Summary: Mr X complained that although he was first on the Council’s list to be allocated a property, the property was wrongly allocated to another resident. The Council did give Mr X some inaccurate information. However, it has already apologised for that. Otherwise, we do not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council:
• Wrongly gave a property that was meant for him to another service-user.
• Failed to communicate with him about what happened.
2. Mr X says this has caused him an injustice because his accommodation is unsuitable and he needs to move.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. Mr X also said that his property is in a state of disrepair and the Council has failed to act to repair. Mr X is complaining about the Council’s management of the social housing he is residing in. His complaint may therefore be more appropriately addressed by the Housing Ombudsman.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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 spoke with Mr X.
8. I made enquiries with the Council and researched relevant policy and guidance.
9. I shared a draft of this decisions with the Council and Mr X and considered all the comments received before reaching my final view.

Back to top

What I found

10. Mr X has been registered as a service-user with medical priority with the Council since 2015. He wants to move because he says his property is not suitable. Under the Council’s lettings system, in order to move to a more suitable property, Mr X has to bid for a property. The Council’s allocation policy sets out that ‘generally’ the bidder with the highest priority is offered a property. However, the Council’s allocation policy also sets out that there are exceptions to this. Section 2.2.11 explains that there are a number of circumstances where the Council will not offer a tenancy to the highest bidder.
11. A person’s position on the list of people who bid for a property is determined by the number of points they have and their registration date. The Council says that a person’s position on a list generally only changes when other people on the list are re-housed.
12. In February 2022 Mr X bid on a property that he thought would be suitable. I shall call that property, Property One. As Mr X has a medical priority, he is higher up the bidding list than others.
13. On 1 March 2022 the Council says Mr X’s bid was withdrawn because Property One was offered to another service user on the Council’s management transfer list. A management transfer is where the Director of Housing has agreed that there are good management reasons for a person to be transferred to a property outside the normal allocation priorities.
14. I have seen a copy of the letter the Council sent to the other service-user on 1 March 2022, offering the property to that service-user by way of a management transfer. The offer was accepted on 4 March 2022.
15. Also on 1 March 2022, Mr X phoned the Council, enquiring about Property One. The operator told him he was in position two and that if he was shortlisted for the property he would be contacted by the allocations team.
16. The operative noted that Mr X wanted to speak with someone from the bidding team as he considered he had been told he was in position one. The operators notes record that she sent an email but it does not say to whom.
17. The Council accepts it told Mr X he was at position two but says this was inaccurate because it had not created a shortlist for the property yet and on that date, Property One had been withdrawn for a direct offer. The Council says it accepts Mr X was given conflicting information and apologises for this.
18. On 4 March 2022, Mr X phoned the Council again. He said he was aggrieved that he had not been contacted about Property One despite being, as he maintained, in position one. He was again informed that he was in fact in position two. He was also, according to the notes made by the operative, told that once a bidding week has concluded, the bids are shortlisted so the initial position he saw on the website is not final. Mr X was told that he was number two on the shortlist and had not been selected on this occasion.
19. On 9 March 2022, a Council officer called Mr X. She told him that Property One had been withdrawn for a direct offer. Mr X said he had been told differently. The officer checked and confirmed the position again.
20. On 17 March 2022, another Council officer called Mr X to again advise him that Property One had been withdrawn for a direct offer. The notes made by the officer record that Mr X said he had not been told this before. The officer noted that he had been informed on 9 March 2022 and records that Mr X remained unhappy with the situation and expressed his belief that he had been treated unfairly.
21. Mr X complained to the Council and remaining dissatisfied with its response, registered his complaint with this office.

Back to top

Analysis

22. I am satisfied that while the Council was at fault for misadvising Mr X of his position on the bidding list, it was not at fault for offering the property he bid on to a different resident and it did not treat him unfairly.
23. The Council’s allocations policy enables it to make housing decisions that sometimes mean that even when someone believes themselves to be at the top of the bidding list, they may still not, in certain circumstances, be allocated their chosen property.
24. Evidence shows that even though Mr X was misadvised that he was second on the housing list in relation to Property One, that property had in fact been offered to someone who was on the management transfer list.
25. It must have been very frustrating for Mr X but the Council is not at fault for allocating property in this way.
26. I have not made any recommendation that the Council should apologise for misadvising Mr X. This is because when he called the Council on 1 March 2022, even though he was given the wrong information, he was not given any assurances about securing the property.
27. I also find that the Council was not at fault in its communication after the property was withdrawn. The Council did contact Mr X on 9th and 17th March 2022 to explain the situation and it has already apologised in its complaint correspondence.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have ended my investigation. The Council took appropriate action when it gave inaccurate information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman