Summary: Ms X complains the Council has offered properties to applicants with lower priority than her. We do not find fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has offered properties to applicants in the same priority band as her, but who joined the housing register after her, and to applicants in a lower priority band than her. Ms X wants to know why she was not offered the properties despite being in a higher priority position than the successful applicants. Ms X also complains the Council has never offered her a property since joining the housing register. She says the Council’s actions meant she has missed out on being rehoused.

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. 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

5. I spoke to Ms X and considered the information she provided.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I sent a draft decision to Ms X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Council’s housing allocation policy

8. The Council operates an assisted choice scheme. This means properties available from the Council’s property pool will be matched to applicants’ preferences and, taking into account the suitability of the accommodation against the applicants’ needs, the Council will make offers to applicants. (paragraph 4.2)
9. Priority for accommodation will be determined by housing band, with applicants in Band 1 having a greater priority than those in Band 2-4. Those in Band 2 will have a greater priority than those in Bands 3-4, and so on. Within bands, priority will be determined by order of the date the applicant was placed in the housing band. (paragraph 4.4)
10. The policy also recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances where the only way an exceptional housing need can be resolved is through the use of discretion. The Council will keep these circumstances to a minimum. (paragraph 2.18)

What happened

11. Ms X is on the Council’s housing register. She has been assessed as needing a four bedroom property. Ms X’s allocated band is 2, with a priority date of 13 December 2017.
12. Ms X said she told the Council she was willing to accept a three bedroom property if the rooms were large enough. She said the Council has not considered this.
13. Ms X made a freedom of information request to the Council to find out how many four bedroom properties had been offered to applicants since December 2017.
14. In the Council’s response, it noted that 66 four bedroom properties had been available since 1 December 2017. 16 of these properties had been allocated to applicants with a lower priority to Ms X.
15. Ms X complained and asked the Council to explain why properties had been allocated to applicants with a lower priority to her. The Council did provide Ms X with a reason for why applicants with a lower priority had been offered the properties above her.
16. In response to our enquiries, the Council explained Ms X had expressed a preference to be permanently rehoused in the south of the borough. 14 of the properties that were offered to applicants with a lower priority to her were not located within the south of the borough. The Council considered Ms X’s preference and so did not offer her the properties.
17. The remaining two properties were located within the south of the borough. The Council said these properties were allocated outside of the normal assisted choice process as both households had exceptional grounds which required urgent resolution. The Council said its allocations policy allowed for this.
18. The Council also explained Ms X told it in June 2021 she was willing to accept a three bedroom property. The Council said it considered the request and updated its housing system accordingly. We have seen evidence this preference is recorded on the Council’s system.
19. The Council said despite Ms X’s willingness to accept a property with one less bedroom than her assessed need, it was unlikely to speed up her rehousing process. This was because it was very difficult to source a three bedroom property large enough for Ms X’s household.
20. The Council said the shortest waiting times can be achieved if the applicants are open and flexible to rehousing opportunities. As Ms X has expressed a preference for an area with the least number of social housing stock, this has impacted on her wait times. The Council said if she were to broaden her preferences, it can consider her for a greater number of rehousing opportunities.

Analysis

21. The Council has provided an explanation for why it offered 16 properties to applicants with a lower priority to Ms X. The Council has explained it was due to 14 of the properties not being in the area Ms X had expressed a preference for. The remaining two were allocated outside of the of the normal assisted choice process.
22. The Council’s actions are in line with its housing allocations policy as it appropriately considered Ms X’s area preference. Therefore, I cannot find fault with its decision.
23. The Council has also evidenced it considered Ms X’s willingness to accept a three bedroom property. It appropriately recorded this on its system. Therefore, I consider the Council has acted without fault as it properly considered Ms X’s bedroom preference.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I find no fault with the Council’s actions. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman