Summary: Miss X complains about the way the Council handled her housing application. The Council was not at fault for the way it dealt with her application or for deciding to make a direct offer rather than increase her banding. There were faults in its communication with Miss X but these did not cause a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the way the Council handled her housing application. In particular she says it failed to award her the correct banding, failed to discuss her requirements and delayed making a direct offer despite agreeing to do so. It has now made a direct offer which Miss X says is unsuitable and she has missed out on suitable properties which were advertised. This has caused distress and left the family at risk.

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 have considered the information provided by Miss X and discussed the complaint with her on the telephone. I have considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and the relevant law and guidance.
6. I gave Miss X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law and guidance

7. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it owes them the main housing duty. A council generally carries out the duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it can make a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
8. 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))
9. 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))
10. 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 allocations scheme

11. The Council operates a choice-based allocations scheme. It places applicants into one of five bands: emergency (for those with the most critical and immediate need to move), then bands one to four with one being the highest. Band two includes people who are unintentionally homeless and in priority need.
12. The scheme sets out that ‘there are circumstances where a household’s needs are so complex or urgent that they require an offer of accommodation outside of the banding system. Such decisions will only be made in exceptional circumstances at the discretion of the housing needs team. We reserve the right in such instances to either make a direct offer of accommodation or to allow the household to bid for accommodation via Bromley Homeseekers, in an agreed band for a specified period of time’.
13. The scheme sets out that: ‘Details regarding successful bidders will be advertised on the ‘this weeks lettings and results’ section of the website. Within your own Bromley Homeseekers account you will be able to view this information in conjunction with previous unsuccessful bids you have made’.

What happened

14. Miss X lives with her two teenage children. Miss X lives in temporary accommodation provided by the Council as it owes her the main housing duty under homelessness legislation. She has been on the Council’s housing list since 2016.
15. In January 2022 Miss X contacted the Council about her bidding rights. An officer replied and explained the system changed in December 2019 and the Council asked existing clients to re-register on the new system. They could not find a housing register application for Miss X so asked her to submit a new one.
16. In early February the Council confirmed it had processed Miss X’s application and she was able to bid. Miss X asked an officer to confirm her banding as she thought it should be higher.
17. The officer confirmed Miss X was in band 2 and invited her to submit any documents in support of her banding. Miss X provided the Council with documents supporting the need for more settled accommodation for the family. The day after the Council agreed to consider Miss X for a direct offer. The officer updated Miss X to say ‘I cannot say how quickly this will take place as there is a lack of suitable accommodation in our borough’.
18. In early March 2022 Miss X identified a property but said she was unable to place a bid on the system. The officer offered to do this for her. There is no evidence this happened. The property was allocated to someone with higher priority than Miss X. Two weeks later some new build properties became available. Miss X placed bids and asked if she could be considered for one as a direct offer.
19. The Council responded and advised the properties were advertised on line and would be shortlisted shortly. It said they were not directly offered as it would not be fair to other applicants with similar needs to herself.
20. In a further response an officer said ‘it would be unfair of me to pull this property for a direct offer since it has already gone onto our bidding portal and other equally urgent cases have already placed a bid on the properties Miss X was unsuccessful in her bids’. They added ‘we have several new housing schemes within the borough and our surrounding boroughs. I have asked a member of the Allocations Team, to contact you directly to discuss these options with you in more detail as they may be a quicker route for you in securing settled accommodation’. In response to my enquiries the Council says this was not progressed due to the level of Miss X’s rent arrears.
21. In mid-March Miss X complained the family were not considered for six properties she had bid on and queried the direct offer process. The Council replied in mid-April. It said she was in band two with an effective date of September 2016. She had made two recent unsuccessful bids and it had agreed to make her a direct offer. It said this could take some time and there were other urgent cases also awaiting a direct offer. It advised her to continue bidding.
22. Miss X remained unhappy and complained to us. She also complained the results of biddings were not available on the Council’s website.
23. In early May 2022 the Council made a direct offer to Miss X. Miss X spoke to an officer to raise concerns about the location and that she did not use lifts and would have preferred a house. Miss X later emailed the Council to say she had visited the area and accepted the property.
24. Miss X viewed the property in early June. After the viewing she emailed the Council to say it was unsuitable and set out her reasons including: her claustrophobia, fear of elevators, medical reasons she could not use the stairs and medical issues related to her children. Miss X added that a member of the team had not been in contact to discuss the family’s housing requirement.
25. The Council responded in June 2022. It advised the review request was substantially out of time as it was not made within 21 days of the offer. The officer considered the reasons given by Miss X but noted when asked in her application if her mobility was restricted on stairs Miss X stated no. It noted Miss X’s children’s needs but did not consider these impacted on its offer. It noted Miss X would have preferred a house however it could not guarantee an offer of a house. They concluded the out of time request had no merit.
26. In response to my enquiries has provided a breakdown which shows 33 three bedroom properties were available between early February and early May 2022. It made eight direct offers and 25 were available for bidding. Miss X bid on three of the properties. One was withdrawn for emergency use and the other two were allocated to those with higher priority than Miss X. It says it has 32 families with a three bedroom need currently in band E and 237 in band one priority.
27. It says it has, in the past, increased bandings for a 12 week period where there was significant or compelling evidence of the necessity to move. Given the level of demand, it says even if a client is in band E it is unlikely they will be successful with a bid within 12 weeks. It says it did not consider re-assessing Miss X’s banding as, in line with its housing allocations scheme, it decided to make a direct offer. It did not consider reassessing Miss X’s banding had any worth.

Findings

28. The demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.
29. Miss X bid on three properties. All three were allocated to someone with a higher priority. It was for the Council to decide whether these properties should be used for direct offers or advertised on the choice based lettings scheme. The Council took into account the level of availability of properties and the level of demand in deciding what properties to advertise and what to use for direct offers. The Council was not at fault.
30. An officer agreed to place a bid on a property for Miss X. There is no evidence they did so. This was fault. However even if they had placed a bid, the Council allocated the property to someone in a higher banding than Miss X so I cannot say this caused Miss X a significant injustice.
31. The Council’s allocations scheme allows it to temporarily increase someone’s banding or to consider them for a direct offer. In this case the Council was satisfied Miss X’s circumstances were such that a direct offer was appropriate rather than increasing her banding. This was a decision for the Council to make, in line with the allocations scheme, and was not fault
32. The Council’s housing allocations scheme states that the details of successful bidders would be advertised on its website. This information is not available online. This is fault. The Council says it is aware of this. It says a planned IT upgrade was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It says work to review the allocations scheme is now intended for early 2023. It says this information is available to clients on request but is not in a publishable format. I am satisfied the Council is taking action to address this fault. In any case I cannot say this fault has caused a significant injustice. This is because it was open to Miss X to contact the Council to request bidding results.
33. A Council officer advised Miss X an officer would contact her to discuss ‘several new housing schemes within the borough’. Miss X says this did not happen. In response to my enquiries the Council says Miss X was not eligible for the schemes due to rent arrears. I have seen no evidence Miss X was advised of this. This was fault and raised her expectations. However given Miss X would not qualify for the schemes I cannot say this was significant injustice.
34. Miss X believed she would be contacted to discuss her requirements before a direct offer was made. The Council did not do this but I cannot say it was fault. The Council had Miss X’s housing application and the additional information she provided. If Miss X had further information regarding her particular needs it was open to her to provide this to the Council.
35. The Council made a direct offer to Miss X within two and a half months of agreeing to do so. Given the level of demand I cannot say this was a significant delay.
36. Miss X is unhappy the Council considered her request for a review of the suitability of her direct offer was late. The evidence shows Miss X accepted the offer in May 2022 and did not request a review of its suitability within 21 days. The Council has set out its reasoning as to why it considered the request was late and why it considered the request was without merit. We cannot question a council’s decisions if they are taken without fault. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the suitability review so I cannot question it.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault for the way it dealt with Miss X’s application or for deciding to make a direct offer rather than increase her banding. There were some faults in its communication with her but these did not cause a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman