Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council applied its housing allocations policy to her. There was no fault in how the Council considered Miss X’s applications under its housing allocations policy. However, there was fault in how the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint, for which it has agreed to apologise. This is a suitable remedy, so we completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council prevented her from bidding for social housing under its choice-based letting scheme from August 2020. She said the Council allowed her to bid from 2014 and her housing status had not changed. As a result, Miss X said this caused her distress and frustration. She wanted the Council to allow her to bid on properties or explain where its policy says she cannot. She also wanted the Council to clarify its policy and application forms, which she says are confusing.
2. Miss X also says the Council refused to review its decision and did not respond to her complaint when she first made it in October 2020. She wants the Council to apologise for ignoring her complaint.

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 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)
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:
• the information Miss X provided and discussed the complaint with her;
• the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided; and
• the Council’s housing allocations policy.
7. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

8. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. Councils must make all allocations in strict accordance with the published scheme.  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
9. 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; and
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others.

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

10. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

The Council’s housing allocations policy

11. Under its housing allocations policy, the Council places applicants for social housing into several groups, including:
• Priority Homeseeker – those applicants who must be given ‘reasonable preference’ described in paragraph 9 above; and
• Homeseeker – applicants who do not qualify for another group.
12. The Council’s policy says that adult applicants who live with their parents and have their own bedroom, do not qualify as a Priority Homeseeker and the Council considers them to be ‘adequately housed’.
13. The Council is a partner in a local choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which are advertised.
14. In the section of its housing allocations policy about allocation of choice-based lettings the Council says that:
• “Properties advertised are open to bids from all eligible applicants within the Priority Homeseeker and the Tenant Seeking a Transfer [groups]”; and
• “Properties advertised are generally not open to bids from the Homeseeker group except in the case of sheltered accommodation.”

What happened

15. Miss X lives with her parents and was living with them when she applied to join the Council’s housing register in 2014.
16. The Council’s housing application form asks applicants to choose from a list of choices to describe their current housing status. When she applied in 2014, Miss X chose ‘Staying with friends or other relatives’. On this basis the Council placed Miss X in the Priority Homeseeker group and Miss X regularly bid on properties advertised through the choice-based letting scheme.
17. In mid-2020, the Council advised Miss X to update her housing application to include the fact she was working. The Council told her this would give her increased priority over other Priority Homeseekers.
18. Miss X updated her housing application in August 2020. This time she said her current housing status was ‘Staying with parents - Own bedroom’. Based on this new application, the Council placed Miss X in the Homeseeker group. In the letter it sent to her about her new status the Council explained:
• “At present the only properties that Homeseekers can place a bid on are 1 bedroom or bedsit sheltered units which is accommodation only suitable for applicants aged 55 and over. Unless you are assessed as requiring this type of accommodation you will not usually be able to bid at all.”
19. The Council did not assess Miss X as needing sheltered accommodation, so she has been unable to bid on properties since August 2020.
20. In late October 2020, Miss X complained to the Council about being prevented from bidding. She asked the Council to explain why, under its policy, she could not bid.
21. The Council replied to Miss X’s original complaint within a few days and explained that it had reviewed her status and that it was correct.
22. Miss X asked the Council for more information about its policy and how it applied to her. However, there is no evidence the Council’s complaints team responded to Miss X, despite her sending several emails.
23. In late November, Miss X emailed the Council’s housing team, asking it to review the decision. The Council replied, again saying it had correctly assigned Miss X to the Homeseeker group. It also suggested that, had she been living with her parents since 2014, she should not have had Priority Homeseeker status.
24. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman in December 2020.

My findings

25. The law says we cannot normally consider a complaint if someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us after becoming aware of a problem with something the Council has done. I am satisfied Miss X only became aware her housing status from 2014 might have been wrong when the Council told her in 2020. The Council could provide me with copies of Miss X’s application from 2014, so I have decided to also consider how the Council decided Miss X’s 2014 housing application.

Miss X’s 2014 housing application

26. The evidence I have seen shows that, in her 2014 housing application, Miss X gave her current housing status as ‘Staying with friends or other relatives’.
27. The Council’s housing allocations policy says that it bases its decision on the information provided by applicants.
28. The evidence shows the Council’s decision to place Miss X in the Priority Homeseeker group was consistent with its allocations policy and the information Miss X provided in her application.
29. Although it was later decided Miss X was not entitled to Priority Homeseeker status, there is no evidence she was awarded this status through fault by the Council. Therefore, there was no fault in how the Council made its 2014 decision.
30. Miss X said the Council’s housing application form was unclear when she made her application in 2014 and, because of this, she did not realise she had selected the wrong choice. However, I am not satisfied that having a higher priority than she was entitled to caused Miss X a significant injustice.
31. After an Ombudsman’s investigation in 2018, the Council made changes to the housing status choices on the form, so I do not propose to make any recommendations about further changes.

Miss X’s 2020 housing application

32. In 2020, Miss X told the Council she was ‘Staying with parents - Own bedroom’. The Council’s decision to place Miss X in the Homeseeker group from August 2020 was consistent with its allocation policy and the information Miss X provided.
33. The Council’s housing allocation policy says that Homeseekers are only normally entitled to bid on properties if they are also eligible for sheltered accommodation housing. The Council also explained this to Miss X in its August 2020 letter. I am satisfied this explanation was clear.
34. There is no evidence to suggest Miss X is eligible for sheltered accommodation, so the Council’s decision to restrict Miss X’s ability to bid is also consistent with its policy.

Complaint handling

35. After Miss X complained to the Council in November 2020, the Council replied quickly. However, the evidence shows the Council did not respond to Miss X’s further emails saying she was not satisfied with the Council’s response, until she sent her emails to the housing team.
36. We expect councils to respond properly where someone suggests they do not agree with a council’s response to a complaint. This might include providing complainants with details of further stages of the Council’s complaints process, or the Ombudsman, where relevant.
37. The Council’s failure to respond to Miss X’s further emails in November was fault which caused Miss X avoidable frustration. Considering the delay was around one month and the outcome of Miss X’s complaint, the Council should apologise to Miss X for not replying to her emails.

Back to top

Agreed action

38. The Council agreed it would, within one month of my final decision, apologise to Miss X for the frustration it caused by not responding to her emails after it first replied to her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation and I uphold part of Miss X’s complaint. There was no fault in how the Council considered Miss X’s applications under its housing allocations policy. However, there was fault in how the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint, for which it has agreed to apologise.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman