Summary: the Council was at fault when it failed to update its system promptly to stop Mr X being nominated for properties in areas of the city where he was at risk. This caused him significant distress because he feared he would be offered a property in an area where there was a risk of contact with the perpetrators of anti-social behaviour. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council continued to auto-bid for properties advertised on Coventry Homefinder which are unsuitable for his housing needs. As a result, he was not considered for other properties which would have been suitable. He says this caused him stress and had a detrimental impact on his mental health. He would like the Council to apologise and pay a financial remedy.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future 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. In July 2023 we made a decision on Mr X’s previous complaint that the Council had intentionally bid for unsuitable properties. We decided not to investigate that complaint. We found then that the Council had managed Mr X’s account in line with its policy and there was nothing to suggest the Council had acted with fault.
5. Mr X made this complaint in December 2023. He said the Council had repeated past mistakes by auto-bidding again for a property in an area where it knew he was at risk. He said the Council had failed to adequately address his concerns when it replied to his complaint.
6. I considered all the information Mr X provided and the Council’s response to my enquiries, including Mr X’s bidding history on Coventry Homefinder. I offered to speak to Mr X on the telephone but, due to his mental health conditions, he did not wish to do that.
7. I considered statutory guidance on housing allocations and relevant sections in the Council’s published housing allocations policy.
8. Mr X and the council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

9. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritizes 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))
10. The government has issued statutory guidance to councils on housing allocations, “Allocation of Accommodation: guidance for local authorities”. Councils must have regard to this guidance. Paragraph 4.3 says:

“An allocation scheme must include a statement as to the housing authority’s policy on offering people a choice of accommodation or the opportunity to express preferences about the accommodation to be allocated to them (section 166A). It is for housing authorities to determine their policy on providing choice or the ability to express preferences.”

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

11. The Council does not own any social housing stock. But it must still have a housing allocations scheme which sets out how it prioritises housing applicants and manages the allocations process. The Council nominates applicants on the Housing Register for properties in its area which are owned and managed by registered providers of social housing.
12. Coventry Homefinder is a choice-based lettings scheme. Most applicants can express an interest in up to three advertised properties each week. Expressing an interest in a property is known as ‘bidding’ or ‘placing a bid’. When the bidding period closes, bids are ranked in order of the applicants’ priority to create a shortlist.
13. Applicants who are homeless and owed the main housing duty are awarded the highest priority on Coventry Homefinder - Band 1. However, they are not allowed to bid for properties of their choice. Instead, the Council bids for a suitable property on their behalf. This is known as “auto-bidding”. The scheme says:

“Applicants in Band 1 where the Council has accepted the ‘main housing duty’ under homelessness legislation (Housing Act 1996, Part 7) will not have access to Choice Based Lettings at any time. Bids will be made for them by the Housing and Homelessness Service. This is to ensure that the duty to secure an offer of suitable settled accommodation is complied with as soon as possible. If you are owed the ‘main housing duty’ under homelessness legislation you will have been informed of this in writing.”

14. If a suitable property is advertised on the Coventry Homefinder website, the system automatically bids for it. The bid is placed at the point when an advert is due to close. Therefore every time an advert closes, a bid can be placed on any other suitable property.

The background to this complaint

15. I have not re-examined matters that were considered in previous investigations about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homelessness application and auto-bidding for properties. This investigation has focused on events since July 2023. But Mr X’s status as a homeless person who is owed the main housing duty is relevant to the way the Council handled his Coventry Homefinder application. And the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s housing needs is also relevant because it determines which properties the Council auto-bids for. For these reasons, I have set out the background and key facts below.
16. Mr X is a Housing Association tenant. In 2022 he made a homelessness application to the Council on the grounds he could not reasonably continue to occupy his home due to threats, harassment and abuse from neighbours.
17. In late November 2022 the Council’s case officer completed a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) which included the Council’s housing assessment. The housing assessment must identify the housing needs of the applicant including, in particular, what accommodation would be suitable for them. It must also identify the support the applicant needs to have, and sustain, suitable accommodation.
18. The housing assessment said Mr X needs a one bedroom property. It did not identify any other specific housing or support needs which would affect the type of property offered or its location.
19. The Council sent Mr X a link to the PHP in mid- January 2023. In late January Mr X’s legal adviser informed the Council Mr X had recently seen it for the first time. The PHP was not discussed or agreed by Mr X at the November 2022 interview. She said he also had the following specific accommodation needs:
• shared accommodation would not be suitable (as stated in a letter from his GP);
• she reported Mr X’s view that a property with a communal entrance and/or covered stairway would not be suitable because it would cause him unreasonable anxiety.
20. It is not clear whether the Council reconsidered its assessment of Mr X’s housing needs when it received this information.
21. After considering a review request and representations from his legal adviser, the Council decided in late March 2023 that Mr X was homeless because it was not reasonable for him to continue to occupy his Housing Association flat. It accepted the main housing duty on 24 March 2023.

What happened

22. In line with the Council’s housing allocations policy, Mr X was awarded Band 1 priority when the Council accepted the main housing duty. The decision letter sent to Mr X explained:
• It would make one suitable offer of accommodation which could be anywhere in the city (with the exception of one specific area, which I shall call “Area 1”, as the Council accepted Mr X was at risk there);
• This may be private rented sector accommodation or social housing;
• The suitability of the accommodation would be based on the Council’s housing needs assessment;
• Mr X’s assessed housing need was for a one bedroom property. He had not reported any other specific needs, such as mobility needs, which might affect the type or floor level of the property offered.
23. From this point, Mr X could no longer bid on the Coventry Homefinder website for properties of his choice. Instead the system auto-bid for properties which matched his assessed housing needs. The Council told us the system is set up to automatically bid on properties for which the applicant is likely to be ranked in the highest position.
24. In 2022 and 2023 the Council received two letters from Mr X’s GP and one letter from a community psychiatric nurse. They made the following comments:
• Mr X feels trapped inside his current flat because of intimidation and abuse from neighbours when he goes out. He had reported these incidents to the police;
• He is becoming increasingly anxious and isolated;
• It would not be appropriate for Mr X to live in shared accommodation due to his mental health issues;
• It would be helpful for him to move to specific areas in the city to be close to a family member who supports him.
25. During this investigation, Mr X sent us another letter his GP had written in late May 2023. We forwarded this letter to the Council when we made enquiries. The Council said it had not seen this letter before. It asked a manager to consider whether it would lead to any changes in the housing needs assessment.
26. The GP’s letter said:
• Mr X’s mental health can be affected by properties with a communal access because, due to his anxiety, he would struggle to leave the property;
• Mr X would struggle to use lifts with other people due to his social anxiety;
• Mr X did not want a property above the first floor because he was worried about the risk he would harm himself if his mental health deteriorated.
27. The manager said the GP had said these points were worthy of consideration rather than essential requirements based on his assessment of the actual risk to Mr X. Although he recognised the validity of Mr X’s concerns, he said it would be impossible to find accommodation with no shared or communal space outside the property. Mr X disputes this. He did not accept Mr X needed to live on a lower floor level.

Auto-bids for properties

28. The Council’s records show that the Council has made multiple auto-bids for studio flats and one bedroom properties in different areas of Coventry. Mr X was ranked in first or second position for many properties. The Council’s records of the bidding history show that the housing providers have either rejected the bids, withdrawn the shortlist or prioritised existing tenants who need to be rehoused. So Mr X has not yet been offered a property.
29. In mid-September 2023 the system auto-bid for a flat in Area 1 where Mr X is at risk. Mr X reported his concerns to the Council but a further auto-bid was made for the same flat ten days later.
30. In late October 2023 Mr X complained that the Council had auto-bid for this property although it was in an area where it knew he was at risk. He said the Council had wasted his limited bids by auto-bidding for unsuitable properties. He said the Council had caused further distress by making another auto-bid for the same property after he brought this to their attention. He said housing providers had rejected several auto-bids because they did not consider the properties were suitable for him.
31. The Council said this situation arose because the housing provider had advertised the property as being in Area 2 not Area 1. So the auto-bid happened because only Area 1 was excluded at that point.
32. On 7 November the Council decided, after speaking to Organisation A, to add “Area 2” to the excluded areas for nominations to prevent this happening again. -It accepted Mr X’s concerns about the risk of contact with the perpetrators of the anti-social behaviour in this area. But, due to an oversight, the system was not updated to add this further area exclusion at the time. The Council accepts this is fault and it led to a further auto-bids being made for other properties in the same block of flats. The Council says the system was finally updated to exclude Areas 1 and 2 on 25 January 2024.
33. Mr X sent me evidence that he had made direct contact with the two main registered providers of social housing in the city. In early November 2023 Mr X emailed one of these providers (which I shall call Organisation A) to ask it to reject several auto-bids the Council had made on properties in different postcode areas between April and November 2023. An employee at Organisation A replied that most of these properties had not been shortlisted yet. She said she could not prevent the Council from including him on the shortlists but, if a particular property was unsuitable for him, he could inform her and she could reject the nomination.
34. Mr X directly contacted another registered provider of social housing (Organisation B) in early November 2023 to express concerns that the Council had auto-bid for two properties it managed. The organisation agreed to withdraw these two properties.
35. Mr X told me he recently contacted Organisation A to ask to be included on the shortlist for a property the Council had not auto-bid for. It agreed to his request.

My analysis

36. The Council’s published housing allocations scheme does not allow homeless households who are owed the main housing duty to place bids on Coventry Homefinder. The statutory guidance on allocations gives councils the freedom to decide whether to provide applicants with a choice. The Council has included a statement on choice in its published allocations scheme as it is required to do.
37. It is not fault for the Council to remove choice and auto-bid instead for a certain category of applicants, such as homeless people who are owed the main housing duty. The statutory guidance gives them the flexibility to do this. This is a policy decision the Council has made and we cannot criticise the merits of its approach.
38. Understandably Mr X would rather bid for a property of his choice in his preferred areas. But the Council’s scheme means the system auto-bids for properties considered to be suitable based on the Council’s housing needs assessment. These properties may not match Mr X’s preferences in terms of location or property type. However, provided they meet his assessed housing needs, and are not in areas of the city where the Council has accepted he is at risk, it is not fault to auto-bid and nominate him for these properties.
39. It is not clear whether the Council previously reconsidered Mr X’s housing needs to take account of the medical evidence and the comments made by his legal adviser. But, during our investigation, a manager in the service considered the GP’s May 2023 letter. He decided it does not change the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s housing needs. He did not consider it demonstrates Mr X cannot live in accommodation on a higher floor, or where there is a communal area or shared entrance. Mr X disagrees but, as this is a recent decision, Mr X should raise his concerns directly with the Council because it is premature for us to investigate this now.
40. Mr X is extremely anxious about coming into contact with the neighbours who have abused and threatened him in the common parts of his current accommodation. But there is no reason for the Council to assume the same issue would arise if Mr X were to move to a different property with shared or communal areas.
41. Mr X has an assessed need for a studio or one bedroom flat. There are currently no other restrictions on the type of property he can be offered, although some areas of the city are excluded.
42. The Council accepted Mr X is at risk in Area 1. Due to the housing provider using a different area description in an advertisement, an auto-bid was made for a property which was in Area 1. After Mr X drew this to the Council’s attention, it failed to update the system promptly to exclude Area 2 and stop further nominations for properties in that area. Three further auto-bids were made for flats in the same block in November 2023, December 2023 and January 2024. The Council’s failure to update the system in a timely way was fault. This caused Mr X significant stress and anxiety because he feared he may be offered a property in an area where he was at risk. Mr X also felt that by repeating the same mistake the Council showed no respect for his circumstances as a vulnerable person. He had to make another complaint before the Council put this right.
43. In late January 2024 the Council finally updated the system to exclude nominations to properties in Area 2 as well. So no further auto-bids should be made for properties in areas where the Council accepts Mr X is at risk.
44. In response to our enquiries, the Council accepted this was fault and apologised. We cannot speculate about what other auto-bids the system might have made, and the outcome of those bids, if the system had not auto-bid for these properties in Area 1. And even if auto-bids had been made for other properties, we do not know whether Mr X would have been ranked in first position and whether he would have met any specific lettings criteria of the housing provider. So we cannot say Mr X necessarily missed out on other suitable properties.
45. Nevertheless, in view of Mr X’s vulnerability and mental health issues, the fear that he would be offered a property in an area where he was at risk was in itself an injustice. This merits a modest payment to recognise the avoidable upset and distress this caused.

Back to top

Agreed action

46. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will:
• Arrange for a manager to make a direct written apology to Mr X;
• Pay £300 as a symbolic payment to recognise the distress caused by its fault. This payment is in line with our published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I have completed the investigation and found the Council’s failure to promptly update the system to exclude nominations for properties in areas where Mr X was at risk was fault. This caused injustice to Mr X who suffered avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman