London Borough of Southwark (21 007 803)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: The Council was at fault for putting Ms X into the wrong band on its housing register when she first applied. The Council was also at fault for delaying in updating her housing register application. As a result, Ms X has been bidding for properties whilst being in the wrong band and had to wait longer for the Council to update her priority on its housing register. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.
The complaint
- Ms X complains about the way the Council handled her housing register application. Ms X says the Council:
- Delayed in updating her housing register after awarding her priority Band 3 and a priority star.
- Gave her the incorrect banding when she joined the housing register in 2013.
- Did not address her request to be moved into Band 2 on the housing register in its January 2021 review decision.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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)
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- As part of this investigation, I considered the complaint made by Ms X and the response from the Council. I considered the information provide by Ms X. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information received in response. I sent Ms X and the Council a draft of this decision and considered comments received in response.
What I found
Law and guidance
- Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
- 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)) - Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:
- that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
- that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
- a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
- The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
The Council’s housing allocations policy
- The Council places applicants into priority bands. Band 1 has the highest priority and Band 4 the lowest.
- Applicants who are overcrowded in their accommodation, but not statutory overcrowded, are placed into Band 3. Applicants who are occupying Hostel Move On accommodation and who have agreed a move are placed into Band 2.
- Within each Band, the Council prioritises applicants first by reference to a priority star system. Applicants are awarded priority stars for several reasons, these include:
- If a member of the household is working.
- Those occupying insanitary or overcrowded housing.
The Council’s complaints procedure
- The Council operates a two stage complaints procedure. The first stage is called the Complaint phase. The Council acknowledges complaints within three working days. The Council will tell customers who is dealing with the complaint and the date when a response will be provided. The Council has 15 working days to provide its response to a customer at the Complaint phase.
- If a customer is not satisfied with the Council’s response at the Complaint phase, they can ask the Council to consider the complaint at the Review phase. The Customer Resolutions Team will provide a response on behalf of the Chief Executive at the Review phase. The Council has 25 working days to respond to a complaint at the Review phase.
What happened
- Ms X moved into a property in 2012. This was a hostel where Ms X rented a room. In 2013 Ms X applied to join the Council’s housing register. The Council accepted her application and placed her into Band 4.
- In 2017/2018 Ms X sent the Council evidence of her employment. In March 2018, the Council awarded Ms X a star priority for employment.
- On 3 August 2020 Ms X wrote to the Council and asked it to move her into Band 3 due to overcrowding. Ms X explained she shared kitchen and bathroom facilities with 8 other residents. She also asked the Council to award her a priority star for insanitary conditions.
- In late September 2020, an advocate supporting Ms X contacted the Council as Ms X had not received a response to her request for the Council to assess her Band on the housing register. Ms X did not get a response, so her advocate complained to the Council on 2 October 2020.
- The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint on 23 October 2020. The Council said it had assessed Ms X’s priority and decided she did not qualify for Band 3. The Council said she had the single use of one bedroom so did not qualify as overcrowded.
- On 12 November 2020, Ms X’s advocate asked the Council to review its decision not to increase her priority on the housing register. Ms X’s advocate said Ms X had to share kitchen and bathroom facilities with 9 other residents and this was above the Council’s minimum standards for houses in multiple occupation. She also said Ms X should qualify for a priority star for living in insanitary and overcrowded conditions.
- On 19 January 2021, Ms X’s advocate sent further representations to the Council and said it should consider moving Ms X into Band 2 as she was living in hostel move on accommodation.
- On 30 January 2021, the Council provided Ms X with its review response. The Council decided Ms X was overcrowded as more than five residents in her property were sharing kitchen and bathroom facilities. The Council agreed to move her application to Band 3 and award her a priority star for living in overcrowded conditions.
- Between January 2021 and March 2021 Ms X’s advocate sent the Council several emails asking it to update Ms X’s housing register application so she was moved into Band 3 and awarded a priority star. The Council moved Ms X into Band 3 in March 2021.
- On 17 March 2021, Ms X’s advocate emailed the Council and asked it to consider her complaint at the next stage of the complaints process as the Council had not updated Ms X’s housing register application. Ms X’s advocate said the Council had moved Ms X into Band 3 after she sent it several emails but had not awarded Ms X a priority star. The advocate also said the Council had not responded to Ms X about her request to be placed into Band 2 due to living in hostel accommodation.
- The Council did not respond to Ms X’s advocate’s request to escalate the complaint, so the advocate sent two further emails chasing this up in May 2021.
- On 1 July 2021, the Council provided its final response to Ms X’s complaint. The Council upheld Ms X’s complaint and said it placed Ms X into Band 3 after she requested a review of the decision to keep her in Band 4. The Council said it will consider whether Ms X qualifies for Band 2 on the housing register.
- On 6 July 2021, the Council awarded Ms X a priority star. On 7 July 2021, the Council told Ms X she did not meet the criteria for Band 2 on its housing register. The Council said Ms X was not living in hostel move on accommodation.
Analysis
Ms X’s housing application
- The Council was at fault for not updating Ms X’s housing application following her January 2021 review. After the Council decided to move Ms X into Band 3 and award her a priority star, it did not update Ms X’s application. Ms X’s advocate had to contact the Council several times to request it update Ms X’s application. In March 2021, the Council moved Ms X into Band 3, however it took until July 2021 to award Ms X the priority star.
- This resulted in Ms X not being able to place bids on properties from January to July 2021 with her correct priority. I cannot say whether Ms X has missed out on any properties during this period, but it will have created uncertainty about whether Ms X would have obtained a property had her application been updated sooner.
- Ms X also complained the Council should have placed her into Band 3 when she joined the housing register in 2013 as her circumstances had not changed since. I have found the Council at fault for this. Ms X’s advocate has produced Council guidance about shared housing dating back to 2011. Had the Council followed its guidance it would have placed Ms X into Band 3 when she applied to join the housing register in 2013. As a result, Ms X has spent years bidding on properties while being in Band 4 instead of Band 3.
- To see if Ms X missed out on obtaining a property through the housing register, I asked the Council to provide evidence of Ms X’s bidding history and the level of priority of successful applicants for these properties. The Council was only able to provide Ms X’s bidding history from 2017 onwards. This showed Ms X was placing regular bids on properties. The Council was unable to provide the level of priority of successful applicants for the properties Ms X placed bids on.
- The Council published guidance in 2020 which showed the average wait times for applicants on the housing register. For those in Band 3 bidding for one bedroom and studio Council properties the average wait time was 1,072 days and 1,202 days respectively. Therefore, on balance, I am satisfied that if Ms X was placed into Band 3 in 2013 she would have successfully obtained accommodation through the housing register.
- The Council was at fault for not responding to Ms X’s request to be considered for Band 2 as part of her review in January 2021. Ms X submitted representations stating she should be in Band 2, however this was not referenced in the Council’s review response. While this was fault, I do not consider any further investigation of this necessary as I have decided on balance Ms X would have been re-housed if she had been placed into the correct Band when she joined the housing register. Any further investigation would not achieve a remedy for Ms X.
The Council’s complaint handling and communication
- Ms X initially raised a complaint with the Council as she asked it to consider her level of priority on 3 August 2020 but did not receive a response. This was fault. As a result, Ms X raised a complaint. Had the Council responded to Ms X’s email on 3 August 2020, she may well have not raised a formal complaint.
- Following the Council’s complaint response Ms X requested the Council escalate her complaint to the next level on 17 March 2021. Ms X did not receive a response to this, and her advocate sent several emails chasing a response. The Council did provide its Review phase response, however this was later than the 25-working day response time and three and a half months after Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint at the Review phase. This was fault.
- The Review phase complaint response also did not address Ms X’s concerns that she had not been awarded the priority star or acknowledge delays in updating her housing application to Band 3. This was fault.
- The Review phase complaint response signposted Ms X to the Housing Ombudsman Service. This was also fault. The Housing Ombudsman Service was not the correct ombudsman to signpost Ms X to. It is not for complainants to know which ombudsman scheme is the correct one for their complaint. The Council’s failure to provide accurate information means Ms X may have contacted us sooner. This is an injustice to Ms X.
Agreed action
- Within one month of my final decision, the Council agreed to carry out the following and provide evidence to the ombudsman it has done so:
- Apologise to Ms X for not updating her housing register application sooner, not placing her in the correct band when she joined, and for faults in complaint handling.
- Pay Ms X £200 to reflect the distress caused by the delay in updating her housing application to the correct priority and for the time and trouble she experienced in pursuing her complaint.
- Enhance Ms X’s priority on the housing register to the highest Band so she can successfully bid for a property, or make Ms X a direct offer of the next available suitable property for her needs.
- Remind staff to ensure complaint responses are completed within the timeframes set out in the Council’s complaint policy and that complainants are signposted to the correct Ombudsman.
Final decision
- I have completed my investigation and found the Council was at fault which caused injustice to Ms X. The Council has agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman