Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to apply its sensitive lettings policy to a property. The Council has now agreed a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council broke its commitment to apply the ‘sensitive lettings’ part of its housing allocations policy when letting a neighbouring property. As there was a previous history of antisocial behaviour from that property, this caused Mr and Mrs X anxiety and frustration.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I invited the Council to agree a remedy for the complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council’s housing allocations scheme’s section on sensitive lettings says:

“Some properties in the Borough will be advertised as being “subject to a sensitive” letting to help the Council or Housing Association rectify problems on an estate or block of flats where there may have been in the past management difficulties or properties have become difficult to let. Whilst an applicant may bid for properties that are subject to a sensitive let the Housing Needs team together with Housing Manager (or equivalent) will consider bids from those with a history of anti-social behaviour on a case by case basis as to whether the applicant is suitable to be allocated the home they have bid for.”

6. The policy is about people with a history of antisocial behaviour. It is not about applicants who simply have young children.
7. Mr and Mrs X had previously experienced antisocial behaviour from a neighbouring Council property. The Council should then have applied the sensitive lettings policy before reletting that property but it did not do so. The Council said it anyway gave the property to someone without a history of antisocial behaviour, so it might have given them the tenancy even had it applied the policy, but it was not sure.
8. There were difficulties with the new neighbour, a combination of family-related noise and antisocial behaviour. The Council apologised for not applying its sensitive lettings policy, offered Mr X £250 and said it had acted to prevent a recurrence of the mistake. The new tenant has now left and the Council has let the property again. Besides applying the sensitive lettings policy, the Council also appears on the most recent occasion to have avoided letting the property to someone with young children, because of previous family-related noise.
9. Mr X told me he wanted the Council to confirm in writing it would apply the sensitive lettings policy in future. He said the Council had previously said it would apply that policy every time the neighbouring property becomes vacant while Mr and Mrs X still live in their home. The Council says there is no evidence it said that and it could not reasonably make such an open-ended commitment because it could not do the same for all similar properties and it would have to manage its social housing in line with demand and with any future law or guidance on allocations. The Council told me it will write to Mr X confirming it will apply the sensitive lettings policy to future lettings of the neighbouring property for the next five years, not indefinitely.
10. Mr X wanted the Council’s commitment in writing. The Council will now provide that. I appreciate Mr X wanted a commitment to apply the sensitive lettings policy for as long as he and Mrs X live there. However, I do not fault the Council’s reasoning for offering a time-limited commitment instead.
11. It is also relevant that the current tenant, or anyone who replaces that tenant within the next five years, might live there longer than the next five years, so any reletting without the sensitive lettings policy might not happen for many years.
12. In all the circumstances, I consider the Council’s proposal is a proportionate remedy for the frustration and anxiety about the future that Mr and Mrs X experienced because of the Council’s previous failure to keep its commitment.
13. The Council should write to Mr and Mrs X to confirm its position within one month of today.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has agreed an adequate remedy for the injustice its fault caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman