Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's decision to reduce her priority for social housing. The Council was at fault for wrongly increasing Mrs X’s social housing banding and failing to properly explain that mistake to her. This meant Mrs X was unable to make an informed decision about an offer of housing from the Council. The Council also failed to give Mrs X appropriate information in its banding decision letters which caused her frustration. The Council will apologise, pay Mrs X £500 and review its banding decision letters.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council's decision to reduce her priority for social housing after she refused an offer of accommodation. She says this meant she and her family continue to live in crowded unsuitable housing.

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 may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, 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 have considered:
• all the information Mrs X provided and discussed the complaint with her;
• the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
• the Council’s policies, relevant law and guidance and the Ombudsman's guidance on remedies.
6. Mrs X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

7. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
8. If a council is satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they owe the applicant the ‘prevention duty’. This means the council must help the person to ensure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation.
9. If an applicant is found to be eligible and homeless then the council will owe the ‘relief duty’. This requires the council to take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person for at least six months.
10. Councils can end the prevention and relief duties for a number of reasons; one of which is when a person refuses a suitable offer of accommodation.

Social housing

11. The demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas, particularly in large cities like Leicester. To manage the demand, 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.
12. The Council's housing allocation scheme places people in one of three bands. Band one is for people with the highest priority for social housing. It includes people to whom the Council owes a homelessness duty including the prevention and relief duties. It also includes people who are tenants and statutorily or critically overcrowded. Band three is for non-tenants in overcrowded housing.
13. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority. The Council's allocation scheme sets out the grounds and method for asking for a review of its decisions.

What happened

14. Mrs X and her family moved in with a friend in 2017. In 2020 she joined the Council's housing register. As a non-tenant in an overcrowded situation, the Council placed Mrs X in band three.
15. Mrs X challenged the banding decision. The Council visited the home where she was living and decided she was overcrowded. It moved Mrs X to band one on the housing register as a tenant whose home was assessed as being statutorily overcrowded.
16. Mrs X’s friend asked her family to leave the house in June 2021. Mrs X then applied as homeless to the Council. The Council accepted it owed her the prevention homeless duty, and later the relief duty. The duties also gave Mrs X band one priority.
17. In late November 2021, the Council made an offer of a property under the relief duty. Mrs X said she did not want to accept the home because she did not like its location. She also felt she would soon be able to make a successful bid on a social housing property due to her band one priority. The Council explained it considered the property was suitable to meet her and her family’s housing needs. It said if she refused the offer, it would end the homeless duties it owed her.
18. Mrs X confirmed her decision to refuse the property. In early December, the Council sent letters confirming it had ended the prevention and relief duties because she had refused an offer of suitable accommodation.
19. In late December, the Council sent Mrs X a new housing band decision letter. It said it had moved Mrs X to band three on the social housing register. It explained this was because she no longer had band one priority after it ended the housing duties. The letter did not explain Mrs X’s right to request a review of that decision.
20. Mrs X was unhappy and complained to the Council. She said she would not have refused the offer if the Council had properly explained she would be moved to band three as a result. She had believed she would retain band one priority as she had it before the Council accepted it owed her homelessness duties.
21. The Council responded to say it was satisfied the house it offered her was suitable to meet her needs and it had correctly ended the homelessness duties. It had therefore placed her in band three in December 2021.
22. In its response to my enquiries, the Council said it identified it had wrongly given Mrs X band one priority when it reviewed her circumstances before making the offer of a property in November 2021. It realised that as a non-tenant she should be in band three. It said it accepted it should have explained more fully why Mrs X would go down to band three if she refused the offer. It said it would remind officers of the need to send full and clear information.

Findings

23. The Council accepts it wrongly placed Mrs X in band one after visiting her property and deciding she was statutorily overcrowded. As a non-tenant, Mrs X was not eligible for band one priority regardless of whether she was statutorily overcrowded. This was fault. This meant Mrs X believed she would retain band one priority even if the Council ended its homelessness duty and that she would be able to successfully bid on social housing. The Council's fault raised Mrs X’s hopes and meant she was unable to make an informed decision about whether to refuse the offer of housing.
24. The Council also accepts it failed to properly explain why it moved Mrs X to band three after it ended its housing duties. This was fault and caused Mrs X frustration as she could not understand the Council's decision.
25. The Council was also at fault for failing to include information on Mrs X’s right to request a review of its housing banding decision in its decision letter. While the Council's allocation scheme sets out applicants right to request a review of its decisions, it is not sufficient to rely on people seeking that information out. The fault meant Mrs X was unable request a formal review. This caused her avoidable frustration. However, on balance, I do not think a review would have changed Mrs X’s banding because she remains a non-tenant in an overcrowded home.
26. I am concerned the fault may affect other people who receive housing banding decision letters from the Council and may want to request reviews of those decisions. I have therefore made a recommendation to prevent the fault occurring again.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will:
• apologise to Mrs X for the raised hopes and frustration caused by the faults identified in this decision; and
• pay Mrs X £500 in recognition of the injustice she experienced.
28. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council will ensure its housing register banding template decision letters include information on how the person can request a review.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice and prevent reoccurrence of this fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman