Babergh District Council (20 008 155)

Category : Housing > Allocations

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 07 May 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs C complained about the Council’s decision to drop her housing band after a change in her circumstances and about the suitability of temporary accommodation it offered her. We find the Council acted in line with its allocation policy, and was not at fault.

The complaint

  1. Mrs C complained the Council wrongly dropped her housing band after she and her husband separated. She said that meant the Council withdrew an offer on a property.
  2. She also complained the Council failed to provide suitable temporary accommodation when she was homeless. That meant her children’s school was over an hour away and it affected her ability to work.
  3. She would like to Council to apologise and provide a financial remedy for distress that its actions have caused her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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 considered the information provided by Mrs C and discussed the complaint with her.
  2. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and its housing policy.
  3. Mrs C 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

Relevant law and guidance

Housing allocations

  1. 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))
  2. 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, including grounds relating to a disability; and,
    • people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others.

(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

  1. A council’s allocation scheme must include a statement on the housing authority’s policy on offering people a choice of accommodation or the opportunity to express preferences about the accommodation to be allocated to them. (Housing Act 1996, s.166A) It is for housing authorities to determine their policy on providing choice or the ability to express preferences.
  2. The council must write to the applicant with its decision, setting out its reasons and explaining their right to request a review of the decision.

The Council’s allocation policy

  1. Babergh District Council is part of a partnership with seven neighboring authorities, and these are referred to as partner organisations (POs).
  2. The Council uses a banding system to identify those in the greatest housing need and to reflect the aims and objectives of its policy. It decides which band the application is placed in depending on the information provided in the application form. The policy has bands A-F. Below is a short description of relevant bands.
    • Band A - those with critical or urgent need.
    • Band B - applicants with serious needs. If someone has two or more needs in Band B, they will be moved into Band A.
    • Band C - those with medium need for housing. This includes applications who are homeless and owed the Relief Duty (Homelessness Reduction Act 2017).
    • Band E- applicants who do not have a housing need.

Bypassing an applicant on a shortlist

  1. Registered Providers are private, non-profit making organisations which provide low-cost social housing. Sometimes they are referred to as Housing Associations.
  2. The allocation policy recognises that there are times a registered provider may bypass an applicant who would be next in line for an offer of accommodation.
  3. It is not possible to describe every situation where an applicant on a shortlist might be bypassed. However, one of the most common reasons for bypassing an applicant is a change of circumstances.

Councils’ duties towards homeless people

  1. The Council has duties towards homeless people under the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities 2018 is the statutory guidance which councils must have regard to when carrying out their functions in relation to homeless people.
  2. Councils must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
  3. Any accommodation that is provided, obtained, or secured by a council must be suitable for the applicant. This applies whether this is under a duty or a discretionary power, and also applies to interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206, Homelessness Code of Guidance 2018, section 17.2)

What happened

  1. Mrs C lived with her husband and in 2014 they made a joint housing application for a bigger property.
  2. The Council assessed their application and allocated them band E. In 2019 one of their children, S, turned 10. Under its policy, the Council amended their banding to band B for overcrowding with a new effective date.
  3. In 2020 Mrs C provided the Council with new medical evidence for her child, D, and asked that it awarded her a higher medical priority. The Council assessed the information, and it awarded her band B for medical reasons. The Council wrote a letter to Mrs C telling her that because of the new medical award, she would move to band A, with a new effective date of March 2020.
  4. Later that year the Council contacted Mrs C and her husband and offered them a 3-bedroom house.
  5. In response to the offer Mrs C contacted the Council and said that she wanted the tenancy for the offered accommodation to be in her sole name. At this point Mrs C was no longer living with her husband as she had moved in with her mother.
  6. The Council reassessed Mrs C as a sole applicant, and in line with its allocation policy decided she was no longer considered as overcrowded and changed her housing band to B.
  7. Because Mrs C’s housing band changed the Council decided to withdraw the house offer it made Mrs C and her husband. The Council emailed Mrs C to tell her of the new banding and withdrew the property offer.
  8. Mrs C disagreed with the Council’s decision and made an appeal and a complaint. At that time, she also made a homelessness application to the Council.
  9. Four days after Mrs C made the homelessness application, the Council issued her personalised housing plan, and within a week the Council offered Mrs C temporary accommodation.
  10. Mrs C did not accept the offered temporary accommodation at first because she said it was too far away from her children’s school and her work. After a few weeks she decided to accept the two-bedroom flat roughly 20 miles away from the area she previously lived in.
  11. Soon after moving in Mrs C told the Council that she thought the accommodation was damp, and that her children found it hard to settle in. She also said that she found it difficult to manage to commute to school and work, and as a result she was only spending the nights in the temporary accommodation.
  12. Mrs C was not happy with how the Council dealt with her housing and she complained to the Ombudsman.

My analysis

  1. Mrs C complained about the Council’s decision to amend her housing band after her circumstances changed, and its withdrawal of a house offer after she separated from her husband. In reply to my enquiries the Council said that it awarded Mrs C and her husband band A because they had two band B needs. When Mrs C told the Council she had separated from her husband, it assessed her circumstances and decided that as a sole applicant she was no longer overcrowded, thus losing the band B for overcrowding. The Council was not at fault to adjust Mrs C’s banding after her housing circumstances changed.
  2. Mrs C also complained about the Council’s decision to withdraw an offer of a house it previously made to her and her husband. The Council provided several case notes that show the decision-making behind its withdrawal of the house offer. Its allocation policy allows it to bypass an applicant if the applicant’s circumstances have changed. In this case, Mrs C’s banding changed which put her into a band B. This meant other applicants had greater priority for the house the Council offered to her and her husband when they were in band A. The Council considered Mrs C’s housing register position as a sole applicant and decided it would not be fair to other applicants who had been waiting longer to offer her the house. Additionally, it recorded that moving Mrs C into the property that her husband was aware of was not suitable as she was fleeing violence. The Council was not at fault to withdraw the house it previously offered to Mrs C and her husband.
  3. Lastly, Mrs C complained about the suitability of temporary accommodation the Council offered her after she made a homelessness application. She said that it was too far away from the area that she used to live in, and this affected her ability to work. When offering temporary accommodation, the Council is required to consider the suitability of accommodation in relation to applicant’s needs. The Council provided case notes that show Mrs C questioned the suitability of a two-bedroom flat, and the Council explained that she could share a bedroom with one of her children. Mrs C did not object at this point and she accepted the accommodation. After moving in, Mrs C voiced her concern and said the flat felt damp. The Council came out on three occasions to inspect the flat but did not note any concerns over the condition of the flat. It seems Mrs C did not chase this concern further. She soon moved out of the accommodation, and as soon as another temporary accommodation, closer to Mrs C’s preferred area, became available the Council offered it to her. The Council properly considered the suitability of the temporary accommodation it offered Mrs C. The Council was not at fault when it determined the suitability of the temporary accommodation or when it dealt with Mrs C’s concerns about damp.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation and I found no evidence of fault in Councils actions when it withdrew a house offer from Mrs C following her split from her husband.

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