Summary: Miss X complained the Council incorrectly removed her son from her housing application and failed to advise her of this. The Council has admitted fault. Miss X was disadvantaged when she lost the opportunity to bid on properties she would have been eligible for which were then allocated to others with later priority dates or in lower priority bands. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council removed her son from her housing application and failed to advise her of this. She complains she has suffered avoidable delay in being rehoused because she was on the incorrect housing register waiting list for 36 weeks and unable to bid on suitably sized properties.
2. Miss X says this has caused her avoidable distress and frustration. She says this has affected both the family’s and her own mental health and that she has been treated unfairly.

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. 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)
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 all the information Miss X provided and discussed this complaint with her. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
6. Miss X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant Council policy

7. The Council’s Home Choice Allocations Policy says that any non-dependant adult over the age of 18 and not in full-time education may not be considered as part of the household and may make an application in their own name.
8. The policy also states those over 18 who have always been living as part of one household and are unable to live independently will require an assessment from Adult Social Care or medical professionals to support the request to stay on the housing application.

What happened

9. Miss X and her children live in the Council’s area. Miss X had been on the Council's waiting list to be re-housed to a larger property since early in 2019. She was assessed as needing a four-bedroomed property and was in priority band C. This meant she was able to potentially bid on four-bedroomed properties released in the Council’s weekly bidding cycle.
10. In October 2021, Miss X was moved to band B which gave her a higher priority for re-housing.
11. Early in July 2022, Miss X’s eldest son, Y, celebrated his 18th birthday. He has autism and learning difficulties.
12. At this time, the Council’s housing management system automatically removed Y from the application because he had turned 18 years old.
13. In mid-March 2023, Miss X contacted one of the local registered housing providers to query why she could not see any available four-bedroomed properties to bid on. It advised her to contact the Council.
14. The next day, Miss X contacted the Council. An officer called her back and advised her that Y had been removed from her application on his birthday. She advised Miss X the error had been rectified and Y placed back onto her application.
15. Miss X complained to the Council as she felt she would have been disadvantaged during the time she was not able to bid on four-bedroomed properties.
16. After a telephone call to discuss the issues, the Council issued its stage one complaint response in the middle of April 2023. In its response, the Council:
• advised it was in line with its policy to remove children from a housing application when they reached 18;
• apologised and confirmed it should have contacted Miss X to discuss whether Y was still eligible to be part of her application but this had not happened;
• advised it did not consider Miss X had suffered from the error as there were very few four-bedroomed properties returned for re-letting along with other applicants who had a higher priority and had been waiting for a longer time than her;
• confirmed it was unable to make her a direct offer of housing as a way to rectify the mistake; and
• said it would change its processes and procedures to ensure this situation would not happen in future for other applicants.
17. The Council partially upheld the complaint due to Miss X not being informed but said this would not have meant she missed out on properties allocated during the time she was not on the correct list.
18. Miss X requested to escalate her complaint to stage two of the Council’s process, this was rejected. In its rejection email, the Council confirmed that 13 four-bedroomed properties had been available to bid on in the time Miss X was not on the list. It again repeated that she had not been disadvantaged.
19. Miss X then approached the Ombudsman.
20. In July 2023, Miss X bid on and was offered a four-bedroomed house. She moved into the property in August 2023.

Analysis

Removing Y from the application

21. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed which part of its policy states that non-dependent adults over the age of 18 would not be considered as part of the household. It also confirmed that if such people are assessed as being unable to live independently, they may then be considered as part of the household. With this in mind, the Council was not at fault for removing Y from Miss X’s application.
22. The Council confirmed in its stage one complaint response to Miss X that it had not contacted her to discuss whether Y should still be part of the application and this was an error on its part. This was fault. There is, however, no ongoing injustice to Miss X as the Council rectified the error and apologised.

Properties allocated whilst Miss X was unable to bid

23. As part of my enquiries, I asked the Council to provide details of all 13 four-bedroomed properties allocated during the time Miss X was not able to bid. I also asked it to clarify what evidence it had relied on when saying Miss X had not been disadvantaged by its mistake.
24. In response, the Council said that when replying to Miss X’s complaints and assessing any disadvantage it could have considered any refusals and rejections for each of the 13 properties that were allocated, but that it had not done so.
25. The Council also confirmed human error had meant it had not assessed priority correctly for one of the properties concerned.
26. As a result of this, the Council has confirmed that three of the 13 properties were eventually allocated to people who had either a lower priority band or a later priority date than Miss X. This is fault. Whilst I cannot say that Miss X would definitely have bid on these properties, it meant she lost the opportunity to even consider them and whether she wished to bid. The Council has made an offer to remedy the injustice caused, detailed below.

Process improvements

27. In recognition of the errors encountered by Miss X, the Council’s stage one complaint response said it would look to improve its processes.
28. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided detail on what it had done to streamline its processes when removing children turning 18 from a household’s application before contacting relevant applicants.
29. The Council also confirmed that when investigating complaints linked to its Choice Based Lettings Scheme, data will be reviewed by two senior officers. The Council believes this should reduce the possibility of future human error.
30. I am therefore satisfied the Council has acted as it said it would to try and ensure similar errors do not happen to other families in similar situations.

The Council’s suggested remedy offer

31. In recognition of the errors Miss X had been disadvantaged by, in its response to me the Council offered a remedy payment. It suggested £2400 for the delay Miss X experienced.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. The Council has offered a suggested remedy as outlined above. I am satisfied this is in line with our guidance on remedies.
33. The Council has agreed that within four weeks of the date of my final decision it will:
• apologise to Miss X for the errors she has encountered; and
• pay Miss X £2400 as per its suggested remedy.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman