Summary: Ms X complains the Council’s Housing Decision Panel failed to properly assess her housing transfer application. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered Ms X’s transfer application. But we found the Council’s housing allocation policy is unclear as it relates to transfer applications based on welfare grounds. We also found the Council used confusing words when it dealt with Ms X’s application and when it communicated with her. This caused Ms X distress, confusion and time and trouble chasing the Council for clarification on her housing case. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to properly assess the housing transfer application she made in 2019. In particular Ms X says the Council’s Housing Decision Panel wrongly considered her case as an application for a management transfer instead of a transfer on welfare grounds.
2. Ms X says the Council’s failings have caused her significant distress, affected her health as well as her daughter’s physical and mental health. She also says the matter has led to overcrowding and lack of privacy in her household.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

7. I discussed the complaint with Ms X and considered the information she provided. I considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
8. I sent Ms X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and considered all comments received before reaching a final decision.
9. I have exercised discretion to investigate matters from 2019. This is because I needed to consider the whole period to carry out a meaningful investigation.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and Guidance

10. Every local housing authority must publish an allocation 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))
11. 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))

12. The Ombudsman normally will not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

The Council’s Housing Allocation Policy

13. Applicants accepted to join the Council’s Housing Register are placed in one of three Housing Needs Bands (Band A, B or C) to reflect their housing need.
14. Band A will contain applicants in the highest housing need and Band C, those applicants in lowest need.
15. Applicants can apply for an extra bedroom due to their medical or social needs. Their circumstances will be considered and evidence supporting the need for an extra room will be required.
16. Under the Council’s Allocations Policy, applicants will be deemed to be overcrowded when they have one room less than they would be entitled to. Applicants will be deemed to be severely overcrowded when they are lacking two or more rooms than they would be entitled to.
17. Where an applicant is pregnant and will be entitled to a larger property, priority may only be given for overcrowding when that baby is born.
18. If applicants need an extra room for medical or welfare/hardship reasons, they will instead be assessed for medical or welfare priority.
19. Priority can be assessed under all three: medical, welfare and hardship. But priority can only be awarded under one of the headings.
20. Applications for medical / welfare priority will be considered by the Council’s specialist housing teams which will assess the extent to which the applicant’s health / welfare is affected by their housing conditions and the expected benefits of providing suitable alternative housing.

The Council’s Housing Decisions Panel Policy

21. The Housing Decisions Panel (HDP) considers the following applications: Management Transfers, Grants of Tenancy, Decants, Welfare cases and Safeguarding cases.

Management Transfers

22. In exceptional circumstances, tenants may be provided with an emergency management transfer. This will occur when the HDP has determined that a transfer to alternative social housing offers the most appropriate way to ensuring the personal safety of the tenant, members of their household and/or the local community.
23. Although most of the transfer requests that are approved relate to extremely serious incidents involving domestic violence, intimidation and harassment, hate crime or threats to kill, the Management Transfer Panel will only approve a transfer where it is satisfied that all other ways of resolving the problem have been exhausted and that it would not be reasonable to expect the tenant to continue living in their home.

Welfare Need

24. It applies if at least one person in the household is vulnerable and less able to find settled or suitable accommodation.
25. These applicants will have a need to move but may not get medical priority because their current housing may be suitable for their needs.
26. Applications for medical / welfare priority will be considered by the Council’s specialist housing teams which will assess the extent to which the applicant’s health / welfare is affected by their housing conditions and the expected benefits of providing suitable alternative housing.
27. The HDP is authorised to:

• approve, defer or decline an application
• request additional information
• approve size and location of property
• award priority banding.

What happened

28. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
29. Ms X lives in a 2-bedroom property with her children.
30. Ms X had been on the Council’s housing register for several years. She was allocated Band C priority due to overcrowding and was eligible to bid for 3‑bedroom properties. At the time, Ms X lived with her 3 children.
31. In February 2019, she submitted an application for a transfer to a larger property based on medical / welfare grounds. She said due to the ages of her first two children (both over 10 years old) and were not of the same sex, they could no longer share the same bedroom. Ms X explained child 2 had to start sleeping in the entrance way/ living room which she said was not suitable to be used as a bedroom. She further explained the family used the space to access the front door, staircase, kitchen and bathroom. Ms X said child 2 had some medical conditions and their housing situation was extremely difficult and was negatively impacting child 2’s wellbeing and education. Ms X submitted child 2’s medical evidence in support of her housing transfer application.
32. The Council assessed Ms X’s transfer application and reviewed her case in July 2019. It found Ms X had been correctly assessed for a 3-bedroom property and placed under Band C in line with its Housing Allocation Policy.
33. In August 2019, the Council conducted a home visit to Ms X’s 2-bedroom property to discuss the issue of overcrowding. It took photos and assessed Ms X’s household’s living conditions. The Council found Ms X’s household had no priority under medical grounds as none of the household members had mobility issues or major health problems. It found Ms X’s property was satisfactory including the living room which child 2 was using as a bedroom. The Council noted Ms X’s concerns about child 2’s mental health and education being affected by the lack of sufficient space in the property and lack of privacy.
34. Ms X said the housing assessment team had accepted she had a housing need due to overcrowding. Ms X said it told her to contact the Tenancy Management Team so it could further investigate her transfer request on welfare grounds.
35. Ms X submitted a Health Assessment Form to the Tenancy Management Team and additional evidence to support her application to be re-housed. The evidence included a letter from her GP and Ms X’s self-supporting letter. She explained her family’s living conditions were affecting child 2’s mental wellbeing due to her medical conditions. She said it made child 2 feel anxious and very unsettled. Ms X requested a transfer on welfare grounds as she was concerned child 2’s condition would worsen.
36. The Council referred Ms X’s case to its medical assessment team. It found Ms X remained under Band C and her banding priority would not change except if there were significant changes in child 2’s medical condition.
37. In September 2019, Ms X chased the Council for an update on her housing case. She asked if her case had been referred to the Housing Decisions Panel (HDP) for further consideration on welfare grounds. The Council confirmed Ms X’s case was reviewed in July 2019 as being correctly assessed for a 3-bedroom property under Band C. The Council further explained the home visit report and Ms X’s additional evidence were submitted to the medical assessment team for an independent assessment. Ms X confirmed she received the medical assessment response which awarded her no priority. Ms X disagreed with the decision because she felt the Council failed to assess her case under welfare grounds. She said that was why she contacted the Tenancy Management Team. She was advised this was so her case could be properly considered based on welfare needs. She said this was in line with its allocation policy which states ‘under welfare grounds, applicants will have a need to move but may not get medical priority’ which she said was the situation in her case. Ms X asked the Council not to ignore her family’s welfare issues and asked when her case would be referred to the HDP.
38. In October 2019, the Council held a meeting with Ms X and advised she would need to provide substantial evidence. It explained the evidence was important for the HDP referral to support her welfare transfer application under exceptional circumstances for a management transfer.
39. Ms X submitted further supporting evidence from child 2’s school. The letter explained the impact Ms X’s housing condition had on child 2’s learning, behaviour, attendance and mental health.
40. The Council presented Ms X’s case to the HDP to consider her transfer application based on welfare grounds due to overcrowding. The Council submitted all the previous and recent supporting evidence Ms X had provided. The HDP did not approve Ms X’s transfer application. This was because it found Ms X’s household was not overcrowded. The Panel decided it was reasonable for child 1 and 3 (same sex) to share a bedroom, child 2 to have the second bedroom to herself while Ms X could reasonably live in the living room.
41. In December 2019, Ms X was notified of the HDP decision. The letter stated her request for a ‘management transfer’ was presented to the HDP and it found her property was not overcrowded.
42. In early 2020, Ms X requested an appeal of the HDP decision. The Council advised her that unless she had a significant change in her circumstances, her appeal was unlikely to be approved.
43. In February 2020, Ms X made a complaint to the Council. She disagreed with the HDP decision that her property was not overcrowded. She maintained the hallway space could not be classified as a bedroom or living room due to its layout, so it was not ideal for anyone to sleep in. Ms X said she felt the Council was ignoring her family’s welfare issues. She asked the Council to further investigate her complaint and housing case.
44. In the Council’s stage 1 response to Ms X’s complaint, it maintained the HDP’s decision that her property was not overcrowded. The Council acknowledged Ms X’s housing situation. It explained there was a high housing demand but limited supply of properties. The Council advised Ms X to consider alternative housing options. The Council did not uphold Ms X’s complaint.
45. In May 2020, Ms X informed the Council she was pregnant with twins. The Council updated Ms X’s housing file and said it would reassess her housing need once she gave birth.
46. In June 2020, Ms X told the Council she realised it had made some serious errors when it considered her housing case which caused her inconvenience, delays and further stress. Ms X alleged the Council failed to follow the correct procedures in line with its HDP policy. She said she asked for her case to be dealt with on welfare grounds, but it was considered under emergency management transfer. She said the Council had set her up to fail, denied her a fair assessment of her case and it did not give her the opportunity to look through her application before it was referred to the HDP. Ms X questioned why the HDP did not reject her application as it was not presented to it under the correct criterion, welfare grounds. She also questioned the HDP’s decision that her property was not overcrowded as it was contrary to the initial Council’s decision when she joined the housing register. Again, Ms X argued the hallway could not be considered or used as a sleeping space. She expressed her frustrations and how the matter had negatively impacted her family’s wellbeing. Ms X said all she wanted was for the Council to provide her family with suitable accommodation as her property was overcrowded.
47. In July 2020, there was an independent review of Ms X’s complaint about how the Council handled her housing transfer request. It acknowledged Ms X’s disagreement about the hallway being a practical space to sleep in. But it explained its Allocation Policy confirmed an open plan living room could be used as a bedroom. It found no fault in how the HDP handled Ms X’s request for a housing management transfer. It confirmed the HDP report clearly stated Ms X’s case was presented to it on welfare grounds. It said the Council had noted Ms X’s change of circumstances and had told her housing need would be reassessed once her twins were born.
48. In August 2020, Ms X gave birth to twins. This meant six people were now living in Ms X’s 2-bedroom property.
49. Due to Ms X’s change of circumstances, the Council found Ms X’s property to be severely overcrowded. It placed Ms X under Band B and she was eligible to bid for 4‑bedroom properties. It advised Ms X of her review rights.
50. In December 2020, following the birth of her twins, Ms X asked the Council to change her banding priority from Band B to Band A based on welfare grounds. Ms X said due to the COVID-19 pandemic, changes in her circumstances and the property being overcrowded, the living situation in her household was detrimental to her family’s wellbeing. The HDP considered Ms X’s transfer application. It acknowledged Ms X’s property was overcrowded, but it decided her case did not have exceptional circumstances to warrant a management transfer on welfare grounds.

Analysis

51. I acknowledge Ms X and her family are in a very difficult position with their living conditions. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We normally will not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone if it has prioritised applicants in line with its published housing allocation policy. The crux of the issue here is whether the Council / HDP properly assessed Ms X’s housing transfer application based on welfare grounds.
52. The Ombudsman’s role is not to decide what banding priority councils should award applicants. Our role is to decide whether the Council followed guidance and considered relevant information when it made its decisions in relation to Ms X’s housing case. In this case, evidence shows the Council properly considered Ms X’s housing transfer application under welfare grounds in 2019.
53. The Council initially referred Ms X’s case to its medical assessment team to consider the medical information she provided. In particular it considered how her family’s living situation was affecting child 2’s wellbeing. It found Ms X had been correctly assessed for a 3-bedroom property and placed under Band C in line with its Housing Allocation Policy. So, it awarded no priority to Ms X based on medical grounds. The Council made a further referral to the HDP to consider Ms X’s transfer under welfare grounds in 2019. This was not fault.
54. The HDP did not approve Ms X’s transfer application as it found Ms X’s property was not overcrowded. I find this was contrary to the Council’s initial decision when Ms X joined its housing register. Prior to 2019, the Council accepted Ms X onto its register, placed her under Band C for overcrowding and confirmed she was entitled to bid for 3-bedroom properties. The Panel decided it was reasonable for child 1 and 3 (same sex) to share a bedroom, child 2 to have the second bedroom to herself while Ms X could reasonably live in the living room. Ms X’s priority banding remained the same under Band C and she was still entitled to bid for 3‑bedroom properties. I find the HDP considered all Ms X’s supporting evidence and made its decision on her housing transfer application in line with its allocation policy. Although the HDP view on overcrowding was contradictory to the Council’s initial decision, it considered all relevant factors and explained the reasoning for its decision that Ms X’s priority banding should not be changed. This was not fault.
55. The Council’s allocation policy states, “Applications for medical / welfare priority will be considered by the Council’s specialist housing teams …..”. The Council’s HDP policy also gives the panel the power to consider the following applications: management transfers, grants of tenancy, decants, welfare cases and safeguarding cases. The Council advised Ms X that its Tenancy Management Team was responsible for considering transfer applications based on welfare needs. I find fault by the Council here. The Council’s housing allocation policy and its processes in dealing with transfer on welfare grounds are not clear.
56. The Council’s staff used the words “management transfer” and “transfer on welfare grounds” interchangeably when it dealt with Ms X’s housing transfer application and when it communicated with her. For instance, in December 2019, the HDP decision letter stated Ms X’s “request for a ‘management transfer’ was presented to the HDP …..” This was fault and no doubt caused Ms X confusion in understanding how her application was considered. It also caused her distress and avoidable time and trouble chasing the Council for clarification, updates and review requests of her application.

Back to top

Agreed action

57. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following within one month of the final decision:

• apologise in writing to Ms X and pay her £150 to acknowledge the impact of its unclear housing allocation policy / procedures, the confusion, distress and avoidable time and trouble she was put to in chasing the Council for clarification and review requests of her case
• by training or other means remind staff of the importance of using the correct words / terms when dealing with housing applications and communicating with applicants.

58. Within six months of the final decision:

• review and ensure its housing allocation policy clearly confirms who and how housing transfer applications on welfare grounds will be dealt with.

Back to top

Final decision

59. I find evidence of fault by the Council leading to injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman