Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (22 010 690)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Mr H complained the Council wrongly refused his requests for a move to a larger property under its Grenfell Policy. We did not find fault in the process the Council followed, we cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decisions. However, the Council agreed it was at fault for failing to share a letter with Mr H and provide regular personalised updates. We found its apology was enough to remedy the injustice this caused.
The complaint
- The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr H, complained about the Council’s handling of his request for a move to a three-bedroom property under its Grenfell and Housing Allocations Policies. He said it wrongly decided he was only entitled to a two-bedroom property;
- in 2020 and 2021 as he had not showed enough evidence his children were living with him; and
- in Spring 2022 as its Grenfell Settled Home Policy had changed.
- Mr H also said a Team Leader in its Housing Team had discriminated him and its Liaison Lead Officer had failed to regularly communicate with him.
- As a result, Mr H said he experienced distress and had a loss of opportunity to be housed in a three-bedroom property.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- As part of my investigation, I have:
- considered Mr H’s complaint and the Council’s responses;
- discussed the complaint with Mr H and considered the information he provided;
- considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries; and
- considered the relevant law and Council policy to the complaint.
- Mr H and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Council’s Grenfell Rehousing Policy
- Following the Grenfell Tower fire on 14 June 2017, the Council introduced a Grenfell Rehousing Policy. This was an exceptional rehousing policy which applied to former residents of Grenfell Tower and Grenfell Walk. The Policy was produced in line with the government’s commitment to provide a new home in social housing for the former residents of Grenfell Tower and Grenfell Walk within one year. The Council referred to this Policy as the Category A rehousing policy.
- The Policy set out how the Council would give priority to residents for rehousing whose homes have been destroyed by the Grenfell Tower fire. The policy said that due to the compelling and exceptional circumstances all former residents of Grenfell Tower and Grenfell Walk will be awarded 3000 points resulting in the highest priority for rehousing.
- The Policy was revised in 2019. At the time, the Council assessed households based on a needs assessment which said it would:
- offer properties of the same bedroom size as the one where the household was living; or
- if the household was overcrowded, one that currently meets the needs of their household.
- It also said flexibility will be exercised to reflect the household’s needs as agreed with the Family Liaison Officer and Dedicated Service Workers. For example, where additional bed space was required for care and support.
- The Council adopted a revised version of the Policy in March 2022. This set out eligible households would be awarded 1500 points, and only be able to move to properties that were the same size or smaller compared to the original permanent home. There would be no additional points awarded for overcrowding and households would be assessed under the Council’s main Housing Allocations Scheme.
Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme
- 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))
- 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; and
- people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others; (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
- The Council operates a choice-based lettings policy where applicants can bid for properties advertised online.
- The Council’s Scheme sets out a criterion for how many bedrooms a household would be eligible for. It also says family members who are not currently living with the applicant may be considered in certain circumstances if relevant evidence is provided. This includes children of shared custody, but they can only be considered in one application with the parent who is the main care provider.
What happened
- Mr H and his partner (Mrs X) was separated. Mr H stayed in a two-bedroom Grenfell flat, and Mrs X lived in a nearby Council area.
- In 2017 Mr H lived with his daughter in a two-bedroom Grenfell Tower flat. Following the fire, the Council allocated a support worker to their case and rehoused Mr H and his daughter in a two-bedroom flat within its area.
- In Autumn 2020 Mr H had two children with Mrs X and she was pregnant with their third child. They continued to be separated. Mr H asked his allocated support worker to be considered for a three-bedroom property.
- The Council told Mr H he would not be considered for a three-bedroom property until his third child was born, or if his accommodation was having an impact on his health.
- Mr H shared a letter from a health professional with the Council which supported his request, but the Council refused his request as it was insufficient evidence of the impact the flat had on him.
- In late 2020, after Mr H’s third child had been born, the Council’s Second Move Panel considered Mr H’s request for a three-bedroom property. The Panel rejected his request as Mrs X was receiving child benefit for the children, and it had not seen enough evidence Mr H was the primary carer. It suggested as the primary carer he should get the child benefit paid to him, or he should provide more evidence to show he was the primary carer for his children. This could be a legal letter signed by both Mr H and Mrs X.
- Mr H said he could not get Mrs X to agree to change the child benefit to him and she feared he would take the children out of the UK. He therefore asked the Council to provide a letter which set out the reasons why he needed a legal letter signed by him and Mrs X, which he could show to her.
- In Summer 2021 Mr H submitted a further request for a transfer to a three-bedroom property with the help of his allocated support worker.
- Shortly after, Mr H said his allocated support worker told him his application had been accepted and he was on the list for a three-bedroom property. But only a few days later, he was told there had been a mistake and his children were removed from his application. This was because the Council had still not received enough evidence his children were living with him, and he was the primary carer.
- In late 2021, there was a three-bedroom property available within the block of flat Mr H lived in. He asked his allocated support worker to be considered for the flat.
- Mr H said he was told he was top of the council’s list for such a property, but the Council changed this when it realised.
- In early 2022 Mr H provided the Council with details of where his children were attending school and their GP details. He said he then found out the three-bedroom flat had been given to someone else.
- In early Spring 2022, the Council’s adopted its new Grenfell Settled Home Policy, which only allows survivors of the fire to move to like for like properties regardless of whether the family has grown.
- Shortly after, Mrs X moved back in with Mr H. They told the Council she had relinquished her tenancy in the nearby council’s area and asked to be considered for a three-bedroom property.
- The Council told Mr H about its new Policy, and that he and his family would therefore only be entitled to transfer to another two-bedroom property.
Mr H’s complaint
- Mr H complained to the Council. He said it wrongly decided he was only entitled to a two-bedroom property;
- in 2020 and 2021 as he had not showed enough evidence his children were living with him; and
- in Spring 2022 as its Grenfell Settled Home Policy had changed.
- Mr H also said a Team Leader in its Housing Team had discriminated him and its Liaison Lead Officer had failed to regularly communicate with him.
- In response the Council did not find its Team Leader had acted wrongly but apologised if Mr H had felt this was the case. It also found it had correctly refused his request for a three-bedroom transfer after its Grenfell Settled Home Policy was adopted and he was not entitled to be considered for the three-bedroom flat which had become available in his block in late 2021.
- The Council did agree it had failed to provide Mr H with a letter as promised which explained why it needed a legal letter setting out his children were living with him. However, he had not provided enough evidence to show his children were living with him and he was the primary carer. It therefore found its decision to refuse his request had been appropriate.
- In the Council’s final response to Mr H, it also agreed its officer had failed to keep its commitment to provide him with personalised updates during the rehousing process. It apologised and said it would ensure this happened in the future. It also said its officer could continue to help him with bidding for two-bedroom properties.
- Mr H was not satisfied with the Council’s response and asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint.
Analysis and findings
- Mr H complaint relates to the Council’s decisions in 2020 and 2021. His complaint is therefore late. However, as he has continued to raise his request for a larger accommodation throughout the period with the Council, I have found it appropriate to exercise my discretion to consider his complaint relating to this period.
Council’s rehousing decisions in 2020 and 2021
- In 2020 the Council did not grant Mr H permission to move from his two-bedroom to a three-bedroom property following his requests. It told Mr H it could not consider his request based on three children in 2020, until his third child was born. I found no fault in this decision as this was in line with its Policy and Allocations Scheme.
- When Mr H’s third child was born, the Council told him he would be entitled to move to a three-bedroom property if he shared suitable evidence his children were living with him, and he was the main care provider.
- The Council refused his requests in late 2020 and in 2021 as Mr H had not provided enough evidence he was the primary care provider for his children. I have not found fault in the process the Council followed, I cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decisions. This is because:
- Mr H was not in receipt of child benefit for the children, as this was paid to Mrs X, and she refused to change this arrangement;
- Mrs X did not agree to sign a legal letter which said Mr H was the main care provider for their children; and
- the Council asked Mr H to share evidence from the children’s School and GP service, which showed their registered address was with Mr H. He said he shared some details, but I have not seen evidence of the letters from the school or the GP service confirming this in 2020 or 2021.
- The Council agreed it failed to share a letter as promised to Mr H, which explained why it needed a legal letter signed by Mr H and Mrs X. This was fault.
- I acknowledge a letter from the Council may have helped Mr H limit the concerns Mrs X had. However, I cannot say Mrs X would have signed a legal letter confirming Mr H was the main care provider of the children if it had done so. Nor can I be certain this was enough evidence for the Council to agree Mr H was the main care provider.
- I am therefore satisfied the Council’s apology was enough to remedy the limited distress Mr H experienced as a result of not receiving the Council’s letter.
Council’s rehousing decision in 2022
- The Council refused Mr H’s request for a move to a three-bedroom property again in 2022 when Mrs X moved back to live with Mr H.
- I found no fault by the Council as its decision was in line with its revised 2022 Grenfell Settled Home Policy. This is because Mr H’s request was made after the Policy was adopted and this only allowed for like-for-like moves within the same property size.
- Mr H was therefore not entitled to be considered for a three-bedroom property under the revised Policy. The Council subsequently considered his application under its Housing Allocations Scheme, which allows him to bid for properties in line with his household’s assessed needs.
Council’s communication with Mr H
- The Council agreed its Liaison Officer failed to give Mr H some regular personalised updates. It apologised and said it had taken steps to ensure its Officer would provide these in the future. I am satisfied the Council’s apology was enough to remedy any injustice this caused Mr H. This is because Mr H had no interest in moving to a different two-bedroom property, he did therefore not experience a loss of opportunity to move to another property as a result of the fault.
- While I understand Mr H believes the Council’s Team Leader did not want him to have a three-bedroom property, I have seen evidence of discrimination or inappropriate communication. I have therefore found no fault by the Council on this matter.
Final decision
- I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault in the process the Council followed, I cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decisions. There was some fault in the Council’s communication, its apology was enough to remedy the injustice this cause Mr H.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman