Norwich City Council (21 003 729)

Category : Housing > Allocations

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 03 May 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs D says the Council failed to properly review her housing application and banding in 2021. The Ombudsman has found evidence of fault by the Council. He has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because the Council agrees to the recommended actions.

The complaint

  1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mrs D) complains the Council failed to increase her housing band priority in 2021 before she accepted a housing association property. Mrs D says that had she known the banding priority would increase she would not have moved to a cramped property.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I am looking at events from April 2020 onwards. I am not looking at what happened in 2018.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  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. 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. 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

  1. I have considered the information provided by Mr and Mrs D. I asked the Council questions and examined its evidence.
  2. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background

  1. In early 2018 the Council reduced Mrs D’s banding to Bronze band. This was because the Council considered they had deliberately worsened their circumstances.

Events I have investigated

  1. In February 2021 Mrs D and her husband (Mr D) submitted a medical application to the Council requesting additional housing priority because of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by neighbours and cramped conditions. The Council considered this and in March notified the couple there was no additional priority awarded. They should contact their landlord about ASB issues. At the end of March and 1 April Mr and Mrs D requested the Council review their banding. On 17 May the Review Panel considered the case. They found housing policy had been correctly applied and no exceptional circumstances to increase priority. They also found that the penalty for deliberately worsening circumstances “still apply”.
  2. In July the Ombudsman contacted the Council on receipt of a premature complaint from Mr and Mrs D. The Council decided to review the banding as part of its formal complaint response. On 15 August Mr and Mrs D signed a tenancy with a Housing Association. The Council was not told about this. In August the Council Review Panel considered the case and decided the deliberate worsening of circumstances penalty could be removed due to the passage of time. The Council wrote with its decision on 18 August to Mr and Mrs D. It said they were now in the Silver Band. This put the couple “in a relatively strong position to successfully bid on a suitable property” but they still needed to be realistic. At the end of September, the Couple told the Council they had moved home.
  3. On 8 October Mr and Mrs D complained to the Council. If they had been aware the banding would increase, they would not have accepted another small property that did not fully meet their needs. The Council replied ten days later reiterating its decision and explained that it closes an application once an applicant is rehoused. There was no explanation for why it had changed its view regarding the deliberate worsening of circumstances.

What should have happened

  1. The Council assesses a housing applicant’s needs and places them in a band according to the housing priority. Gold is high priority, Silver medium and bronze is lower. An applicant who is assessed as deliberately worsening their circumstances will be placed in the bronze band. The Council’s allocations policy does not say how long this penalty applies.
  2. An applicant can request a review of the banding decision within a set timeframe. The Council’s Review Panel will consider the case and make a note of their decision. The Council will notify the applicant about the outcome. The Council can also review an application at any point.
  3. An applicant can apply for medical priority banding to the Council. The Council considers any evidence that shows a medical condition is made worse by the applicants housing and can only be improved by rehousing. A decision letter is sent to the applicant.
  4. Where an applicant is re-housed the Council will close the application for 12 months because the housing need has been “met”. The applicant can then reapply 12 months later if they want to seek a new home. They can apply sooner if there has been a significant change in circumstances.

Was there fault by the Council

  1. The Council says it is not at fault and the decision to award silver banding was a compromise. Having considered all the evidence, I do not agree with the Council. I have concerns about the inconsistent approach it has taken in this case. In May 2021 the Council decided the deliberate worsening of circumstances applied, but three months later it reversed its decision. There is no good reason given for this change of view other than that the complainant had contacted the Ombudsman and the Council sought to find a compromise. This is an arbitrary approach and suggests that had the complainant not contacted the Ombudsman they would have remained in the bronze band. The Ombudsman cannot accept this approach. The Council needs to be clear about when the deliberate worsening of circumstances applies and when sufficient time has elapsed to render it invalid. At present there is no such guidance for Council officers which leads to this inconsistent approach.
  2. In respect of the medical application there is no fault by the Council. It considered the information provided by Mr and Mrs D and explained they should contact their landlord about ASB issues. Mr and Mrs D may disagree with that decision, but the Ombudsman will not question the merits of decisions taken without fault.

Did the fault cause an injustice

  1. Mr and Mrs D were unaware the Council was reviewing the banding in August 2021. Had they known they say they would not have moved home and so been able to keep their housing application active and kept bidding for a larger property. Because of the Council’s inconsistent handling of this case the couple are now unable to bid for a property for 12 months.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. The Council has accepted my recommendations. In order to remedy the fault and injustice I have found the Council will:
  • Reinstate Mr and Mrs D’s housing application account. This can be done where there is a change of circumstances, this would allow Mr and Mrs D to start looking for a larger property;
  • Review its policy and procedures in respect of deliberate worsening of circumstances. The Council needs to consider whether there is a time limit on this penalty or not and to ensure this is understood by Officers for a consistent approach to reviews.

The Council should carry out these steps within four weeks of the investigating closing.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

  1. The Ombudsman will not consider events in 2018 for the reasons set out above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings