Summary: Ms B complains that she has been on the Council’s housing register for over 10 years. She has bid for properties, but only been shortlisted once. She also complains the Council has refused her applications for extra priority. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms B, complains she has been on the Council’s housing allocation register since the birth of her son in 2010. But she has only once been shortlisted to view one property, despite many bids. Ms B believes there are issues she has raised with the Council that it has not thoroughly considered. She has applied for extra medical priority and the Council’s good tenant scheme, all to no avail.
2. Ms B would like the Council to review her claim, recognise its mistakes and understand her need to move.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
4. We may decide not to continue with an investigation (including into part of a complaint) if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

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 the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Ms B;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• looked at the Council’s housing Allocation Policy; and
• spoken to Ms B;
• sent my draft decision to Ms B and the Council and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

7. The law about local authority housing allocations can be found in Part VI of the 1996 Housing Act. This requires councils to devise allocation schemes for deciding priorities between applicants for housing. It gives councils a good deal of discretion over how they allocate their housing stock.
8. The Council’s Allocation Policy uses a priority banding system (with Band 1 – urgent need to move – being the highest Band and Band 4 being the lowest). The banding is based on an assessment of need. The Policy:

• has a system where applicants choose which available properties they want to ‘bid’ for, with the tenancy going to the highest ranked applicant who wants to move;
• says it usually decides priority within a Band according to the length of time an applicant has been in that Band;
• has a starring system awarding extra priority (within a Band) for applicants in employment or voluntary work, over applicants who are not;
• includes a ‘good tenant’ clause. The Policy says: “…tenants who have lived at the tenancy for 5 years or more, have no related housing debt and have not breached the terms of the tenancy agreement will be awarded Band 2 priority status.”

What happened

9. Ms B has been a Council housing tenant, in a one bedroom property, since 2006. In 2010, following the birth of her son, the Council registered her as eligible for a two bedroom property. It allocated her a Band 3 priority (medium assessed housing need) on the Council’s housing register.
10. In 2011 the Council carried out a medical assessment of Ms B’s housing need, because of Ms B’s asthma, stress and depression. The assessment found it was medically desirable for Ms B to move. But her priority was not high enough to place her in a different Band (that is to move from a medium housing need, to a high or urgent need).
11. Ms B says she has bid for many properties. But she has only once been shortlisted to view a property. This is despite her having a star within her Band (see paragraph 8).
12. In 2020 Ms B complained to the Council about her inability to find a new home. The Council’s responses:
• advised that in 2015 its officer should have asked Ms B to complete an online change of circumstances form, to register a request from her for a medical assessment, after Ms B contacted the Council about this issue. It apologised;
• provided a link so Ms B could give the Council her medical details via a change of circumstances form;
• advised Ms B she had had three sets of rent arrears within the previous five years. That meant she was not eligible for the good tenant award on her housing priority.
13. Ms B complained to the Ombudsman. In response to my enquiries, the Council:
• stated the reasons Ms B had not been successful in finding a new home was because all the properties she had bid for were allocated to applicants with a higher priority. The Council provided evidence to support this; confirming Ms B was some way off being the highest priority applicant for any property she had bid for;
• provided a list, of around 18 two bedroom properties, where Ms B’s application (from January 2019 onwards) would have been successful, if she had bid;
• advised that Ms B did not complete a change of circumstances form following the advice for her to do so in its complaint response (see paragraph 12);
• advised the reason Ms B did not qualify for its Allocation Policy’s good tenant award was because Ms B had had three periods of rent arrears in 2016 and 2017. Those arrears meant she had been in breach of her tenancy agreement within the previous five years.

Analysis

14. The Council has provided information to confirm Ms B was not the highest priority bidder on any of the properties she bid for. This is the reality of the housing allocations process for many applicants, as there are far more applicants than properties available. As Ms B is in Band 3, there will often be applicants in higher bands who will have priority over her bid. I see no evidence of fault.
15. But the Council has also provided examples of where Ms B might have been successful. It was Ms B’s choice not to bid for these properties. But this shows there is hope that she might move if she keeps bidding.
16. That leaves the question of whether the Council could have awarded Ms B extra priority. We cannot question a decision a council has made if it followed the right steps and considered relevant evidence. And it is not our role to question a council’s policy, no matter how much a complainant might disagree with it.
17. The Council has provided reasons why Ms B did not qualify for its Allocation Policy’s good tenant award. The qualifying rules for that award are strict and include disqualification when a tenant has breached their tenancy agreement in the previous five years.
18. Ms B does not dispute she had some small rent arrears a few years ago. According to Ms B’s tenancy agreement with the Council, those rent arrears amounted to a breach of tenancy. I understand why Ms B might find the Council’s decision on the good tenant award harsh. But the Council’s made its decision following its policy. As it is not the Ombudsman’s role to question a policy properly applied, I cannot uphold this part of the complaint.
19. The Council has accepted that in 2015 its officer should have contacted Ms B about medical evidence she sent. That Council has apologised. So much time has elapsed, that any investigation now would be unlikely to determine what would have happened if the officer had contacted Ms B. Further investigation would be unlikely to resolve this. So I have not looked further into this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I do not find any fault by the Council, so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman