Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council implemented its housing allocations policy. There is fault with the wording of the policy and the confusing explanations given to Mr X. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X and his family.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council implemented its housing allocations policy. He said he and his family have been on the register for 4 years and the Council has allocated people ahead of him.

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. 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

4. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and have spoken to him about it.
5. I have also considered the Council’s policy and its response to Mr X and to my enquiries.
6. Mr X and the Council 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

Housing Allocation Policy

Banding

7. The Council uses a banding system to determine priority for rehousing. Assessment is based on an applicant’s housing circumstances, suitability of the property, and any medical problems.
8. Persons eligible to join the housing register will have their applications assessed by a Council officer and placed in one of five bands. Band A is the highest priority, band B, the next highest, then C, D and E.

Waiting time

9. The housing register will differentiate between people who are in the same priority band according to their waiting time. A person’s ‘priority date’ is the date they either joined the register or, if they have moved between bands, the date they joined their current band. Mr X’s priority date is 14 August 2018.

Overcrowding

10. The policy identifies that a 3 bedroom property is suitable for a family with three children of any sex under the age of 16. Mr X’s family, including 3 children, currently lives in a 2 bedroom flat. The family are classed as band C as they are overcrowded.

Policy on houses with gardens

11. Section 5.8 states that ‘priority for unadapted houses will be given to families with children aged 13 or under at the date of offer, irrespective of band. This is because the Council’s wish is to make private gardens available first to families with young children so that the children have somewhere safe to play, with other uses being a secondary consideration’.

What happened

12. Mr X lives with his wife and three children in a two bedroom flat. The family joined the housing register over 4 years ago and have a priority date of 14 August 2018. The family are overcrowded and have reasonable priority so are classified as being band C. Given the children are below the age of 13, they should qualify for an unadapted house with a garden.
13. Between September 2021 and October 2022, 37 suitable three bedroom properties with gardens became available on the housing register. Mr X bid for 27 of these. 24 of the successful applicants were either band A or band B. Three went to band C applicants.

Mr X’s complaint

14. Mr X said that he had been on the waiting list longer than most of the successful applicants. He also said that the policy said that houses with garden would be offered to families with young children irrespective of banding. He said this should mean that he should have been offered these properties ahead of band A and B applicants who had been on the register for a shorter period of time. He believed that some of the successful band A and B applicants received 3 bed houses with gardens even though they had no children under the age of 13.

Council’s initial explanation

15. The Council explained that because Mr X’s children are aged 13 and under, he would be considered a priority over someone else in band C who does not have young children. However, those in band A or B would have priority over someone in a band C, provided the property is suitable for them.

Council’s further explanation

The Council went on to say that the policy wording is used to make it clear to anyone in and A or B that they would not have priority over someone in band C if they do not have young children and therefore do not have the garden need.

My findings

Policy wording

16. The Council’s initial explanation as to why applicants in band A and B had priority over applicants in band C is not in line with the Council’s policy.
17. ‘Irrespective of band’ seems clear; if you have children aged 13 and under, the Council will not consider the applicants band at all.
18. The policy does not say how the Council will choose between people with children under 13 if more than one such applicant bids for an unadapted house.
19. The Council’s further explanation of the policy appears to be inconsistent with what it said earlier to Mr X and is not in line with what the policy actually says. It seems to suggest that, in practice the Council is only giving such houses to people with children under 13, but that in doing so, it will offer to such people in higher bands first.
20. If the Council’s final reply accurately described what the Council actually does, it seems a logical way of distinguishing between different applicants which have children under 13. However, it is not what the policy says.
21. The inadequate wording of the policy is fault that raised Mr X’s expectations unduly.

Allocation of properties in practice

22. As part of my investigation, I asked the Council to provide details of those properties that were available in the 12 month period before Mr X brought his complaint to us. This showed how many properties were available, how many Mr X bid on, the banding, priority date and age of children of the successful bidders.
23. Based on this evidence, I can see how the Council allocated properties in practice. Of the 27 3-bedroom houses with gardens Mr X bid on, 19 of the went to applicants in band A, five to band B and three to band C.
24. Mr X’s priority date is 14 August 2018. Three properties were allocated to band C applicants with a priority date earlier than Mr X. Just one of the band A successful applicants had a priority date earlier than Mr X. All had children under the age of 13.
25. This confirms the Council allocates properties with gardens to applicants with children under 13 as a priority. This is in line with the spirit of the policy. However, it also shows that it allocates properties to band A and B applicants with children ahead of band C. When read in isolation, this is not ‘irrespective of banding’. However, when read within the context of the rest of section 5, it is clearer that priority is first determined by banding and the other characteristics of the applicants.
26. The Council accepted how the policy may be mis-interpretated and agreed to add clarification to the wording.

Conclusion

27. The Council’s policy is unclear and appears to not reflect what the Council is doing in practice. The Council’s explanations are unclear and contradict the policy.
28. The unclear policy and the Council’s contradicting explanations caused Mr X and his family confusion and distress. The Council has agreed to remedy this by:
• Apologising and paying Mr X for the avoidable distress he and his family experienced.
• Adding clarity to section 5.8 which explains how the Council will allocate properties restricted to certain groups.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. Within 4 weeks of my decision, the Council will:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the confusing explanations which caused the family avoidable distress.
2. Pay Mr X £300 for the avoidable distress the family experienced.
30. Within 12 weeks of my decision, the Council should:
1. Add clarification to section 5.8 to on all types of properties which are restricted to certain groups.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault with the Council for using an unclear policy and giving Mr X confusing and contradictory explanations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman