Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision in relation to his housing application and how it managed his complaint. The Council was not at fault for how it assessed Mr X’s housing application. There is a lack of evidence in relation to how the Council managed his complaint. Therefore, we have not investigated this matter further.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision in relation to his housing application. He said the Council:
• incorrectly placed him in band 4 and instead should have put him in band 1 in line with its policy and allowed him to bid on houses as Mr X left his previous council home he shared with his partner, following a breakdown of their relationship;
• did not consider his physical health;
• did not consider his mental health which has been affected by him being a victim of domestic abuse; and
• treated him unfairly because of his debt and as a result, did not put him in a higher band and restricted him to bid on flats and maisonettes.
2. Mr X also said the Council delayed responding to his complaint. He said the matter negatively affected his mental health. Mr X wants the Council to apologise to him, put him in band 1, allow him to bid on houses and give him a financial remedy to recognise the fault.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
4. 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. In this case, I considered there were good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate matters since July 2019. This is because Mr X submitted his housing application and supporting evidence during that period. Mr X said he then subsequently complained about the Council’s actions in 2021 and 2022 and the Council delayed responding to him. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
7. I considered the information the Council provided.
8. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

9. Every council 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.
10. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

The Council’s housing allocation policy

11. The Council’s housing allocation policy sets out who is eligible for housing, how the Council assesses housing applications and what type of accommodation it can offer to applicants.

Prioritising applications

12. The Council uses a banding scheme to prioritise applications for housing. There are five bands representing different levels of need, different degrees of urgency, and the reduced preference given to certain applications. The Council’s policy sets out each banding and the circumstances that fall within each one.
13. Band 1 is for people the Council needs to move. This includes:
• People giving up a joint tenancy of a Council or housing association rented property following a relationship breakdown, for the partner with the care of the children to remain there; and
• People who have a disability and whose homes cannot reasonably be adapted to meet their needs.
14. Band 2 and 3 are people with urgent needs and more than one need.
15. Band 4 is for people with one need. This includes people with moderate medical, disability or related support needs.
16. Band 5 is for people with no need or a reduced priority for example, as a result of their financial resources or previous tenancy history.

Matrimonial rehousing

17. The Council’s policy states where the relationship of parents’ breaks down and one parent needs to be rehoused, the parent who will be the primary carer of any child, should remain in the matrimonial house. Where eligible, the other parent should be offered alternative accommodation. If the care is split equally between the parents, both parents will be eligible for a family accommodation but only one will be able to have a house.
18. The Council may place the parent who does not remain in the matrimonial home, in band 1 unless they are assessed as having less preference and therefore will be placed in band 5. They will not be eligible for a house.

Debts to the Council

19. The Council will assess an applicant’s debt in relation to housing, as well as any mitigating circumstances and any efforts the applicant has made to repay the debt. As a result of the assessment, the Council may:
• accept the applicant onto the waiting list;
• exclude the applicant from the waiting list;
• defer the applicant until they have demonstrated suitability; or
• accept the applicant but give them less preference than competing applicants. Less preference will mean that the applicant is placed in Band 5 and may be allowed fewer offers.

Exceptions

20. If the Council gives an applicant less preference because of a debt, it may consider other individual circumstances of the applicant before placing them in band 5. The Council may make an exception and place the applicant in another band. If the Council has made an exception, it will review the decision within six months from the date it made the decision.

Medical need

21. The Council may give a medical priority to an applicant where they have health problems which affects their ability to manage in their accommodation. The Council’s Occupational Therapy Team makes an assessment to determine the outcome and if the applicant requires adaptations or needs to move to another property which is more appropriate for their needs.

Background

22. Mr X has children with his ex-partner. Before Mr X separated from his partner, they lived in a council house together with their children. Following their separation, Mr X moved out of the house and into private rented accommodation. Since then, Mr X has lived in a three-bedroom house with one child.

What happened

23. In July 2019, Mr X applied to the Council for housing. Mr X wanted a two or three-bedroom house for him and his child. In his application, Mr X said:
• he had a medical need due to a physical health problem but did not require a house with adaptations; and
• in his previous relationship, he was a victim of domestic abuse. He said he currently lived near his ex-partner and so wanted to move away from them.
24. In August 2019, the Council conditionally accepted Mr X’s application. It required further information to make a decision.
25. Mr X gave the Council a supporting letter from his General Practitioner which said he was a victim of domestic abuse which had negatively affected his mental health. He lived near his ex-partner and wanted to relocate to another area.
26. Mr X also submitted to the Council a medical application form in relation to his physical health problem.
27. Between November 2019 and January 2020, the Council considered Mr X’s housing application with the supporting evidence Mr X had provided. The Council also considered Mr X’s debts with his current landlord and with the Council from an overpayment of housing benefits. At the time, Mr X’s landlord had given Mr X notice to leave the property.
28. In addition, the Council’s Occupational Therapy Team completed a medical assessment with Mr X. It considered Mr X’s mental and physical health needs and there was no urgent need for Mr X to move. The Council therefore did not award Mr X medical priority.
29. At the beginning of February 2020, the Council made a decision on Mr X’s housing application. The Council did not want to exclude Mr X from the waiting list because of his debt and so removed the less preference and placed him in band 4. This was because of Mr X’s health problems and because Mr X’s landlord had given him notice to leave his current property. Mr X was restricted to bid on flats and maisonettes.
30. Mr X was able to remain in his current property. In October 2020, the Council reviewed its decision and decided it was appropriate for Mr X to remain in band 4.

Mr X’s complaints to the Council

31. In August 2021, Mr X complained to the Council. He said he was unhappy with the Council’s decision to place him in band 4. He wanted the Council to review its decision. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint later that month but it did not address the issues he complained of.

• In March 2022, Mr X complained to the Council again. He said the Council:
• had refused to help him get a house because of his debt; and
• it should have given him the family home as he was the primary carer of his children.

He asked the Council to reconsider its decision and allow him to bid on houses.

32. In April 2022, Mr X contacted the Council as it had not responded to his complaint. He asked the Council for a response.
33. In June 2022, Mr X complained to us as he had still not received a response from the Council. Following this, we notified the Council Mr X had complained to us.
34. In July 2022, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It did not uphold Mr X’s complaint and reiterated why it had placed Mr X in band 4.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

35. As part of my investigation, I asked the Council:
• why it did not address Mr X’s complaint when he complained in August 2021; and
• why it delayed responding to his complaint when he complained in March 2022.
36. The Council said:
• it had previously addressed Mr X’s issues he complained of in August 2021. However, the Council did not provide me evidence of this; and
• it did not receive Mr X’s complaints from March 2022 and April 2022. The Council said it only became aware of Mr X’s complaints when he had brought the complaint to us in June 2022.
37. Following this, I asked Mr X how he had submitted his complaints to the Council in March 2022 and April 2022 and asked if he could provide evidence of this. Mr X did not explain how he had submitted his complaints to the Council and he did not provide me with evidence.

Back to top

Findings

Mr X’s housing application

38. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Our role is to consider whether there was fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
39. Mr X said the Council should have placed him in band 1 following the breakdown of his relationship with his partner at the time. The Council considered:
• Mr X’s debt;
• Mr X’s health problems; and
• Mr X’s landlord had issued him notice to leave his current property.

The Council’s policy states it:

• may place the parent who does not remain in the family house in band 1 unless they are less preference and so will be placed in band 5.
• will consider any debt an applicant may have and can accept them on the waiting list but give them less preference and place them in band 5.

In this case, the Council made an exception because of Mr X’s health problems and because his landlord had given him notice and so placed him in band 4 rather than 5. The Council made its decision in line with its policy. It was not at fault.

40. Mr X said the Council should allow him to bid on houses and not restrict him to flats and maisonettes. The Council considered a house was already available to Mr X’s children via his ex-partner. The Council’s policy states only one parent can have a house. The Council made its decision in line with its policy. It was not at fault.
41. Mr X said the Council did not consider his health needs. The Council completed a medical assessment of him and used this in its decision making. It therefore properly considered his health needs before deciding not to award a medical priority. It also had regard to the assessment in its decision not to exclude him from the waiting list because of debt. There was no fault by the Council.

Mr X’s complaints to the Council

42. When Mr X complained to the Council in August 2021, the Council did not address his complaint because it said it had previously addressed the issues he complained of. However, the Council did not provide me with evidence it had previously addressed his issues. I therefore cannot say with certainty it had done this.
43. Mr X said he later complained to the Council again in March 2022 and April 2022. The Council said it did not receive his complaints and was not aware he had complained until we notified it. There is no evidence which shows how Mr X submitted his complaints. Again, I cannot say with certainty Mr X had complained to the Council in March 2022 and April 2022.
44. As a result, I have decided not to investigate this matter further. I will not be able to achieve anything more with a further investigation as there is a lack of evidence. In any case, given I have found the Council was not at fault for how it assessed Mr X’s housing application and the Council did respond to Mr X’s complaint in July 2022, it is unlikely the matter would have caused Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have now completed my investigation. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman