Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s delay in offering him accommodation. We have not found fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to our recommendations for a service improvement regarding its automatic bids.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly consider his housing application, giving him lower priority. He says he has a higher priority in his own local authority area. He complains the Council failed to properly consider his medical needs, and the properties that it has bid for on his behalf are not suitable. Mr X says this caused anxiety and stress and has affected his human rights because he cannot move to be closer to his family.
2. Mr X also complains the Council used the wrong name when communicating with him.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. I have investigated complaint set out in paragraph one.
4. I have not investigated the complaint in paragraph two because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

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. 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).
7. 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).
8. I have noted the background information between 2018 and early 2021. I have considered matters in detail from January 2021. However, I have not investigated matters before January 2021 because this earlier period is a late complaint, and I do not consider there are good reasons for investigating these matters.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I have discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents it provided. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and policy

10. 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))
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))

The Council’s Common Allocation Policy

12. The Council explains in its Common Allocation Policy (CAP), that it defines its reasonable preference in 4 bands - Band P, 1, 2 and 2R.
13. The bands are categorised as:
• Priority Band P for those with an urgent and severe housing need;
• Band 1 for those who are in high housing need;
• Band 2 for those who are in medium housing need;
• Band 2R for those in reasonable preference categories but whose priority is

reduced; and

• Band 3 for those who are adequately housed.

The Equality Act 2010

14. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection in the carrying out of public functions.
15. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. One of the protected characteristics is disability. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
16. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.

What happened

Background

17. Mr X is disabled. He has, arthritis, epilepsy and mental health conditions which affect the way he reacts to others. He also says he is autistic.
18. Mr X does not live in the Council’s area. He wishes to move to the area in order to be near his daughter and grandchild.
19. In 2018 the Council accepted Mr X’s application to be on its housing register. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. This allows housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. The Council agreed to make automatic bids for suitable properties because Mr X could not bid himself.
20. The Council assessed Mr X and advised it had placed him in band 2R. It said this priority banding was because he had a health or medical need, but he had no local connection. The Council’s CAP sets out how the Council decides what priority it should place on each application. Band 2R is for people with a reasonable preference as set out in paragraph 11, but the priority is reduced.
21. The Council confirmed in its response to my enquiries that it accepted in 2018 that Mr X had local connection and this was backdated to October 2018. Mr X was then placed in band 2.
22. The Council recognised that Mr X had a medical or health need to move, therefore it assessed he had reasonable preference. His priority regarding medical or heath need was medium, taking account of the medical officer’s assessment.
23. The Council started making automatic bids for Mr X from late 2018. The Council agreed in January 2020 that it should only bid on properties which were on the ground floor, taking account of Mr X’s disabilities.

January 2021 to December 2022

24. In the period January 2021 to December 2022 the Council made 53 bids for Mr X.
25. Mr X was shortlisted for two properties in 2021. These were ground floor flats. But when the housing association contacted Mr X about viewing the flats, Mr X said the Council should not have made these bids because they were not suitable due to his disabilities. Mr X said he could not access one flat because it was on a hill. The Council said it was not clear from the information on the property listing by its partner landlord that the property was on a hill. The Council agreed that it would place an alert on Mr X’s application regarding his needs.
26. Mr X complained in 2022 about the Council refusing to offer him a suitable property. He said the Council’s medical officer had not taken account of his disabilities, and the Council’s priority banding decision was wrong. In his view he should have the highest priority.
27. The Council replied that it had not refused to offer Mr X a property. It said his bids had not been successful. The Council explained its experienced medical officer had reviewed Mr X’s medical information and he was assessed in line with its CAP as band 2. It said it could review his application if Mr X provided new, up to date supporting information from medical professionals.
28. Mr X complained further at stage two of the Council’s procedure that it was refusing to offer him a property. He said he was very frustrated because he had been seeking to move to the area for four years. He wanted to be near his family. Mr X said the Council should put him in the highest priority band due to his disabilities. He said he had light sensitive epilepsy, but the Council did not recognise this, placing him in band 2. He said that the Council where he lived currently had accepted he had the highest priority for housing.
29. The Council responded it had not refused Mr X’s request for a property. It said it operated a choice based letting system to ensure it allocated social housing to those in the greatest housing need. The Council said that Mr X’s bids were not successful because other applicants had a greater need or a higher priority banding than his banding.
30. The Council said it was not aware of Mr X’s home Council’s allocation process. It confirmed that based on the information it had, it had correctly assessed Mr X’s band which was band 2. It said that a medical officer and a senior manager assessed applications according to the guidelines for the Council’s Common Allocation Policy. It noted it had asked Mr X to supply up to date medical information. However, Mr X had not yet provided this. The Council said that if Mr X sent this information, it would reassess his application.

Analysis

31. In response to my enquiries the Council provided information to show that it has assessed Mr X’s application in accordance with its CAP. The Council assesses how the applicant’s current housing affects their health and wellbeing. This means the priority banding may be different to the banding Mr X’s home Council gave when he was seeking housing. I have not seen evidence of fault here.
32. I asked the Council to explain how it assessed Mr X’s local connection as one of its 2018 letters stated Mr X did not have local connection and therefore his priority was reduced. The Council has confirmed that it did accept Mr X had local connection from 2018. While it was not noted on the Council’s system, the Council accepted Mr X had band 2 priority from the start. I have not found fault by the Council here.
33. The Council has asked for up to date medical information, but Mr X has not provided this. While I understand Mr X has difficulties getting medical information because he did not have a GP, this is not due to a fault by the Council. Mr X now has a GP, and so he may wish to seek the support of an advocate or an advice agency to assist him in getting medical information and requesting a review of the Council’s decision.
34. Mr X complained the Council should give him the highest priority for housing due to the benefit that he receives. Mr X receives the maximum Personal Independence Payment (PIP) for care and mobility. The Council explains that the assessment for PIP is related to a person’s health, while the Council’s CAP housing assessment relates to the level of impact that the person’s current home has on their health and well-being. In my view the Council has assessed Mr X’s priority in accordance with its CAP. The Council gave Mr X reasonable preference due to the impact of his home on his health and wellbeing and his disabilities. Based on the information I have seen, I have not found fault here.
35. The Council has provided information about the unsuccessful bids it made on Mr X’s behalf. I have seen the evidence that shows these bids were unsuccessful because other applicants had higher priority. I have not found fault here.
36. Mr X complains the Council made bids on unsuitable properties. He says he needs a ground floor property, but the Council bid for first floor flats. The Council said its automatic bids should select ground accommodation. I can see that in the last two years, all but four bids the Council made were for ground floor properties.
37. In 2022 the Council made two autobids on properties which were first floor or above. It appears there is a fault with the Council’s auto generated bids. I have made a recommendation to remedy this. However, I do not consider there is sufficient evidence this caused Mr X injustice or that he missed out on an offer of a property. This is because the Council has confirmed there were no other suitable alternative properties on these dates which it would have offered to Mr X.
38. Mr X also says the Council bid for unsuitable flats and wasted his bids. He says these bids were for flats where the lighting in communal areas would affect his epilepsy. The Council has explained that its automated bidding system cannot identify properties with communal lighting which may affect Mr X. However, the landlord of the property should identify this before any offer was made to Mr X. I have not found fault here.
39. Mr X complains the Council discriminated against him as a disabled person. In his view the Council did not follow the Equality Act. I have not seen evidence the Council failed to have regard to the Equality Act when assessing Mr X’s housing allocation priority. He has reasonable preference due to his health conditions. The Council has invited Mr X to provide further information about how his health is affected by his current accommodation. I have not seen evidence of fault here.
40. The Council considered Mr X’s reasonable adjustments when communicating with him. The Council confirms it has met the reasonable adjustments Mr X requested such as the colour of the paper its sends documents on, and the time when it calls Mr X. I have not seen evidence of fault here.

Back to top

Agreed action

41. I recommended that within four months of my decision, the Council should ensure that it corrects the fault with its auto bidding system so that the correct floor level is selected when it makes bids on applicants’ behalf.
42. The Council has agreed the recommendation.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have not found evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr X. I have made a service improvement recommendation. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman