Summary: The Council was at fault for not reviewing Ms X’s banding on its housing allocations scheme sooner. This caused injustice to Ms X as she would have received higher priority at an earlier date. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and backdate the effective date of her higher priority to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains about the way the Council handled her housing application, namely that she was eligible to bid on properties for working households earlier and it should have moved her into a higher band earlier.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated whether the Council should have reviewed Ms X’s banding sooner. I have set out at the end of this statement what I have not investigated.

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. As part of this investigation I considered the information provided by Ms X and the information provided by the Council. I send a draft of this decision to Ms X and the Council for comments.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

7. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme.  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
8. The Council’s Housing Allocations Policy (the Policy) places applicants into one of five bands when deciding the priority to allocate housing. Those in band one have the highest priority.
9. Band four is for those with a low housing need and includes applicants who live in private rented accommodation and who are not adequately housed in terms of size or affordability. Band five is for those who are adequately housed.
10. When an applicant applies to join the Council’s housing register, the Council will provide them with an application number and the band the Council has placed them into. The Council will also give an applicant an application date and effective date. Where an applicant is awarded a priority it is likely this will be after their application date and therefore their effective date will be the date upon which the priority was awarded.
11. The Policy says it will allocate a maximum of 20% of its advertised properties to applicants who are working or have a member of their household who is working. To qualify to bid on one of these properties an applicant must show they, or a member of their household, have been in permanent employment for the last 12 months for at least 16 hours per week.

What happened

12. In March 2011 Ms X joined the Council’s housing register. In 2013 the Council changed the way it allocated housing. This required everyone on the register to re-apply. Ms X did re-apply and in September 2013 the Council awarded her band five priority.
13. In February 2014 Ms X said she sent the Council evidence that she was employed so she could qualify to bid on properties available to working households. It is not clear what happened after this or whether the Council contacted Ms X. The Council does not have records to verify what happened.
14. On 25 June 2018 Ms X emailed a council officer in the housing department and the chief executive. Ms X explained she was in band five on the Council’s allocations scheme, lived in private rented housing and could not afford to pay the rent. The chief executive’s office acknowledged Ms X’s emails and forwarded it to the housing team to respond to Ms X.
15. In early September 2018 Ms X emailed the Council asking it to review her banding on its allocations scheme. Ms X said she had not received a response to her earlier emails in June 2018. Ms X considered her banding was too low and did not reflect her circumstances. Ms X told the Council her current accommodation was not affordable for her. She also requested the Council consider her for properties available to working applicants.
16. On 4 October 2018 the Council responded to Ms X it told her what information she needed to evidence she qualified for properties for working households. The Council did not mention reviewing her banding on the allocations scheme.
17. In November 2018 Ms X provided the Council with evidence of her employment. The Council decided she did meet the criteria to bid on properties for working applicants. Ms X also asked the Council to review her banding.
18. The Council reviewed Ms X’s banding and decided her property was unaffordable so moved her from band five to band four on 4 January 2019.
19. Ms X contacted the Council on 21 January 2019 asking for details about her banding. The Council responded to her shortly after and told Ms X she was in band four due to affordability issues and she also is receiving the working household priority.
20. On 27 September 2020 Ms X emailed the Council to say she is struggling afford her current property and there is not enough space for her and her two sons. Ms X also said she thought she was eligible to bid for properties for working households since 2014 but now knows this was not the case.
21. On 28 September 2020 the Council responded to Ms X. The Council said Ms X is in band four on its housing allocations scheme and her effective date for this band is 4 January 2019. The Council said it reviewed Ms X’s banding at the end of 2018. The Council told Ms X it placed her into band five when its allocations scheme changed in 2013. The Council said there was a record of her providing some proof of employment to the Council in 2014 but it was not clear whether this would have enabled her to qualify to bid on properties for working applicants. The Council said from November 2018 Ms X could bid on properties for working applicants as this is when she provided the necessary evidence.
22. On 4 October 2020 Ms X raised a formal complaint to the Council. Ms X complained about the way the Council handled her housing application. She said she contacted the Council in June 2018 and no one got back to her. She also felt she should be in a higher band and the Council was incompetent when processing her housing application.
23. Ms X sent further information to the Council on 22 October 2020 where she told the Council it was unfair her band four start date was 4 January 2019. Ms X said she requested a review of her banding earlier and should never have been in band five as she was never adequately housed. She also said the Council should have allowed her to bid on properties eligible for working applicants from 2014.
24. On 13 November 2020 the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint. The Council said in February 2014 Ms X only provided one wage slip. To qualify to bid on properties for working applicants she would have needed to evidence 12 months of employment. The Council said it was not clear whether anyone contacted her to advise what information she would need to provide. The Council said as this was over six years ago it does not have records. The Council said following Ms X contacting it in late 2018 it told her what information she needed to provide to qualify to bid on properties for working applicants. Ms X did this in November 2018, and she has been eligible to bid on these properties since.
25. The Council said it also referred Ms X to its housing solutions team as she raised issues about her current property being unaffordable. After assessing the affordability the Council decided to place her in band four on 4 January 2019. The Council told Ms X if she feels there are medical issues which entitle her to higher priority she would need to complete a medical questionnaire and submit this to the Council so it can assess her needs.
26. On 17 November 2017 Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint further. She said her effective date for band four, i.e. 4 January 2019, is not accurate and should be earlier. Ms X also said she believes she is in the wrong band and should have been allocated a property already.
27. The Council provided its final response to Ms X on 8 December 2020. The Council said it was satisfied Ms X was in the correct band. The Council also said it had advised Ms X about how she could try to increase her banding on medical grounds and the process for this.
28. Ms X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

29. Ms X contacted the Council in June 2018 requesting assistance with her housing. She explained she could not afford her rent, was living in private rented accommodation and was in band five on the Council’s allocations scheme. The Council’s housing team did not respond to this. This is fault.
30. Ms X contacted the Council again in September 2018. She asked the Council to review her banding and explained she believed she should receive priority to bid on properties for working households. While the Council did respond to her on 4 October 2018 to advise her about working household priority, it did not re-assess Ms X’s banding. This is also fault.
31. Ms X again contacted the Council in November 2018. At this point the Council advised her what information it needed to re-assess her banding. The Council then carried out this re-assessment and awarded Ms X band four priority on 4 January 2019.
32. When Ms X contacted the Council in June 2018 it would have been appropriate for the Council to re-assess her banding. She told the Council she was in band five, lived in private rented accommodation and could not afford this accommodation. Had the Council reviewed Ms X’s banding at this stage it would have decided to move her into band four sooner. As Ms X did not receive a response from the Council she contacted it again in September 2018 and then November 2018.
33. To remedy the injustice caused to Ms X the Council should backdate Ms X effective date on her housing register application. When the Council decided to carry out a review of Ms X’s banding it took just over one month to carry this out and award her band four priority. If the Council had reviewed Ms X’s banding when she contacted it in June 2018 and taken the same amount of time to carry out the review as it did at the end of 2018, Ms X would have received band four priority in early August 2018.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. Within one month of my final decision the Council agreed to carry out the following and provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has done so:
• Apologise to Ms X for the faults identified.
• Backdate Ms X’s effective date for band four priority from 4 January 2019 to 4 August 2018.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation and found the Council was at fault for not reviewing Ms X’ banding sooner. This caused injustice to Ms X. The Council has agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman