Summary: The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for how it reached its decision to award a housing allocation band. However, the Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for how it communicated with the complainant about its decision. This caused confusion and distress to the complainant.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not properly apply its allocations policy when considering his personal circumstances in his application for the housing register.
2. Mr X complains this has caused him to experience a delay and missed opportunities to apply for suitable properties and has worsened his personal circumstances.
3. Mr X also complains about poor complaint handling from the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by 'maladministration' and 'service failure'. I have used the word 'fault' to refer to these. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered Mr X’s complaint and additional information provided by him. I also considered information provided by the Council and its allocations policy. I also considered comments from Mr X and the Council on my draft decision, and additional information provided by Mr X.

Back to top

What I found

Anti-social behaviour

7. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) is behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person. It may include verbal and physical threats and harassment. (Section 2 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014)
8. Councils will consider reports of ASB issues. The Council can decide to not pursue a case or to seek more information from relevant agencies, such as the Police or a Social Housing landlord. The steps taken by the Council will depend on the nature of the issues being reported. If there is no evidence to confirm the allegations the Council cannot take enforcement action against the alleged perpetrator.

Council allocations policy

9. The Council allocations policy sets out eligibility for applicants to its bidding register for a new property. It has six different eligibility categories. The categories relevant to Mr X’s complaint are Gold and Gold Plus eligibility.
10. Gold eligibility

• Households suffering from harassment (excludes priority cases)
• Living in exceptional circumstances

11. Gold Plus eligibility

• Homeless cases where no statutory duty to re-house (excludes intentional homeless)
• Homeless cases accepted for a full rehousing duty by a Local Authority within the partnership (but not the LA that accepted the duty)
• Verified high medical need / disability that is directly affected by the current housing situation and would be immediately improved by moving
• Applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness, through no fault of their own (excludes those in priority band)
• Two or more criteria in Gold

What happened

Decision to award gold eligibility

12. In 2015 Mr X applied to the Council housing register.
13. In 2017 Mr X requested the Council review his banding due to his mental and physical health. The Council reviewed Mr X’s application and awarded him Gold banding.
14. In 2018 Mr X asked the Council to increase his banding further due to continuing harassment he was receiving from his neighbours.
15. Mr X supplied letters from his GP which said his mental health was suffering because of reported harassment. Mr X also provided crime reference numbers from when the police were called to his property for harassment by his neighbours. The Council decided that Mr X was already in the category he was eligible for.
16. In 2020 the Council reviewed Mr X’s allocation banding again. It decided that Mr X remained eligible for the Gold banding, and not for Gold Plus banding.
17. Mr X asked for a review of this decision as the allocations policy says that those who meet two or more criteria are eligible for Gold plus banding. As Mr X was already eligible for Gold banding due to his medical needs, and was experiencing harassment from neighbours, he believed he was eligible for gold plus allocation according to the policy.
18. The Council reviewed its decision and found that Mr X had been placed in the correct banding. It said “There is only one band award above yours and this covers emergency situations such as people who are sleeping rough for example. Whilst we accept you have a need to move and have been banded accordingly, we would not deem your set of circumstances so severe in that you would be prevented from moving in a planned way based on your place on the register.”
19. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman the Council were not allocating him the correct banding despite him meeting the criteria.

Analysis

20. The Council’s eligibility for Gold Plus allocation banding says applicants are eligible for Gold Plus if they have “Verified high medical need / disability that is directly affected by the current housing situation and would be immediately improved by moving” or “two or more criteria in Gold”. In the Council’s decision review to Mr X it said “Whilst we accept you have a need to move and have been banded accordingly, we would not deem your set of circumstances so severe in that you would be prevented from moving in a planned way based on your place on the register”. I agree with Mr X the decision communication from the Council is not clear and appears to accept that Mr X needs to move because of the reasons he provided.
21. I have reviewed the information considered by the Council in deciding whether Mr X is eligible for Gold Plus banding. The Council accepts that Mr X has continuing physical and mental health struggles. Mr X’s GP provided letters saying that his wellbeing would be improved by a move. However, it would have been for the Council to decide whether this was enough evidence to place Mr X in the Gold Plus eligibility category for this sole reason. It would then have been for the Council to decide if Mr X met two or more criteria from the Gold eligibility.
22. The Council says it does not have enough evidence of harassment to say that Mr X is suffering from harassment from his neighbours. He therefore does not meet the Gold Plus banding criteria for “two or more criteria in Gold”. This also meant the Council could not trigger homelessness legislation that would have granted Mr X a higher priority.
23. The Council has a duty to consider reports of harassment. It can liaise with other agencies to find out whether further action needs to be taken. I have reviewed communication between the Council and the Police about the harassment Mr X says he has been subject to. I can see the Council consulted with the Police to find out what was happening, but neither the Police nor the Council had enough evidence to say harassment was taking place.
24. Council records say that Mr X was told verbally that he had not provided enough evidence to say the harassment was occurring. However, it is my current view this was not communicated to him formally. I have reviewed the decisions made about his housing banding and the communications he received. In these communications the Council did not tell Mr X this was the reason for its decision not to award him Gold Plus banding. The Council’s decision review is unclear and ambiguous with its reasoning. It accepts that Mr X needs to move but says it would “not deem your set of circumstances so severe in that you would be prevented from moving in a planned way based on your place on the register”. Therefore, Mr X believed he was entitled to a higher priority allocation but was not being granted it.
25. Because Mr X continued to believe he was eligible, he did not know he needed to provide further evidence of his harassment, and continued to pursue the matter with the Council, and eventually the Ombudsman.
26. It is my current view there is no fault in how the Council reached its decision about Mr X’s housing allocations eligibility. It considered the evidence Mr X had provided and liaised with other agencies to establish information. However, it is my current view there has been fault by the Council in how it explained its decision to Mr X. This has caused him continuing distress and confusion.
27. During my investigation, Mr X provided additional information to the Council of police involvement for harassment during the original time period complained about.
28. The Council told Mr X that despite the additional information, its decision remained the same.
29. The additional information provided to the Council by Mr X would not have impacted the original decision by the Council, as the decision was made based on the evidence it had at the time.
30. I have reviewed the current housing allocations policy in place, which is different to the one in place at the time of the complaint.
31. The current policy does not have a criteria for harassment. Therefore, the additional information would not change the allocation Mr X has currently been given.

Errors with Mr X’s bidding account

32. Mr X complains the Council did not address errors on his bidding account, which caused him to miss properties and worsened his personal circumstances.
33. I have reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council about his personal bidding account. I agree there were errors in the date and banding first granted to Mr X when the Council implemented a new system.
34. The Council also accepts there were errors created when Mr X re-registered for its new housing system. However, it maintains that these errors were fixed. It also said Mr X’s bids that were closed were properties awarded to residents with higher banding eligibility than Mr X, and therefore he did not miss opportunities.
35. It is my current view the errors on Mr X’s bidding were fixed, although the timeframe for this being completed is unclear. It is unlikely Mr X missed properties in this time frame as properties would have been granted to bidders in the highest priority category, which Mr X is not in. It is therefore my current view that while there is fault by the Council in its administration of Mr X’s bidding account, it did not cause Mr X injustice.

Complaint handling

36. The Ombudsman expects Councils to signpost complaints to our service after a housing allocations review is complete. However, in Mr X’s case, the Council directed Mr X to its formal complaints process instead of to the Ombudsman.
37. During my investigation, the Council has accepted that it should have signposted Mr X to the Ombudsman earlier but did not. This would have caused Mr X to experience delay in addressing his concerns and force him to take unnecessary action.
38. The Council has amended its process for signposting to the Ombudsman after review decisions are made. While this is a suitable remedy to ensure it does not happen to other applicants, it does not address the injustice caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. The Council has agreed that, within 4 weeks of my final decision, it will apologise to Mr X for how it communicated with him about its decision and complaint handling. The Council has agreed to also pay Mr X a sum of £200 in recognition of the distress and confusion caused to him and provide evidence of doing so.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have now completed my investigation. I find fault with the Council in how it communicated with Mr X about his housing allocations review decision, and how it handled his complaint. I do not find fault with the Council for how it reached the decision about Mr X’s housing allocations eligibility.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman