vision Housing, acting on behalf of the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman