Summary: Mr X complained the Council unfairly suspended his housing application for 12 months. There was no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council suspended his housing application for 12 months because he had refused two previous offers on properties. He said the Council’s decision was not fair as it did not consider his reasons for refusing the previous offers. Mr X would like the Council to apologise to him for the distress its actions caused him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’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)
3. 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

4. I spoke with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
5. I considered the information provided by the Council.
6. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s housing allocations policy

7. The policy sets out how the Council manages housing allocations.
8. Under section 9 of the policy, it explains how allocations and nominations are made, the rules used to decide what properties an applicant can be considered for and what happens when offers are refused. It states, “We will make two formal offers of accommodation to households in Band C. If these are refused the application will be suspended for 12 months. The applicant will not be able to bid again during this period”.
9. The policy also sets out the right to request a review of the Council’s decisions.

What happened

10. Mr X has been registered with the Council’s choice-based lettings scheme since 2013, under non-priority band C. He is eligible to bid on one-bedroom flats.
11. In September 2020, Mr X placed a bid on a property. Following this, in November 2020, the Council made Mr X an offer on the property. However shortly after, Mr X contacted the Council and refused the offer. He explained to the Council he was unable to take the property as there was a history of a violent dispute between him and a group of people in the area. The Council responded to Mr X and advised him to be cautious when bidding on further properties because another refusal would result in the Council suspending his housing application for 12 months.
12. In February 2021, Mr X placed a bid on another property. Shortly after, the Council made Mr X an offer on the property. However, Mr X contacted the Council and refused the offer because he felt the property was too small.
13. The Council then wrote to Mr X and said as it was the second offer he had refused, it had decided to suspend his housing application for a period of 12 months, in line with its housing allocations policy. It told Mr X he would be able to start bidding again from February 2022.

Mr X’s complaint to the Council

14. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s decision. He said he did not view the first property because of the history of the area it was located in. He said if he had known about the area, he would not have placed a bid on the property. Mr X said the second property was too small and the Council’s advert for the property did not tell him what size it would be. Mr X requested to appeal the Council’s decision.
15. A Case Review Panel considered Mr X’s appeal. It asked Mr X to provide any supporting evidence in relation to his reasons why he had refused the first property. For example, it asked Mr X about his relationship with the group of people he had the violent dispute with and it asked Mr X if he had reported the matter to the Police. Mr X said he had no relationship with the group of people and he had never reported the matter to the Police.
16. The Panel noted although Mr X did not want to live in the area where the alleged dispute had occurred, the second property he placed a bid on was within walking distance of it.
17. The Panel did not uphold Mr X’s appeal. It said there were no grounds to act outside the Council’s policy.
18. Following the Panel’s decision, Mr X complained to the Council as he remained unhappy with the suspension of his housing application. The Council responded to Mr X and said it had previously made him aware if he refused a second property, it would suspend his housing application for 12 months. It said it had made its decision in line with its policy.
19. The Council referred to the Panel’s decision and supported it. It said it had no evidence which supported Mr X’s claim that he was part of a violent dispute in the area and the second property he placed a bid on was within walking distance of the area. The Council therefore said the second offer it made to Mr X was reasonable.
20. The Council said it was Mr X’s responsibility to place bids on properties which were appropriately suited to him. It continued and noted Mr X said he did not have the necessary information in relation to the size of the second property. The Council said its advert for the property contained the necessary information. The Council did not change its decision to suspend Mr X’s housing application.
21. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to us. Since Mr X’s complaint to us, the Council removed the suspension on his housing application, allowing him to place bids on properties again. Although Mr X is now able to place bids on properties, he still wants the Council to apologise to him for the decision it made to suspend his application.

Back to top

Findings

22. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We cannot question a council’s decision if there was no fault in the way it was reached.
23. The Council’s housing allocations policy clearly states if an applicant refuses two offers in housing band C, the Council will suspend the applicant’s housing application for 12 months. As Mr X is in band C and he refused two offers the Council made to him, the Council suspended his application in line with its policy. There was no fault by the Council.
24. In addition, the Council did make Mr X aware after the first offer he refused, that it would suspend his housing application if he refused another offer. It gave Mr X reasonable notice.
25. Mr X said the Council’s advert for the second property did not provide sufficient information in relation to the size of it. I have reviewed the advert and although it did not detail the size of the property, it did provide a contact number for the Council’s Allocations Team for more information or assistance. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to contact the Allocations Team to obtain further information on the property.
26. Furthermore, there was no fault in the way the Panel considered Mr X’s review request. It appropriately considered Mr X’s reasons for refusing the offers and it asked Mr X for any supporting evidence.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have now completed my investigation. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman