Summary: Mr D complains that due to faults by the Council he missed out on an offer of accommodation. There was fault by the Council. It has agreed an improved remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr D, complained the Council made many mistakes when processing his housing register application. It gave several different reasons why his bids were not successful. This led to him losing out on at least one suitable property.

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 the 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

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated events from January 2023.
5. I have not investigated matters before January 2023. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a Council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended). I do not consider there are good reason to investigate matters before January 2023.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have discussed the complaint with Mr D and considered the information he provided. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents it provided. Mr D 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

7. 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)).
8. 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;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others; (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
9. The Council’s housing allocation scheme is set out within Bucks Home Choice Allocation Policy. The policy explains how applicants can register for the scheme and how the Council decides priority when making an offer of accommodation.
10. Appendix 1 of the Council’s policy sets out the priority bands A to E. Band A is the highest priority for applicants with the most urgent need to move.
11. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.

What happened

12. Mr D is living in private rented accommodation. He applied to the Council’s housing register in 2021. The Council accepted Mr D’s application and decided he had reasonable preference in accordance with its policy because his household was overcrowded and lacked one bedroom. He could bid for four bedroom properties.
13. The Council advised Mr D that his priority band was B, and the effective date of his application was June 2021.
14. Mr D bid for properties but was unsuccessful.
15. In August 2023 Mr D complained that the Council was ignoring his bids. He said that he could see other applicants bypassing him as the Council offered properties to applicants with a lower priority band than his. When he questioned one property he bid for in June 2023, the Council said he had not separately registered with the landlord which was a housing association. Mr D said he had registered with the housing association and provided evidence of this. Mr D said that the Council had offered the property to a band D applicant.
16. The Council responded in September 2023 and explained the three properties he bid for were three bedroom properties and he had a four bedroom need. It said he should bid for four bedroom properties, or larger three bedroom properties with a separate dining room.
17. Mr D complained further that he had provided evidence that he had registered with the housing association as required and the listing described the properties as suitable for 5-7 people.
18. The Council replied in October 2023, apologising for its delay in responding. It noted it had not responded about the evidence Mr D sent that he was registered with the housing association. It apologised for the frustration this caused. The Council also said it had checked the size of one property he mentioned, property A, and it agreed it was a larger three bedroom property which he would have been eligible for. The Council explained that the housing association had not provided this information to the Council when it advertised it. However, as the property had a wet room it was allocated to a homeless person who had a need for this. The Council said that Mr D would not have been eligible for this property due to the wet room, and did not miss out on it.
19. The Council explained that another property Mr D had bid for, property B, had been withdrawn from the listing as the Council amended the description to show it was a larger three bedroom with two reception rooms. It was readvertised and Mr D bid for it, but then withdrew his bid. The Council said this property also had a wet room and so Mr D would not, in any case, have been eligible for the property.
20. Taking account of the error it had identified, the Council said
• it had asked the housing association to ensure their property listings were accurate regarding the rooms available.
• it had placed a note on Mr D’s record that he had registered with the housing association, and he could bid for suitable three bedroom, two reception properties.
21. In conclusion the Council upheld Mr D’s complaint because of its incorrect information. It apologised for the confusion, distress and time and trouble. It offered Mr D £200 as a remedy.
22. Mr D complained further to the Council that £200 was inadequate for his time and trouble and the distress caused. He said that his family was in a vulnerable situation and could not consider moving to other private rented accommodation. Mr D questioned the Council’s complaint response as it had said the property was offered to a homeless person. But he had seen that it was offered to a band D applicant, not band A.
23. In November 2023 Mr D bid on property C, but the Council offered it to another applicant. When Mr D checked, he found the applicant was priority band B and had a priority date later than Mr D’s. He asked the Council to explain why he had missed out on a property again. The Council acknowledged Mr D’s query but did not respond. Mr D chased a response several times.
24. In November the Council offered Mr D property B. He had not bid for the property and the Council did not explain why it had offered it. Mr D asked the Council to explain. He refused the property because he did not trust the Council, and it was too far from his children’s schools.
25. The Council emailed Mr D in response to his queries about being overlooked regarding property C. It said that an officer would contact him to discuss his bidding issues.
26. In December 2023 Mr D complained to the Ombudsman.
27. A few days later the Council emailed Mr D and confirmed that due to an error on its part Mr D had missed out on property C. He should have been shortlisted at the top of the list. The Council explained that the local connection requirement had not been updated as it should have been in June 2021. The Council apologised and said that as compensation it had offered Mr D property B as a direct let because it had become available again. The Council noted Mr D had refused its offer. It said it would make one more direct let offer of a suitable property as a remedy for its error.
28. In its response to our enquiries the Council confirmed the reasons for offering properties A and B to applicants other than Mr D. The other applicants either had higher priority bands or earlier priority dates.
29. The Council offered property B to Mr D as it became available again and there were no other shortlisted applicants. The Council also confirmed it did not contact Mr D to explain why it was offering the property to him. It has apologised for this.

Analysis

30. The Council has accepted that it was at fault regarding the information about properties A and B. This caused Mr D confusion and time and trouble. The Council has apologised for this. I do not consider there is sufficient evidence Mr D missed out on these properties.
31. However, Mr D missed out on the offer of property C due to administrative fault. The Council made an offer of another property to take account of its error as a remedy. However, it did not advise Mr D that it was doing this. The Council’s failure to communicate was fault. I note that Mr D refused the property because of the uncertainty as he had not bid for it, and he said it was not suitable for his needs. The Council has stated that it will make one further direct let of a suitable property to Mr D. It also offered him £200 for its poor communication.
32. The Council’s proposal partly remedied its fault. However, I considered Mr D has remained in unsuitable overcrowded accommodation for longer than necessary because of the Council’s fault. Therefore, I have recommended a further remedy. I have taken account of our Guidance on remedies when considering the remedy.
33. In its response to a draft version of this statement the Council said it would make one further direct let offer of a suitable property within one mile of the area that Mr D has made bids.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. I recommended that within one month of my decision the Council pays Mr D
• £750 for the period 1 December 2023 to 30 April 2024.
• £150 per month from 1 May 2024 until it makes an offer of the next available suitable property in the area stated, via a direct let.
• £200 for the confusion and distress caused by its poor communication.
35. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have found fault by the Council causing injustice. It has agreed a suitable remedy. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman