Summary: The Council is not at fault for making Mrs X direct offers of accommodation. The Council is at fault for failing to treat Mrs X’s application in line with its allocations scheme and for referring her to the wrong Ombudsman. However, these faults did not cause Mrs X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her application to the housing register. In particular, she says the Council:
1. Denied her the opportunity to bid for accommodation with the correct priority band
2. Denied her the opportunity to bid for accommodation of the size her family needs
3. Refused to consider whether her disabled child’s medical needs meant they needed a larger property
4. Refused to consider whether properties could be adapted to meet the needs of her disabled child
2. Mrs X says the Council’s failure to follow its allocations policy has denied her the ability to choose which properties she would like to be considered for.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. Mrs X also complained about the delay making adaptations since she accepted an offer of a property in September 2021. I have not investigated this part of the complaint. This is because it is not related to the way the Council allocated the property, and so is a separate matter.
4. In any event, the issue has not yet been through the Council’s own complaints process. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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

8. I spoke to Mrs X about the complaint.
9. I made written enquiries of the Council. I considered its response alongside relevant law and guidance and the Council’s own policies.
10. Mrs X 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

11. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises housing applicants, and its procedures for allocating properties.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
12. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
13. Applicants have a right to request a review of a council’s decision about the priority band they have been awarded.

The Council’s allocations scheme

14. Bidding: The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme (CBL). This means housing applicants can apply for available properties. This is called bidding.
15. Priority band: The Council places applicants who qualify to join the housing register in a priority band from Band A (highest priority) to Band C (lowest priority). This priority is the first factor the Council uses to allocate a property.
16. So far as is relevant to this complaint:
• Band B1 is for applicants with reasonable preference who the Council must prioritise for housing. This includes households with medical needs seriously affected by the design of the home.
• Band C is for all other applicants on the housing register.
17. Direct allocation: the Council offers some properties directly to applicants. This means the properties is not advertised for bids. So far as is relevant to this complaint, this includes where a property is identified as meeting the needs of a high priority household.
18. Exclusions from choice-based lettings: the Council’s scheme says in exceptional circumstances an applicant may be excluded from participating in the choice-based lettings scheme due to possible risk to others. There is no other situation or group of applicants which the scheme says cannot access CBL.
19. Property size: the Council assesses how many bedrooms an applicant household is eligible for. So far as is relevant to this complaint, it allows one bedroom for:
• every adult couple
• any two children under 10
• any 2 children of the same sex aged under 16
• children who can’t share a bedroom because of a disability or medical condition

What happened

20. Mrs X has children. One of her children has significant disabilities. I will refer to this child as Y. Mrs X and her family need a property with several adaptations.
21. In April 2013, the Council accepted Mrs X’s application to the housing register. In June 2013, it awarded Band B1 on medical grounds. It also agreed that the family needed an extra bedroom because Y cannot share a room.
22. Since then, the Council has offered Mrs X 18 properties as direct lets. Of these, two offers were withdrawn. Mrs X refused 15 others.
23. In April 2021, Mrs X complained to the Council. She said that since 2013 she had been unaware that she was able to place bids. Now that she was accessing the choice-based lettings scheme, she could only place bids for two-bedroom properties in Band C.
24. In response, the Council explained that Mrs X’s Band B1 priority and three-bedroom need were because of Y’s medical needs. It said that therefore, her application was on the “OT list”.
25. In response to my enquiries, the Council has explained “[g]iven the specific needs of clients on the OT list, applicants are directly matched to properties where the Housing Occupational Therapist’s (OT) assess the suitability of the property to the applicant’s needs. Therefore, applicants on the OT list are unable to bid on the Choice Based Letting system.”
26. Mrs X says this denies her the choice available to other applicants on the housing register about which properties she wants to be considered for. She says this is outside the Council’s allocations policy.
27. The Council says its OT service checks for adapted or adaptable properties and matches them to applicants on the OT list. It says this means any properties which are then advertised through CBL have already been deemed not to be suitable for adaptation.
28. Mrs X also complained that Y’s needs meant they needed a four-bedroom property. In response to this part of her complaint, the Council said exceptions to its bedroom entitlement criteria could only be made in exceptional circumstances. It said the information Mrs X provided showed a need for three-bedrooms, but not four.
29. At the end of the complaints process, the Council signposted Mrs X to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
30. In September 2021, Mrs X accepted an offer of a three-bedroom house. The Council is in the process of adapting this property to meet Y’s needs.

Analysis

Bidding

31. Mrs X complains that although the Council has awarded her Band B1 and a need for a three-bedroom property, she is only able to bid in Band C for two-bedroom properties.
32. The Council’s allocations policy says that it may make a direct offer of accommodation when a property is identified as meeting the needs of a high priority household. Therefore, it is not fault for the Council to have offered Mrs X direct lets.
33. Although it is not detailed in the allocations scheme, I do not consider that the Council’s approach, of managing a separate list to match high needs households to suitable properties, is fault. The scheme allows for direct lets and it is an efficient way of identifying suitable properties and matching them to the households who need them.
34. However, the Council has not only added Mrs X’s application to the OT list. It has also limited the priority band and bedroom entitlement her needs attract to this list. I do not consider that the scheme as published allows for this.
35. Under the Council’s published scheme, Mrs X’s circumstances entitle her to Band B1 with a need for three bedrooms. In the scheme as published, there is no basis for the Council’s approach of limiting this priority to the OT list and only allowing access to CBL in Band C.
36. Similarly, the section of the scheme which explains how the Council works out how many bedrooms an applicant needs specifically includes a bedroom for children, like Y, who cannot share a room because of a disability. Therefore, even in Band C Mrs X has a three-bedroom entitlement.
37. I therefore find the Council is at fault for failing to follow its allocations scheme. However, I do not consider that this caused Mrs X any injustice. The Council’s OT service had already identified those properties that had adaptations or could be adapted. And in the eight years she was on the housing register, the Council offered Mrs X fifteen properties, which she has refused.
38. I understand Mrs X’s view that were she to have the choice about which properties to apply for, she would not have bid and would therefore not have been offered them. However, the Council has also taken this into account by keeping Mrs X’s application in Band B1. Its policy says that when applicants refuse a suitable offer, the Council can remove their priority or remove them from the register. It has not done so. This has, in effect, given Mrs X choice.
39. Although there is no injustice to Mrs X, the Council has agreed to consider amending its policy to say that applicants with high needs will not be able to access choice-based letting and will instead be offered a property through the OT list. This will prevent any confusion. It also makes it clear to other applicants on the housing register that some properties are allocated this way and so are not advertised.

Bedroom entitlement

40. The Council assessed that Y could not share a room and that therefore the family needed a three-bedroom property.
41. Mrs X says that the extent of Y’s disability and the amount of equipment they need means that they need a larger property.
42. The Council’s allocations scheme sets out how it determines bedroom entitlement. This includes “one bedroom for children who can’t share because of a disability or medical condition”. On this basis, the Council awarded an extra bedroom for Y.
43. 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. There is no evidence the Council failed to consider any relevant information before deciding not to include an additional bedroom for Y’s medical equipment. It followed its allocations scheme in considering bedroom entitlement. Therefore, there is no fault in the Council’s decision.
44. In any event, Mrs X has now accepted an offer of a three-bedroom property.

Complaint

45. The Council signposted Mrs X’s complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service at the end of its complaints process. The Housing Ombudsman is another ombudsman service which investigates complaints from tenants of certain landlords, including councils and housing associations.
46. This is the wrong Ombudsman for Mrs X’s complaint, which is about housing allocations where there is a reasonable preference criterion. Referring Mrs X to the wrong ombudsman is fault.
47. In this case, this fault did not cause Mrs X any injustice. She brought her complaint to the correct ombudsman despite the inaccurate signposting.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I have completed my investigation. There is some fault by the Council. However, this fault did not cause injustice requiring a remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman