Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s delay rehousing him, it preventing him from bidding for houses, or its refusal to award him the highest banding priority. The Council is not responsible for the time taken to make a successful bid, nor did it prevent him bidding for houses, and it properly considered his priority request. It delayed reviewing his medical needs but the action it took to remedy the mistake means there is no remaining injustice to Mr Y.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the way the Council dealt with his housing transfer application and the;
1. delay rehousing him;
2. decision to prevent him from bidding for houses even though he could on a previous application and there was no medical reason for this restriction;
3. decision to place him in Band A rather than Band A+ under its allocation scheme; and
4. failure to review his medical priority.
2. As a result, he and his family remain in an overcrowded property that does not meet his health needs.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I investigated Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s actions from August 2020. The paragraph at the end of this draft statement explains why. It also explains why I did not investigate other complaints he made.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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)

Back to top

Council Lettings Policy (February 2019)

7. The policy sets out how the Council assesses applicants’ needs and how it lets its choice-based properties. It sets out the types of properties applicants will be considered for. Applicants have their household’s needs placed in to one of 4 bands depending on their need. Band A is for those with the highest, most urgent, housing need and Band D the lowest, for those with no assessed housing need.
8. In some circumstances, the Council considers the cumulative need where a household has more than one distinct assessed need which falls within Band A. This is Band A+.
9. An award of priority of Band A or B is usually made from the date the housing needs assessment is completed. Applicants within these bands are usually given 180 days preference on the register. If they are unsuccessful in bidding for a property within that period, they lose their priority preference, and their banding is reduced to the next band.
10. A separate bedroom is needed for each adult over 16, unless living as a couple. Where there are 2 children of different genders, and one is over 10, each should each have their own bedroom.
11. Applicants with a medical recommendation from the Council will also be considered for offers of houses and maisonettes, where it is reasonable and practicably capable of adaptation to their needs.
12. Properties available through the Council, registered providers, and Leeds Rental Standard properties are advertised so applicants can bid for them. The advert will set out the lettings criteria for the property. Registered providers who advertise their own properties use their own lettings criteria to decide which applicant to offer the property to.
13. Properties are advertised according to the applicant’s priority band and under a quota system according to the length of time the application has been registered and having a local connection to the Ward area (Date of Registration, or DORQ). Under the DORQ quota, up to 15% of Council properties will be advertised to give preference to those with a connection to the Ward area of the property with the longest date of registration on the register, regardless of their priority band.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

14. I considered all the information provided by Mr Y and the Council’s response to my colleague’s enquiries, a copy of which I sent him. I did not send a complete copy as some of it contained information about third parties which needs to remain confidential to them. I sent Mr Y and the Council a copy of my draft decision. I considered Mr Y’s response.

Back to top

What I found

15. Mr Y rents a 2-bedroom flat from the Council which is on the second floor. This means he climbs 2 flights of stairs which is difficult for him as he has arthritis in both knees. Since 2018, he lives with his 15-year-old daughter and 10-year-old son with whom he shares a bedroom.
16. Mr Y applied to the Council for rehousing because of medical need and overcrowding. The Council placed him in Band A but, Mr Y thinks he should be in Band A+. He claims the Council restricts the type of property he can bid for to flats and those in high rise blocks. He would like a house. Mr Y also believes he has waited too long.
17. The Council explained many applicants in Leeds have an urgent housing need like Mr Y. The successful bidder on a property is the one with the earliest priority award date and highest band. Mr Y bidding for houses in popular areas means many other urgent housing need applicants are also likely to bid.

Complaint a): rehousing delay

18. Mr Y is unhappy with the time it is taking to rehouse him to a more suitable property.
19. In response to our enquiries, the Council said timescales are estimated and affected by the number of bids an applicant makes for suitable properties, the popularity of the area, and the property, for example. Mr Y tends to bid for houses, not flats.
20. An applicant can make 6 bids a week. So far in 2021, he bid for 11 and all were for houses to the north of the city where demand is high. Failing to bid regularly, and bidding only for high demand properties, means he is likely to wait longer before he makes a successful bid.
21. The Council explained many applicants in Leeds have an urgent housing need like Mr Y. The successful bidder on a property is the one with the earliest priority award date. It points out between 2015 to 2020, Mr Y bid for only 23 properties since awarding him urgent priority.

Analysis

22. I found no fault on this complaint. How long it takes an applicant to successfully bids for a property is not wholly within the Council’s control. There are several factors involved including an applicant’s priority, the type and popularity of the property bid for, the demand generated for the property, and whether a property’s advertised criteria is DORQ, which means it goes to the applicant with the earliest date of registration rather than the highest priority.
23. The main problem Mr Y faces is houses are in greater demand than flats. This means more people will register a bid which in turn means more applicants with the same, or greater, priority than him. The properties with less demand receive fewer people applying and bidding for them which means there are likely to be fewer people with the same or greater priority as Mr Y. Put simply, the less desirable properties, which might not be suitable for those with mobility issues such as Mr Y, attract fewer bids and so there is a higher probability of a successful bid on them.
24. To increase the likelihood of making a successful bid, Mr Y needs to consider the type and location of the property he wants, the possible popularity of both, as well as the number of bids he makes.

Complaint b): restrictions on bidding

25. Mr Y complains the Council limited the type of properties he can bid for to flats and those in high rise blocks.
26. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained in 2016, an officer from the Independent Living Team assessed Mr Y as needing a ground floor, single level property. Mr Y had the right to challenge this by way of review but, failed to do so. Two years later, he asked it to remove the restriction, which it did in November 2018. The housing recommendation is now for a level/easy access external access only.

Analysis

27. The Council lifted the restriction recommended by the Independent Living Team. There is no evidence of it preventing him from bidding for houses. If Mr Y was unhappy with the original recommendation, he could have challenged it but, he failed to do so.
28. I found no fault on this complaint. This is because:
1. The initial restriction was placed on his application and removed at his request in 2018. This is almost 2 years before the cut-off date for this investigation. Since August 2020, this restriction is not on his application although there is a recommendation for level/easy access.
2. There is no evidence of the Council preventing Mr Y from bidding for different types of property.
3. As noted above, his difficulty in making a successful bid depends on several factors.
4. I have seen a list of bids on properties Mr Y made between 2020 and 2021. Although I cannot send him a copy, or refer to individual bids, I found no evidence of fault in the way his bids were processed.

Complaint c): banding decision

29. Under its housing allocation scheme, the Council awarded him Band A (backdated to November 2018) but Mr Y considered it should be Band A+ and told the Council this in August 2020. Band A+ is the highest priority under the Council’s allocation scheme.
30. The A+ Panel considered his request and refused it. It refused because he failed to identify 2 Band A needs from different priority streams under its allocation policy. The Panel told him of the decision and his right to ask for a review of it, which he failed to do.

Analysis

31. I found no fault on this complaint. In reaching this conclusion, I took account of the following:
1. A copy of the letter the Panel sent Mr Y in August 2020. This told him the reason for the decision, how he could widen the areas he was prepared to bid for, and suggested bidding regularly. It warned waiting times can be considerable. It also told him about his right to ask for a review of the decision;
2. A summary of the information the panel considered. This confirmed he had not qualified for A+ banding because he did not have two different priority streams.
32. I am satisfied the Council properly considered Mr Y’s request for A+ banding. It explained why he did not qualify for it.

Complaint d): medical priority

33. Mr Y is unhappy the Council failed to review his medical priority.
34. At stage 1 of the complaints process in August 2020, the Council told Mr Y an Independent Living Officer would consider the medical letter he sent 6 months earlier. This had still not happened when the Council responded to my enquiries in May 2021.
35. The Council accepted as it failed to carry out the review, it would backdate his current priority by 6 months to reflect the advice given in the stage 1 response to the present date. It also offered to arrange a further assessment of his housing recommendation.
36. This was finally done in May 2021. This did not result in a change in his banding as his banding reflects his current needs. The Independent Living Officer decided there were no significant change in his circumstances since the previous medical needs assessment.

Analysis

37. I found fault on this complaint. This is because the Council delayed considering his housing recommendation.
38. I am not satisfied this caused Mr Y any outstanding injustice because the Council backdated his application by 6 months and carried out a review which did not alter his priority.

Back to top

Final decision

39. The Ombudsman found the following on Mr Y’s complaint:

• Complaint a): no fault;
• Complaint b): no fault;
• Complaint c): no fault; and
• Complaint d): fault but no injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

40. I did not investigate the Council’s actions before August 2020 because this was when it reconsidered Mr Y’s priority. For the avoidance of doubt, what my decision on how far back in time I investigated means:

• I did not investigate any complaint he has about the decision to restrict properties he can bid for to ground floor single level ones. This is because the decision was made in August 2016 and Mr Y was aware of this decision at the time. Any complaint about this decision is late.

41. Nor did I investigate any general complaint Mr Y had that others on the waiting list were rehoused quicker than him even though they had lower priority. This is because Mr Y could not provide details of these people. Without specific details, I was not prepared to go on a ‘fishing’ exercise to establish whether this was the true or not.
42. I did not investigate his complaint about how an officer spoke to him on the telephone. This is because it is unlikely I could make a clear decision about whether the officer was rude or not. Investigating this complaint would undoubtedly result in me having to decide whether to believe Mr Y’s version of events or that of the officer in the absence of independent corroborating evidence.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman