Summary: Mrs B complained the Council wrongly told her she was not entitled to a two-bedroom house with a garden, and it communicated with her poorly. The Council was at fault for failing to keep accurate records of Mrs B’s housing need. It was also at fault for failing to respond to her concerns in a timely manner. The Council agreed make a payment to acknowledge the distress it caused Mrs B and the time and trouble she had in bringing her concerns to its attention.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs B, complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application. She said it:
• wrongly told her she was not entitled to a two-bedroom house with a garden and failed to keep accurate records;
• communicated with her in an untimely and unprofessional manner;
• wrongly asked her to get a letter from her GP to evidence her need for a two-bedroom house with a garden; and
• told her she may not be entitled to a two-bedroom house with garden because her daughter went to university.
2. As a result, Mrs B said she became anxious and experienced distress. She also said she had time and trouble to get evidence from her GP and to get the Council to respond to her concerns.

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 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. As part of this investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint made by Mrs B and the Council’s responses;
• discussed the complaint with Mrs B over the telephone;
• considered the Council’s responses to my enquiries; and
7. I gave Mrs B and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision and I have considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

8. 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))
9. The Council has transferred its housing stock to two housing association but retains nomination rights to a percentage of the associations’ properties. It also works with other housing providers around its area. It nominates properties to eligible housing applicants based on:
• Priority Band: applicants are placed into one of four bands, A to D, with A being the highest. Band A is intended to meet the needs of applicants in extreme circumstances where there is a need for an urgent move to ensure the applicants well-being or safety.
• Priority dates: this is the date the applicant was allocated within a band. Nominations are made to applicants who have waited the longest within their priority band.
10. The Council’s complaints’ procedure sets out that all officers, in the first instance, should try to deal with problems. Service managers should carry out investigations at stage one of the complaints procedure and should respond within 10 days. An officer who has not previously been involved should reply to complaints at stage two within 20 working days. Normally it will be the Director responsible for the service who responds.

What happened

11. Mrs B lives with her daughter in interim accommodation provided by the Council. She has been on the Council’s housing register since 2016.
12. The priority band allocated to Mrs B has changed since she joined the housing register. She was allocated to band A in March 2019 with a need for a two-bedroom property.
13. In August 2020, Mrs B asked the Council why her neighbour had been offered a two-bedroom house with a garden. She said her neighbour was allocated to the same priority band as her but had waited less time than her.
14. In response, the Council’s Housing Officer told her that she was aware that Mrs B’s needs were such that she need a two-bedroom house with a garden. However, the Council had not been given any properties to nominate to and she could not provide any specific details for other applicants. She also said it does not get many two-bedroom houses with a garden, so it is likely Mrs B would have to wait longer.
15. Mrs B asked the Council to confirm she was in band A and her need for a two-bedroom house with an attached garden. She also says she had waited for a property since 2016.
16. In September 2020, the Council changed the system it used to manage its housing register. In addition, the Housing Officer responsible for Mrs B’s application also changed.
17. The new housing officer told her that she could not say when she would be allocated a property. However, the officer explained there were 31 other households within Band A waiting to be allocated a property and the Council’s new system would help it better understand demand data and manage applicants’ expectations.
18. However, Mrs B did not receive the Council’s email. And so, she asked the Council two further times to confirm her priority and need for a two-bedroom house with garden. She also asked for a timescale for when she may be offered a property. She said she had emailed two times before, but the Council had failed to respond.
19. The Council’s housing officer called Mrs B to discuss her concerns. The officer told Mrs B she was unfamiliar with her case. She explained normally the Council can offer an accommodation to an applicant in privately rented accommodation or with a registered social landlord. She also told Mrs B what the Council consider when looking at suitability of such properties. However, to consider specific requirements such as a private garden, Mrs B would need to provide supporting evidence from her GP or another specialist. Mrs B became distressed that she needed to provide evidence, because previous officers had been waiting for a two-bedroom house with garden to become available.
20. Mrs B arranged to see her GP, who provided her with a supporting letter. The letter said Mr B has mental health problems, including anxiety and depression, and Mrs B’s daughter has social anxiety issues. The letter also said both Mrs B and her daughter would benefit from a private outdoor space and asked the housing provider to make all appropriate concessions.
21. The following day, Mrs B gave the Council her GP’s letter. She told the Council she was feeling anxious after the call as she was asked to prove she needed a two-bedroom house with a garden. She said the Council should be aware of her and her daughter’s health issues, including that she has a therapy dog. She also asked why the new officer was unfamiliar with her case, and why the Council’s system showed her housing claim only went live shortly before the officer’s call to her.
22. Mrs B sent two further emails to her housing officer as she did not receive a response or an acknowledgment. She said she had been unable to reach her housing officer by telephone. She also included her previous housing officer in the emails.
23. Two weeks later, Mrs B’s previous housing officer responded to her emails. She told Mrs B that she was no longer working for the Council’s housing team, but she would pass the message to her housing officer.
24. Mrs B was unhappy with the service the Council had given her. And so, she made a formal complaint about her housing officers’ failure to respond to her emails or return her calls.
25. A few days later, Mrs B’s housing officer answered her call. The officer’s note of the calls says:
• she did not respond to Mrs B’s emails because she wanted to speak with senior officers who had dealt with her case before.
• Mrs B’s GP’s letter stated she would ‘likely benefit from a private outdoor space’, but this did not mean she was entitled to a house with a garden.
• Mrs B became upset as previous officers had promised a two-bedroom house with garden.
• Mrs B felt her mental health issues were not considered, but the officer told her how this had been considered.
• she suggested for Mrs B to wait and see what accommodation she is offered.
• She told Mrs B what her options would be if the accommodation was not what she was expecting, including if it nominated her for a flat.
26. Mrs B was not happy with her call with the housing officer. And so, she also complained to the Council. She said the officer was stern and downplayed the severity of her and her daughter’s mental health problems. She said the officer only considered her needs to be for a flat, but her previous housing officers had agreed her need was for a two-bedroom house with garden. She also said the officer asked her to get GP evidence to prove her need, but she then told her no GP would give such evidence and this was to prove a point.
27. In response the Council did not uphold Mrs B’s complaint. It said:
• there had been no significant changes to its housing allocation policy and the housing officer had correctly applied this to Mrs B’s circumstances;
• The Council’s note of the call with Mrs B shows the officer showed compassion for her concerns, asked her to view any accommodation with an open mind and provided advice; and
• It was sorry if previous officers confirmed she would only be considered for two-bedroom houses with gardens. However, there is no record of this on her housing file.
28. Mrs B was not satisfied with the Council’s response and investigation of her complaint. And so, she asked it to review her complaint. She said she did not trust the Council’s records as it had previously lost her files and records. However, her previous housing officers had been holding out for a two-bedroom house with garden, which is why it had taken so long for her to be offered accommodation. She also said her GP had told her he would never state a specific housing need regardless of the individual’s needs.
29. The Council gave Mrs B its final complaint response five weeks later. It apologised for its late response but did not uphold her complaint. It said:
• There was no information in Mrs B’s housing file to confirm she should only be offered a two-bedroom house with a garden. In addition, the Council could not ask her previous housing officers as they were no longer working for the Council.
• The Council had recently completed a re-registration process of all housing applicants. As part of this, all applicants were asked to provide any new or additional information.
• Mrs B’s housing file noted her GP’s view that an outdoor space would likely benefit her and her daughter, which will be considered when a nomination for a property is made.
• Its advice had been consistent and in line with its housing allocation policy. It referred to a file note from a previous housing officer on Mrs B’s case. The officer said flats with attached gardens are extremely rare, but she understood Mrs B’s mental health issues and would try to accommodate those. However, this could not be guaranteed, and Mrs B could consider private renting to ensure she gets the property she wants.
• Mrs B’s housing officer’s call note shows she showed compassion in her call with Mrs B and gave her advice. The officer denied saying she asked her get GP evidence to prove her need for a garden to prove a point. However, the officer apologised if Mrs B felt she had belittled her.
• Mrs B’s reference to its previous performance on record keeping was not relevant as this had been resolved.
• It had investigated her complaint by reviewing her file, spoken with relevant officers and considered its policies and procedures. It found it had properly considered Mrs B’s concerns and balanced these with the records held.
30. Mrs B was unhappy with the Council’s final complaint response and how it investigated it. She said the Council should have listened to her two calls with her housing officer. And so, she complained to the Ombudsman.
31. During our investigation, Mrs B said the Council reviewed her housing application again because her daughter had gone to university. The Council said it would need to review her application because this was new information and a change in her circumstances. Mrs B said she had told her previous housing officer about her daughter’s move to university and the Council had again failed to keep proper records.

Analysis

Housing allocations and record keeping

32. Mrs B and her daughter were in a difficult position and waited almost five years to be housed in a suitable property. Their circumstances and priority changed during this period and as a result their priority increased in line with the Council’s allocation policy. The Ombudsman recognises the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas, even more so for properties with gardens. We are unlikely to find fault if the Council has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published housing allocation policy.
33. The Council reviewed Mrs B’s housing application in 2019 and allocated her to its highest priority band, Band A. Its allocation policy says it will nominate properties directly to applicants. This means Mrs B did not need to bid as her application would be considered against available properties. There was no evidence of fault in how the Council assessed Mrs B’s application, nor that it failed to allocate suitable properties to her.
34. However, in September 2020 the Council changed the system it uses to manage its housing allocations. Mrs B’s allocated housing officer also changed. Due to these changes and Mrs B’s health problems, she was concerned about her housing application and what type of property she would be nominated to. And so, she asked the Council to confirm it would only nominate her to a two-bedroom house with a garden.
35. The Council told Mrs B she was in priority band A with a need for a two-bedroom property. However, it had no record or evidence of her alleged need for a two-bedroom house with a garden. This is fault. This is because in August 2020 Mrs B’s previous housing officer confirmed she was aware that Mrs B’s needs were such that she needed a two-bedroom house with a garden. However, it had not been given any such properties to nominate to. I am therefore satisfied that Mrs B’s need had been agreed to be a two-bedroom property with a garden, but the Council had failed to include this in its records.
36. In addition, the Council reviewed Mrs B’s housing application again after she told it her daughter had moved to university. The Council’s housing allocation policy says it will review applications when it receives new information or when it is provided with a change of circumstances. I have not seen any evidence the Council was aware of Mrs B’s daughter’s move to university. And so, I cannot fault the Council for reviewing Mrs B’s housing application as this is in line with its policy.

Communication and GP evidence

37. The Council did not find fault in how it communicated or handled Mrs B’s housing application from August 2020. However, its housing officer apologised to Mrs B if she had made her feel belittled.
38. Mrs B asked the Council to confirm her housing need three times after her housing officer had changed and the Council’s new system to manage its housing allocations went live. The Council’s says it responded to her in late September 2020, but it seems Mrs B did not receive this email. I cannot say why Mrs B did not receive the Council’s email. However, regardless of this, I am not satisfied it addressed Mrs B’s concerns about her allocated housing need. This is because it only explained the Council’s new housing allocation system and that it could not say how long she would have to wait to be nominated a property.
39. Mrs B wrote to the Council again with her GP information. As she did not get a response, she sent two further emails to confirm it had received her evidence and to confirm her housing need. She also called her housing officer and left voicemails but did not get a response. And so, she complained to the Council. This is fault. I do not expect the Council to be able to answer each and every call and it may have delays in responding to emails. However, the Council had changed Mrs B’s housing officer and its housing allocations system. In addition, the Council was aware of Mrs B’ health problems, which includes anxiety and depression. I would therefore expect for it to respond to Mrs B’s reasonable enquiries in a timely manner.
40. When Mrs B and her housing officer spoke, Mrs B was told the officer was not familiar with her case and asked her to get medical evidence to show her need for a two-bedroom house with a garden. This was in line with the Council’s housing allocation policy which says it can ask applicants to provide evidence to show housing needs for medical or welfare grounds. However, as set out in paragraph 35, Mrs B’s housing records wrongly failed to state her housing needs as agreed with her previous housing officer. She did not have any new needs or changes in her circumstances. And so, I have seen no good reasons she should be asked to provide further medical evidence from her GP. This is fault.
41. Mrs B was unhappy about how the housing officer spoke to her during their two calls and she said the Council failed to investigate this properly. The Council said it does not have a record of the calls because its staff are working remotely during COVID-19. And so, it could only investigate the officer’s notes of the call and Mrs B’s complaint. I recognise the challenges the Council have and continues to face during COVID-19. This includes remote working for its staff, which means its normal call recording procedures cannot apply. I cannot therefore fault the Council for how it investigated the calls. In addition, I can only consider the evidence available to me. I acknowledge Mrs B’s view that the housing officer may not have noted any inappropriate behaviour or language, however, as I have no evidence of this, I cannot make a finding. The Council apologised to Mrs B if Mrs B felt belittled and I am therefore satisfied this is a suitable outcome on this matter.

Injustice

42. I found fault by the Council. Mrs B said she became anxious and experienced distress. She also said she had time and trouble to get her GP evidence.
43. I am satisfied the Council’s failure to keep accurate records and to respond to Mrs B’s enquiries caused her distress from August 2020 until she was nominated a two-bedroom house with a garden. The Council was aware of her medical conditions, which is likely to aggravate the distress she experienced. In addition, I have seen no good reason for asking Mrs B to get GP evidence as her need had already been agreed. I am satisfied this, and Mrs B attempts to get the Council to respond to her enquiries caused her some time and trouble.

Agreed action

44. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mrs B, the Council has agreed to, within one month of the final decision:
1. Apologise to Mrs B in writing for the fault identified;
2. Pay Mrs B £200 to acknowledge the distress caused;
3. Pay Mrs B £100 for the time and trouble he had to get her GP evidence, chase the Council for a response to her enquiries and bring her complaint to the Council’s attention; and
45. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:

d) Remind its officers to maintain its housing register to ensure applicants’ housing needs are accurate and kept up to date; and

e) Remind its officers to respond to reasonable enquiries in a suitable and timely manner.

Back to top

Final decision

46. There was fault leading to injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman