Summary: The Council wrongly offered Mr B the tenancy of a property and then failed to promptly inform him that the offer had been withdrawn, and the reasons it had been withdrawn. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and to take action to prevent similar failings in future.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that when he was on the Council’s housing register, it failed to properly consider how his accommodation was affecting his health. He says that the Council was also wrong to tell him in March 2021 that he was being offered a Housing Association property when he did not meet the preference criteria for it.
2. Mr B says that as a result, his expectations were unreasonably raised and he was left living in unsuitable accommodation.

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. 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

5. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s allocations scheme

6. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. Housing applicants can bid on available properties.
7. The Council places applicants who qualify to join the housing register in a priority band from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 4 (lowest priority). This priority is the first factor the Council uses to allocate a property.
8. The Council awards Band 2 where the applicant’s medical or disability needs mean their housing is unsuitable. This includes applicants who are not housebound or whose life is not at risk, but whose current housing is directly impacting their health.
9. After bidding cycles close, the Council completes a shortlist of applicants who have bid for each property. The shortlist identifies the order of applicants based on who is in the highest band with the earliest award and/or registration date. Adverts should specify any additional criteria and applicants who do not meet the criteria should not be short-listed.

Overview

10. Mr B was accepted on to the Council’s housing register in December 2020. He was awarded priority Band 2 because the Council considered his accommodation was affecting his health. Mr B was living in private supported living accommodation at the time.
11. In March 2021, a Council Housing Officer wrote to Mr B to tell him he was being offered the tenancy of a Housing Association property which he had bid on. Mr B says that he contacted the Council several times to view the property but then discovered after two weeks that it had been offered to someone else because he did not meet the Housing Association’s preference criteria.
12. Mr B considers the Council unreasonably raised his expectations and ignored the threat to his health caused by his poor living conditions.
13. The Council offered Mr B the tenancy of another property in June 2021, which he accepted.

Analysis

14. The Council decided that Mr B qualified to join the housing register after he submitted medical evidence to show that his accommodation was affecting his health. I have considered the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme alongside the evidence Mr B submitted. I have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to award Band 2 on medical grounds.
15. The advert for the Housing Association property stated that preference would be given to applicants who needed ground floor accommodation. The applicant in the top bidding position was initially rejected by the Housing Association because he did not need ground floor accommodation. The Housing Association asked the Council to shortlist again for the property and told the Council that if none of the other shortlisted applicants needed ground floor accommodation, it would offer the property to the applicant who it had initially rejected.
16. Mr B was shortlisted for the property and the Council offered it to him on 23 March. It should not have done so because Mr B did not need ground floor accommodation either. This was fault.
17. Once the Council informed the Housing Association on 25 March that none of the shortlisted applicants required ground floor accommodation, it offered the property to the applicant who it had initially rejected. The Council should have written to Mr B to inform him that the offer had been withdrawn straight away. It did not do so; this was fault.
18. Mr B contacted the Housing Association on 1 April to find out when he would be able to view the property. The Housing Association informed him that the property had been offered to someone else and he was referred back to the Council. When Mr B contacted the Council, he was told that someone from its allocations team would contact him to explain what had happened. Mr B then received a call from the Housing Association on 12 April. It explained that the property was not offered to him because he did not meet the preference criteria. The Council did not provide an explanation to Mr B until the following month, after he had made a formal complaint about the matter.
19. I have considered how Mr B has been affected by the failings identified. The Council unreasonably raised Mr B’s expectations when it offered the property to him. Mr B was then disappointed when he discovered a week later that he was not being offered the property, and he was frustrated while waiting for an explanation from the Council.
20. I consider the Council should apologise to Mr B, but I do not consider any further personal remedy is warranted. This is because, even if there had been no fault by the Council, he would not have been offered the property. Also, Mr B continued to bid on other properties before he knew that the offer had been withdrawn and so the Council’s failings did not cause him to miss out on any other properties.

Back to top

Agreed action

21. Within four weeks, the Council will apologise to Mr B for the failings identified in this case.
22. Within eight weeks, the Council will review its procedures to ensure:
• applicants who do not meet the preference criteria are not shortlisted; and
• it promptly informs applicants when offers are withdrawn.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr B. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman