Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about changes the Council proposes to make to its housing allocations scheme. This is because the changes have not been made yet, so it is too early to consider the matter. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s response to his emails about the proposed changes. This is because the Council was not at fault for the way it corresponded with Mr B.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council proposes to make changes to its housing allocations scheme which will have a detrimental impact on residents, working people and those seeking housing, such as himself. Mr B also complains Council officers sent offensive emails to him when he asked reasonable questions about the Council’s reasons for making the changes and also the process involved. Mr B would like the Council to answer his questions and to show more respect in its correspondence with him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered:
• Mr B’s complaint form and the supporting documents he sent;
• emails between Mr B and the Council, which the Council provided;
• the consultation document and questionnaire, which the Council sent to housing register applicants about the proposed changes; and,
• Mr B’s comments and supporting documents sent in response to a draft version of this statement.

Back to top

What I found

Legal background – housing allocations schemes

4. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. 
5. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme.  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
6. 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;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;

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

7. The Localism Act 2011 introduced new freedoms to allow councils to better manage their waiting list and to tailor their allocation priorities to meet local needs.

What happened

8. The Council recently did a consultation on proposed changes to its housing allocations scheme. The Council sent a questionnaire to Mr B, who is on the housing register, about the proposed changes.
9. The questionnaire included a consultation document which provided an overview of the proposed changes. For each of the nine proposed changes, the Council explained the reason for the proposal. The Council also included a Frequently Asked Questions section. In this section the Council explained why it was proposing changes to the scheme. The Council said:

Under the Localism Act 2011 councils were given more freedom to decide who can and cannot join their housing register and who can be allocated social housing. Since the current scheme was introduced in 2017 there have been a number of legislative changes and new regulations that councils must incorporate into their schemes. The scheme needs to be updated to reflect these changes and to remain lawful. It is also important to regularly review the allocations scheme to ensure that it meets its intended purpose of ensuring the valuable resource of social housing is allocated to those with the greatest housing need.

10. The questionnaire included a section called: What happens next? It said:

Once we have gathered the views of everyone who replies to this consultation, we will review the findings of the consultation and submit a new housing allocations scheme to the Council’s housing committee for consideration in due course. Once agreed, we will publish the new allocations scheme on the Council website.

11. Mr B completed the questionnaire. Mr B says the questionnaire advised consultees to contact the Council’s housing department if they wanted to discuss the proposed changes further.
12. Mr B sent an email to the Council’s housing allocations department. Mr B said he was appalled at the proposed changes. Mr B asked the Council to set out the reasons for the proposals.
13. Mr B said he was returning the questionnaire but wanted to know how he could appeal and oppose the proposals in other ways or more formally. Mr B did not get a reply, so he sent an email to the Council’s Head of Housing.
14. The Head of Housing responded by advising Mr B to provide his comments by completing the questionnaire.
15. The Head of Housing said the Council would not be making individual replies but his comments would be considered. The Head of Housing also told Mr B not to correspond with her or Council staff further on this as they would not reply.
16. In response to a further email from Mr B, the Head of Housing again said the Council was not able to facilitate individual discussions in addition to the consultation process.
17. Mr B later put in a complaint to the Council. The Council’s Assistant Chief Executive Officer (CEO) responded to Mr B’s complaint by saying:
• all comments would be considered before any policy is finalised;
• the policy would be submitted to the Council’s Housing Committee in June 2021;
• not all the proposed changes would take place; and,
• officers do not enter into individual dialogue with consultees during the consultation period.
18. Mr B was not satisfied with this response. The Assistant CEO later told Mr B he would not correspond with him further about the matter.

Assessment

19. I will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the proposed changes to the Council’s housing allocations scheme. This is because the Council has not completed its review of the scheme and the changes have not been made yet. Until the Council has made changes to the allocations scheme it is too early to consider whether there was fault by the Council, and if so, whether Mr B suffered an injustice as a result. For example, some or all of the proposed changes may not be approved by the Council’s housing committee. Also, any fault by the Council in the decision-making process may be put right by the Council before a final decision is made.
20. Mr B would like us to investigate this complaint now and says it would be too late once the changes have been agreed. But, we could ask the Council to review the scheme again if we found the Council was at fault for the way it made the changes.
21. Once the Council has amended its housing allocations scheme Mr B may complain to us again. Mr B would need to make this complaint to the Council first before he complains to us.
22. Mr B complains the Council did not answer his questions about the Council’s reasons for the changes or the process involved. Mr B also says the Council has not been transparent or honest about the reasons for the proposed changes to the allocations scheme. I find the Council explained the reasons for the proposed changes and the process involved in the consultation document and questionnaire.
23. Mr B had the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes by completing the questionnaire.
24. The questionnaire was an appropriate method for the Council to seek the views of housing register applicants. So, Council officers were not at fault for refusing to enter into a separate email discussion with Mr B about the proposed changes.
25. Mr B says the questionnaire advised consultees to contact the Council’s housing department if they wanted to discuss the proposed changes further. But, I have not seen this mentioned in the questionnaire or the accompanying consultation document.
26. The Head of Housing explained that the Council was not able to facilitate individual discussion during the consultation process. Neither the Head of Housing nor the Assistant CEO were at fault for the way they corresponded with Mr B. I do not find their comments were inappropriate or unprofessional.

Back to top

Final decision

27. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is too early to consider Mr B’s complaint about the proposed changes to the housing allocations scheme. Also, the Council was not at fault for the other matters complained about.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman