Summary: Miss B complained about the action taken by the Council in respect of her housing application to move to alternative accommodation due to serious disrepair in her current property. We found the Council was at fault for not clarifying and communicating to housing staff, its decision that Miss B should move to permanent rather than temporary accommodation. The Council has agreed to pay Miss B £250 and ensure it makes clear records of key decisions in future.

The complaint

1. Miss B complained that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) in respect of her housing application, failed to award her sufficient priority: she believes she should be in band one as she fits the criteria for ‘additional preference’ due to the impact of the unsatisfactory housing conditions on the health of the whole family. She also questioned whether the registration date was correct because she believes the Council had all the relevant information when she made her housing application. She fears she and her family will have to remain in unsatisfactory housing with serious disrepair for longer than necessary.

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 have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Miss B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations policy

5. The Council operates a choice-based letting scheme with a banding system, awarding different levels of priority to housing applicants depending on their circumstances and housing needs. Applicants are placed in one of five bands with band one being the highest priority for those households with the most urgent needs and band five being the lowest for households with no specific housing needs.
6. The Council awards reasonable preference to households who are homeless, or living in unsanitary, overcrowded or otherwise unsatisfactory housing conditions. It then places reasonable preference applicants in bands two, three or four.
7. The Council awards additional preference to the most urgent cases and places these in band one. Examples include:
• households living in conditions which give rise to an imminent risk of serious harm;
• households living in a private sector property which contains one or more serious category one hazards which are having a serious impact on the household;
• situations where there is a significant risk to the health and well-being of the occupants and there is no prospect of the issues being remedied in a reasonable period of time;
• applicants who have an extremely urgent and immediate need to move for medical reasons or due to a disability which is exacerbated by their current housing situation.
8. The policy says that it may make direct offers of accommodation, outside of the bidding scheme, to applicants who need temporary accommodation during major works to their current accommodation.
9. The policy also says that applicants have the right to request a review of any decision about the facts of their case which have been taken into account in considering whether to allocate accommodation to them.

What happened

10. Miss B was living in a council property with her partner and three children. The property developed a serious damp problem with mould growing everywhere and affecting the stability of the floors. The problem had been ongoing for over two years and the Council had tried some repairs. But these were unsuccessful.
11. One of her children has a physical disability which affects their mobility, and the others had different medical issues which were under investigation. Miss B believed these were caused by the poor housing conditions.
12. Miss B complained to the Housing Ombudsman service about the disrepair.
13. In January 2021 the Council responded to the complaint, saying that despite the repairs there were still visible signs of penetrating damp in the living room, mould and damp in all rooms in the property and several lights did not work. The Council was unable to identify the cause of the damp without investigating beneath the floor. The Council said it would be better to secure a new permanent home for Miss B rather than continue in temporary accommodation.
14. Miss B submitted a housing application at the end of January 2021. She said their property was in need of major repairs and several people in the household had a medical condition which was adversely affected by the current living conditions. She provided medical evidence confirming the conditions. The Council said it registered her application and advised her, it would temporarily re-house her so the repairs could be done.
15. On 26 February 2021 the Council made a direct offer of a property. Miss B declined the property saying the property was smaller than their existing property and there was insufficient parking near the property to assist their child with the physical disability and to allow them to park their caravan.
16. In early March a housing manager, following a telephone conversation with Miss B, said they would have to get management approval to bypass the decanting policy of offering only temporary accommodation. The officer also awarded band two medical priority based on information Miss B had given about the impact of the housing conditions on all members of the household. They said:

This priority does not over-ride the fact that your family need to be rehoused because of the disrepair but it enables you to be able to bid for a property that you can consider as your home as opposed to be offered a temporary solution to the issue.

17. The housing manager also explained they did not qualify for band one priority as their situation was not sufficiently severe. They also confirmed that Miss B could bid for suitable properties and the Council would continue to consider direct offers of accommodation.
18. The Council offered a second property on 24 March 2021. Miss B declined this offer due to the size of the bedrooms (again affecting their child with a disability), the amount of rent (a 40% increase on their current home) and the lack of parking space for their caravan.
19. Miss B says the Council then accused her of just wanting a bigger property and sent out an officer to measure the size of the current bedrooms. Miss B explained again that her current property had three large bedrooms which suited her disabled child as she did not have to use a bunk bed.
20. In April 2021 the Council wrote to Miss B confirming that the Council’s policy was to make direct offers of temporary accommodation to enable households to move out of properties in disrepair while the repairs were done. The Council had made two offers to Miss B but she had declined both. It said she had expressed a desire to move on a permanent basis and her application had been placed in band two due to medical priority with a registration date of 28 January 2021. It said it would continue to work with Miss B to obtain alternative accommodation, but it considered a three-bedroom property was suitable in the circumstances. It also said that once she had moved, she could decide whether to remain in the new property or return to the current one.
21. In June 2021 Miss B continued to complain about the length of time she had to wait, and the confusion caused by the Council in dealing with their case since January 2021. She said that once again the Council was saying their move would be temporary rather than permanent and this was not acceptable due to her partner’s mental health condition. She also said the Council had unreasonably refused to offer them an available property in a nearby street. She also objected to the Council’s offer of a visit by an occupational therapist in respect of her disabled child.
22. The housing manager explained that the Council had offered an occupational therapy assessment to see if their child’s disability gave rise to any specific housing needs. The manager also said that Miss B did not qualify for a permanent move on medical grounds and so the only route to permanent accommodation was through the choice-based lettings scheme. It said it considered the offers of three-bedroom accommodation were suitable for a temporary move to enable the repairs to be completed in their current property.
23. Miss B replied repeating the medical conditions experienced by members of the household and reminding the Council of its original decision in January 2021 to find them permanent accommodation.
24. At the end of June 2021, the Council wrote to Miss B and her partner warning them that their continued emails were unacceptable. A senior officer also wrote to Miss B clarifying that she needed to move to another three-bedroom property in order for the Council to carry out repairs in her current property and that three- bedroom properties were suitable for her household. The officer explained the normal decanting process was to make a direct offer of a suitably-sized temporary property to allow a household to move while repairs were done and for the household to move back once the repairs were completed. They said the Council had made two such offers to Miss B, but she had refused them. They recognised Miss B wished to move permanently and that it would take too long to do this by the bidding route. So as an exceptional measure the Council agree to review all new empty properties over the next two weeks and to offer any suitable properties to Miss B. It asked her to consider any offers seriously and consider making compromises to achieve a resolution to the situation.
25. In August 2021 the Council made a third direct offer of accommodation. Miss B says she will accept it, because the Council has said it is the final offer.

Analysis

Direct offer

26. In cases of serious disrepair, the Council’s housing policy allows for tenants to move to temporary accommodation while the repairs are completed. But, in Miss B ’s case the Council decided in January 2021 that she should move permanently. So, Miss B submitted a housing application expecting to be made a direct offer of permanent accommodation. However, the Council’s housing allocations team was clearly unaware of this decision and treated her case as a normal decanting case. It also repeatedly alleged it was her choice to seek permanent accommodation and implied she was being too particular with her accommodation requirements. This fundamental misunderstanding was fault which caused Miss B confusion and frustration for the next six months.
27. The Council should have made a clear note of the decision in January 2021 and the reasons for acting outside of the allocations policy. It should have ensured the allocations team was aware of this decision, so its officers could implement it properly. It would also have helped if the Council had made clear that even with a temporary decanting move the tenant has the option to stay in the new property even once the repairs are finished (as explained by the housing manager in April 2021). The lack of clear information and direction for officers and Miss B exacerbated the confusion. I also consider the contradictory information caused Miss B and her partner to send many emails to different officers to try and resolve the situation. Rather than resolving the contradictions the Council responded with a warning that their actions were unreasonable. This was fault.

Housing application

28. In respect of the choice-based lettings scheme the Council did not make clear initially whether it had registered Miss B’s application and awarded priority to enable her to bid. In March 2021 it awarded her band two priority for medical reasons and advised her to bid for permanent accommodation. However, it was not until late June 2021 that it acknowledged the timescale in band two for successfully bidding on accommodation was too long to address Miss B’s situation. This point could and should have been clarified in January 2021.
29. Miss B believes her application should have been placed in band one. That decision is for the Council to make, and I cannot decide the point. I understand the Council considers Miss B’s case was not sufficiently severe or urgent to qualify. But I consider the Council should have offered Miss B the right to request a review in accordance with its allocations policy. The failure to do so was fault.

Injustice

30. Despite the lack of clarity over the process and the resulting confusion, I do not consider the faults caused a delay in finding Miss B alternative accommodation. Within two months of the decision to find Miss B permanent accommodation, the Council made two direct offers of three-bedroom accommodation which it considered suitable. Miss B refused the offers due to the size of the bedroom (unsuitable for her disabled child), lack of parking and affordability. As Miss B did not request a medical assessment for her child it was difficult for the Council to be clear on what their specific housing needs were, so I cannot criticise its actions in making these offers. I also note that despite its view that they were suitable, the Council made a third offer which Miss B is intending to accept.
31. However, I consider the contradictory information and confusion over which housing route was being followed, caused Miss B frustration, distress and time and trouble.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. In recognition of the injustice identified above, I recommended the Council (within one month of the date of my final decision):
• pays Miss B £250; and
• ensures that when key decisions are made to take action outside of Council policy, a clear record is made of the decision and the reasons for it, so all staff are aware of it.
33. The Council has agreed to my recommendations. It said:

“conversations have started to take place concerning our current policy and a much needed review of the decant procedure will take place.  Communication between departments will improve and we’ll ensure that all customers are aware of their right to request a review of decisions”.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Miss B and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman