Summary: Ms X complained the Council gave wrong information about the likely success of her housing application. Ms X also complained the Council’s housing policy does not account for terminal illnesses and its complaint handling has been poor, causing her distress. We do not find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council gave her wrong information during a housing application. Ms X says the Council led her to believe she would be successful in bidding for a property when this was not the case. Ms X also says the Council does not properly consider terminal illnesses as part of its housing policy and its complaint handling was poor. Ms X says this caused her real distress and uncertainty.

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 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. 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

5. I spoke to Ms X and considered all the information she provided. I also considered all the information the Council provided.
6. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision and I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

7. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. Councils must make all allocations in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, Section 166A(1) & (14))
8. Councils must notify applicants in writing following an allocations decision and must give reasons for the decision.
9. Councils must also tell applicants of their right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, Section 166A(9))
10. 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))
11. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

The Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme

12. The Council does not own its own social housing. Social housing in the Council’s area is owned by social landlords and the Council uses a grouping system to determine the priority of applicants on its housing register.
13. The Council places applicants in a group based on their current housing circumstances and need. Group A is the highest priority band and Group C is the lowest. The Council’s allocations policy sets out the criteria for the different groups.
14. The policy:
• Explains the Council will give reasonable preference to applicants who fall into the relevant categories set out in law. It says the Council expects applicants to tell it about changes in their circumstances which would affect their application;
• Has a system where applicants choose which available properties they want to ‘bid’ for, with the tenancy going to the highest ranked applicant who wants to move;
• Says it usually decides priority within a group according to the time an applicant has been in that group but can award Discretionary Housing Priority for strategic, management or legal reasons;
• Says the Council will consider making a direct let to an applicant with high priority. This means allocating applicants who need specific adaptations to suitable properties directly. The policy says the Council will assess the housing need of an applicant before making a direct let.

Back to top

What I found

What Happened

15. Ms X made a housing application in January 2021 as her home was no longer suitable. Ms X applied on the basis she now needed a house adapted for wheelchair use with two-bedrooms to account for a carer. In her application, Ms X ticked a box to indicate she had a physical disability. In the section of the application titled “Supporting Information”, Ms X wrote that she had a medical condition but did not provide further details.
16. The Council immediately moved Ms X up from Group C to Group A, but it also asked her for evidence of her medical condition. There is no evidence to show the Council considered Ms X for a direct let at this time.
17. Ms X says she spoke to a member of the Council’s housing team in April 2021. Ms X says they told her landlord A would be making one two-bedroom property adapted for wheelchair use available in December 2021. The Council says this was an informal discussion, because of an existing personal relationship between Ms X and the members of its housing team, and so there is no record of what was discussed.
18. On 28 May, Ms X’s Occupational Therapist (OT) provided a report to support the Council’s decision to move her into Group A. The OT report explained Ms X has a health condition that will result in her becoming a full-time wheelchair user and develop functional difficulties. The report noted Ms X was currently independently mobile but would need to be rehoused to have suitable accommodation available before she needed a wheelchair full-time. There is no evidence to show the Council considered Ms X for a direct let at this time.
19. In June 2021, landlord A told the Council it was developing two two-bedroom properties adapted for wheelchair use. Both properties were due to be advertised in September and available from December.
20. In September a member of the Council’s housing team emailed Ms X to confirm the properties would be advertised from the end of the week in line with the Council’s usual adapted property procedures. Ms X says she was told it was likely she would be successful with a bid for one of those as there was only one other applicant with a higher priority than her.
21. Shortly afterwards, landlord A listed one two-bedroom property adapted for wheelchair use. Ms X bid for this the following day.
22. Ms X has said landlord A emailed her OT to double-check she had put in a bid. Ms X says this increased her expectations she would be successful.
23. Landlord A advertised a second property in September, but the advert did not mention it was adapted for wheelchair use. Ms X bid for this property too.
24. In October, the Council’s housing team exchanged emails with landlord A. It was at this point it was made aware only the first property would be an adapted property.
25. Bidding for the first property closed but Ms X was not successful as there was a bidder with a higher priority need.
26. Bidding for the second property then closed but Ms X was not successful, as it was not suitable for her needs.
27. In October, Ms X emailed the Council to raise concerns about the process. She explained:
• She understood it was never definite she would be offered a specific property, but she had been led to believe there was a very strong possibility.
• The fact landlord A emailed her OT further raised her expectations.
• She had been told more than once she was the person with a need for an accessible property who had been on the list the longest.
• She felt very let down by the Council’s housing system.
28. The Council responded to Ms X the following day. It said:
• The property was advertised correctly under the Council’s usual policy.
• It agreed members of its housing team advised Ms X there was a very strong possibility she would be successful in her bid.
• It is usual for the Council and social landlords to encourage applicants with specific adaptation needs to apply for adapted properties when they come up.
• It did not believe Ms X had been told she was going to be number one on any bidding or that she would be successful in bidding for any particular property.
29. On 11 November, Ms X’s OT spoke to the Council by phone. She asked if the Council could award Ms X added time on the housing register because she had Motor Neurone Disease (“MND”), effectively increasing her priority level, or approve her for a direct letting. The Council agreed to consider this, and Ms X’s OT sent supporting information that same day. This included extra information about MND.
30. Ms X complained to the Council in November. Ms X said the Council had wrongly led her to believe her application would be successful, and she did not think it had properly considered her MND.
31. Later that month, the Council approved Ms X for a direct letting. Its decision-making records show Ms X was prioritised based on her MND being a rapidly progressing, debilitating condition, with limited life expectancy.
32. A suitable three-bedroom property was then identified for Ms X and the Council agreed a direct letting, with the property available from March 2022.
33. In December 2021, the Council agreed to commission an independent investigation to Ms X’s complaint. Ms X spoke to the independent investigator and gave him information to support her complaint.
34. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in January 2022. It said it understood Ms X’s situation but explained it did not feel she had ever been given wrong information.
35. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Ms X asked it to escalate her complaint to Stage 2 of its process in February. Ms X said the Council knew in April 2021 only one adapted property would be available. She also said she was unhappy she had not been considered for a direct let sooner and felt the Council should have contacted more people as part of its investigation into her complaint.
36. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in March. It explained it had told Ms X there would be two adapted properties because that is what landlord A had told it. It also said it felt it had enough information to respond to Ms X’s complaint without the need to consult more people. The Council explained it only considers direct lets in exceptional circumstances and agreed this as soon as Ms X’s OT provided the relevant information.
37. Ms X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in April 2022.
38. In response to an initial draft of this decision, the Council said:
• When Ms X made her application, there was no information to suggest her needs were so significant that she should be considered as an exception. The Council kept Ms X’s case under review and when further information came to light, through communication with an OT, her application was reassessed. The Council then decided to exercise its discretion to let a property directly.
• Ms X was aware of how the Council’s scheme worked and knew she was required to keep her application up to date. It also pointed out there are specific medical and housing need questions on the application form, with an opportunity to provide extra information.
39. The Council also provided an email chain to show how it made the decision to offer a direct let to Ms X. The Council did not provide any records, such as staff guidance, to show how it makes consistent decisions on whether to consider direct lets, or what to take into account when making decisions.

Analysis

Misleading information

40. There are no notes or records of the conversation of April 2021 between Ms X and the Council. Therefore, it is difficult for me to say, even on the balance of probabilities, what was discussed. In any event there is nothing to suggest the Council gave incorrect information. It is possible at that time it understood only one property would be available in December. I find no fault.
41. From what I have seen so far, the social landlord told the Council in June 2021 that it would make two adapted properties available. The Council was entitled to rely on this information. I do not find the Council at fault.

Complaint handling

42. Ms X was given an opportunity to discuss her complaint with the investigator and provide supporting information. The Council’s investigator did not need to talk to any third parties if they felt they had enough information to make their conclusions. I have looked through the Council’s responses to Ms X’s complaints and they seem thorough and comprehensive. I do not find the Council at fault for how it handled Ms X’s complaint.

How the Council’s policy considers reasonable preference

43. The law says the Council’s policy must give reasonable preference to those with medical conditions. Once Ms X notified the Council of her medical condition it moved her up to Group A, giving reasonable preference in line with its policy.
44. I do not find fault with how the Council considered Ms X’s need for reasonable preference as it appears to have grouped her in line with its usual policy at that point. The Council did not need to take further account of Ms X’s illness.

Direct let

45. The Council’s policy is to consider making a direct let if it identifies an applicant has a high priority need and requires specific adaptations. Although Ms X’s initial application showed she had high priority need and required specific adaptations, the OT report of May 2021 did not support this. The OT report showed Ms X had a high priority need but did not yet require specific adaptations as she was currently independently mobile. Based on this, there is nothing to suggest the Council needed to consider a direct let before November 2021.
46. In November 2021, following a conversation with Ms X’s OT, the Council exercised its discretion to give Ms X a direct let. It was not required to do this, and I do not find fault with the Council for not having done this sooner.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I have found no fault by the Council and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman