Summary: The Council’s repeated failure to identify and correct the conflicting information it gave Ms X about her housing application was fault. The Council’s fault caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty for over two years and raised her expectations about likely rehousing. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X to remedy this injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her application for rehousing under its allocations scheme. She says the Council gave her conflicting information about her priority and position on the register for over two years.
2. This caused avoidable distress and uncertainty and raised Ms X’s expectations about likely rehousing.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
5. 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

What I have not investigated

6. Ms X says her current housing circumstances are negatively impacting her health. This matter has not yet been considered by the Council and Ms X has not submitted a change of circumstances form to seek medical priority.
7. I have not investigated this part of the complaint for the reason set out in paragraph 4.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered the complaint and the information Ms X provided.
9. I considered the Council’s responses to Ms X along with relevant law and guidance.
10. I referred to the Ombudsman's Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
11. Ms X and the organisation 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 allocations

12. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises housing applicants, and its procedures for allocating properties.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
13. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
14. The Council’s allocations scheme divides qualifying applicants into queues. Of relevance to this complaint these include:
• social care queue: for applicants the Council’s adult or children’s social care teams identify as in need of urgent rehousing
• tenant transfer queue: for existing tenants of the Council who need to move for reasons including overcrowding and medical need.
• general needs queue: for applicants who qualify to join the housing register who are not on any of the other queues.
15. Within each queue, applicants are awarded a priority band from Band A (highest priority) to Band D (lowest priority).
16. The Council puts applicants on the social care queue in Band B.
17. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the priority band for applicants in the general needs and tenant transfer queues are based on the number of points the scheme awards to an applicant’s circumstances:
• Band A – 300 points or more
• Band B – 150 -299 points
• Band C – 50-149 points
• Band D – 49 points or less
18. Of relevance to this complaint the Council awards:
• 50 points to applicants overcrowded by one bedroom
• 50 points to applicants who work more than 24-hours a week

What happened

19. Ms X is a Council tenant. She lives in a one-bedroom property with her child.
20. In January 2021, the Council told Ms X her application to its housing register was in position 2 on its social care queue.
21. In March, the Council wrote to Ms X advising her application had been accepted onto the general needs queue in Band C with 50 points.
22. In April, Ms X pointed out to the Council the conflicting information about her priority. The Council told her she was in position 2 for a two-bedroom property in the social care queue.
23. The following year, not having received an offer, Ms X contacted her MP. The MP asked the Council to clarify Ms X’s position on the housing register in August 2022. The Council told the MP Ms X was in Band C with 50 points.
24. In September, the Council identified that Ms X’s application contained conflicting information. It told Ms X that she was in position 2 in Band B. It said she should only be in one band and it would correct her application.
25. The Council then confirmed to Ms X’s MP that she was in Band B on the social care queue waiting for a two-bedroom property.
26. The Council repeated this information to Ms X in early May 2023. Then later that month, the Council reassessed Ms X’s application. It wrote to her advising she was in Band C for a two-bedroom property on the tenant transfer queue with 100 points.
27. Ms X asked for a review of this decision. The Council completed the review in July. It confirmed that Band C on the tenant transfer queue was the correct priority for her application. It explained that she did not, and had never, met the criteria for the social care queue. It said it had put Ms X’s application on the social care queue by mistake.

My findings

28. None of the Council’s statements about Ms X’s application were accurate before May 2023:
• Ms X was not entitled to Band B priority on the social care queue because she did not meet the limited criteria for this.
• Ms X’s application should not be on the general needs queue because she is a council tenant
• Ms X is entitled to 100 points, not 50, because she lacks one bedroom and is employed.
29. The Council should have identified Ms X’s application was wrongly on the social care queue in April 2021 when she first told it about the conflicting information. This was an opportunity to identify that Ms X should not be on the general needs queue either.
30. The Council missed several further opportunities to correct the errors over the next two years.
31. The Council’s repeated failure to identify and correct its mistake was fault. This caused Ms X significant and avoidable uncertainty and distress for over two years. This is an injustice to Ms X.
32. The Council’s inaccurate information also avoidably raised Ms X’s expectations about her chances of rehousing and when this might happen. More than once it told her she was second in the queue. Ms X reasonably though this meant she might be offered a property soon. This is a further injustice to Ms X.
33. Ms X is a council tenant, lacking one bedroom who works more than 24 hours a week. Under the Council’s allocations scheme, she qualifies for Band C priority on the tenant transfer queue. There is no fault in the Council’s assessment of her priority in May 2023 or in its review of that decision in July.
34. Ms X’s application should have been in Band C on the tenant transfer queue from the start. The demand for housing in the Council’s area means it is unlikely Ms X has missed an offer because of the Council’s fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. To remedy the injustice to Ms X from the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology
• Pay Ms X £1,000 in recognition of her avoidable distress, uncertainty, and raised expectations for over two years
• Confirm to Ms X that her priority date has not been affected by the Council’s fault, such that her date into Band C on the tenant transfer queue is the date she joined the housing register in 2021.
36. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within four weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman