Summary: Mr B complained the Council went back on an undertaking given in 2019. He said the Council agreed to award him band A priority for housing in a property with at least two bedrooms. But the Council then changed that to only one bedroom even though his circumstances had not changed. He also complained the Council had not properly considered his medical needs when assessing his priority for housing. There was fault which caused injustice to Mr B

The complaint

1. I refer to the complainant as Mr B. He complained the Council went back on an undertaking given in 2019. He said the Council agreed to award him band A priority for housing in a property with at least two bedrooms. But the Council then changed that to only one bedroom even though his circumstances had not changed. He also complained the Council had not properly considered his medical needs when assessing his priority for housing.

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’. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr B and spoke to him I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Mr B and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council made a mistake in how it dealt with Mr B’s application for a mutual exchange. Mr B complained to the Council. In responding to Mr B’s complaint the Council gave him two options of a way forward to provide a resolution of the complaint. It said it would either make him a direct offer or it would:

“award you the highest possible priority band on the housing register, Band A, which will allow you bid for any property you are eligible for on the housing register; currently a 2 bedroom property.”

6. Mr B chose the option of the higher banding. The Council said that to action that he would need to apply to the housing register as practically that was the only way he would be able to bid. There were some difficulties in Mr B making that application but they are not relevant to my consideration of the complaint. When he submitted all the information the Council decided he only qualified for one bedroom.
7. Mr B complained to the Housing Ombudsman. They upheld his complaint about the way the Council dealt with the mutual exchange but could not consider his complaint about the priority for housing as that would fall to us to consider.

Analysis

8. The main element of this complaint is that Mr B considered the Council went back on the offer it made in response to his complaint in 2019. He also considered it had not properly considered his medical need when assessing how many bedrooms he needs.
9. Before the Council made the offer there was a meeting between Mr B and Council officers. The Council followed that up with a letter which also referred to the proposed way forward. This referred to Mr B needing a two-bedroom property. That was because Mr B was going to move with his partner and his sister. Mr B had said that he had a three bedroom need because he could not share a room with his partner due to his medical conditions. The Council did not accept the arguments he made in respect of the medical need but did accept two bedrooms were needed because his sister was part of the household.
10. In responding to a draft of this statement the Council clarified its position. It said the offer of a two-bedroom property was based on information provided by Mr B about his sister. It was not practical to verify the information before making the offer. It said it would honour the offer if Mr B provided the necessary information to show that his sister can be considered to be part of his household. But that information has not been provided.
11. There is no fault in the way the decision was made on Mr B’s medical needs and whether they meant he needed a two-bedroom property. The Council considered the information Mr B supplied and reached a view and provided reasons for its position. But that is not the key point here. The Council gave a clear written undertaking that it accepted Mr B needed a two-bedroom property as his sister was part of his household.
12. In its response the Council argued it did not have all the information it needed to make that decision and it was only based on the information Mr B provided. It said it had been clear it had not accepted his sister as part of his household in its complaint response in June. I accept that is the case but that pre-dates both the meeting and the follow-up letter and the final complaint response. If the Council’s position was that the offer was conditional on the submission of further information it should have made that unequivocally clear in its letters to Mr B.
13. Where there has been fault we ask the Council to take action to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in had the fault not occurred. Mr B understandably sees this as the Council going back on the undertaking given. We do expect a Council to honour the promises it makes. But here I have to consider that the Council should not have written in the way it did to Mr B and that is the fundamental fault. Had that not happened then the Council would have been clear it would only agree to a two-bedroom property if either medical need was established or Mr B’s sister was shown to be part of the household.
14. Had there been no fault then the Council would never have made an offer to Mr B of a two-bedroom property. In doing so it meant Mr B spent considerable time pursuing this to try to get the Council to do what it had offered. That wasted time and dashed hopes requires some remedy. It is not appropriate to ask the Council to allow Mr B to bid on two-bedroom properties as that offer should never have been made. So the only remedy is a payment to reflect the impact of the fault on Mr B.

Back to top

Agreed action

15. The Council will apologise to Mr B and pay him £500 in recognition of the faults found within one month of the final decision statement.

Back to top

Fina decision

16. There was fault which caused injustice to Mr B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman