Summary: Ms Z, on behalf of Mr X, complained the Council wrongly removed housing register priority points affecting his bidding for available properties. There was fault in respect of the number of points awarded between September 2023 and February 2024 however there is no evidence this meant Mr X missed out on an available property. A symbolic payment for the distress caused is agreed.

The complaint

1. Ms Z, on behalf of Mr X, complained the Council wrongly removed housing register priority points
2. Mr X says this affected his bidding for available properties and may have caused him to miss out on a suitable property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. Mr X also complained about issues relating to his occupation of a room at a hostel managed by the Council including complaints about mould, failure to take action in respect of the heat in his room and a fire.
5. The 1974 Local Government Act sets out the matters the Ombudsman can consider. This says that people should normally complain to the Ombudsman within 12 months of the person becoming aware that something had happened which affected them. Mr X first raised these issues with the Ombudsman in January 2024. However the information he provided indicates the events happened in 2021, some three years before raising them with the Ombudsman.
6. I have considered whether to exercise discretion to now investigate these late complaints and invited Mr X to submit further evidence to explain why he had not complained to the Ombudsman before January 2024. While I am aware Mr X raised the issues directly with the Council he did not make a formal complaint to it until October 2023. Mr X says the Council delayed responding. However, this is still more than 12 months after the events that affected him occurred. I have not seen any evidence which persuades me Mr X was unable to raise the issues with the Ombudsman sooner than he actually did and so I have not exercised discretion to investigate these late matters.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant and his representative;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant and his representative;
• taken account of the relevant law, policy and guidance;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

8. Councils are required by law to have an allocation scheme for determining priorities and setting out the procedure it will follow in allocating housing. Each allocation scheme will be different but in general most will award reasonable preference to allocations by awarding points to applicants.

Choice based lettings

9. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.

Key facts

10. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
11. In August 2023, the Council granted Mr X’s housing application 350 points. This consisted of 200 support points and 150 medical points. Then in September 2023, the Council sent Mr X a letter stating his application had 75 points which were awarded for harassment. The letter said no medical points were awarded. It advised Mr X could bid for a one bedroom property and that he must report any changes in his circumstances to ensure his application was kept up to date.
12. In January 2024, the Council wrote to Mr X saying he did not qualify to join the housing register because he had not been resident in Camden for five out of the last seven years. The Council says this was an automated response because Mr X had updated his application online. It said that the next day officers made Mr X’s application active and emailed him. It says Mr X was able to place bids that week.
13. In February 2024, the Council wrote to Mr X saying he had 385 points. This consisted of 150 medical points, 200 support points and 35 waiting time points. It said the waiting time points were added because Mr X had then been on the waiting list for over one year.
14. Mr X contacted the Council on 19 February at 9 am asking for support to attend a viewing that day at 10 am. The Council says this was a housing association property and so it was not aware of the invitation to view as the housing association would have contacted Mr X directly. The Council says there was only one member of support staff available that day and she was unable to leave the office and so could not accompany Mr X. It is my understanding that Mr X therefore did not view this property.
15. Mr X made a complaint to the Council in October 2023 which the Council responded to on 27 February 2024. Mr X explained he was living in a hostel and experiencing difficulties including harassment from another resident. He explained how his medical conditions impacted on him. Mr X complained about the number of points on his application and that he considered he should be awarded more medical points.
16. In its response, the Council apologised for the delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint. It explained it had looked at his points and accepted the 75 harassment points had been removed. It said these points had been reinstated and would remain on his application until 20 March 2024. It said the points would not be renewed as the resident who had caused the problems was no longer living in the hostel. It said that Mr X now had 467 points (I believe this should have been 460) and that the current average points needed to bid for a one-bedroom property is 350. It said Mr X should be in a good position to secure a property if he was placing bids every week.
17. The Council also explained that Mr X would not be eligible for the hardship and social points and that it had reviewed his medical assessment on 20 February and that 150 remained correct. It mentioned the issue of a missed viewing because no support worker was available to attend with him. The Council said Mr X should let his floating support worker know as soon as he is invited for a viewing but had also added a note to his file so that support workers are notified. The response also dealt with issues that I am not investigating as explained at paras three to five above.
18. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of the complaint process on 28 February. This included asking for a re-assessment of the medical points. The Council again confirmed it had re-assessed his medical points and that the highest level of points was only awarded to those with a very urgent need to move. The Council again encouraged Mr X to place bids saying he currently had enough points to bid for a one-bedroom flat.

Analysis

19. I have explained above the scope of this investigation and that it relates to the number points awarded to Mr X’s housing register application. It is clear that between August 2023 and February 2024 the Council sent several communications to Mr X with differing information about the number of points awarded to his housing application.
20. The Council says that points are generated by two processes. When an applicant reports a change in circumstances updating their application or when an officer generates them by review or verification. It says that when Mr X updated his application in September 2023 the initial verification did not address the medical or support points resulting in the letter dated 20 September reducing his points to 75. While the Council says this was rectified on 26 September and the points reinstated, I have not seen any evidence to show how the Council notified Mr X.
21. The letter in January was an automated response after Mr X updated his application the day before. The Council rectified this the following day and notified Mr X by email and he continued to make bids that week. The notification in February was as a result of the verification following the January changes.
22. Based on the information provided I consider Mr X should have had the following points for the stated periods:
• August 2023 to September 2023 – 350
• September 2023 to December 2023 – 425
• January 2024 to March 2024 – 460
• March 2024 onwards - 385
23. The Council gave conflicting and incorrect information to Mr X about the number of points awarded. In particular, it removed the 75 harassment points and only reinstated them after Mr X made a formal complaint. This is fault. As a result, between September 2023 and February 2024, Mr X was placing bids with 75 less points that he should have had. I have therefore considered whether Mr X missed out on any properties.
24. The information I have seen shows that Mr X regularly placed bids on available properties and he has now been successful and moved into a property in April 2024. The Council has provided information about the position of Mr X’s bid and the number of points the successful bidder for that property had. Even though Mr X’s application was short 75 points for several months, I have seen nothing to suggest he missed out a property because of this.
25. Mr X did miss out on viewing one property because there was no-one available to accompany him. I appreciate this was disappointing for Mr X but the information provided shows Mr X only contacted the Council for assistance an hour before the viewing time and no staff were available. I am not persuaded this amounts to fault. The information indicates Mr X was the seventh highest bidder and so even if he had been able to attend the viewing there is nothing to say Mr X would have been allocated the property.
26. I therefore cannot say that Mr X missed out on properties as a result of fault by the Council.
27. However, Mr X is vulnerable due to his health conditions and so the confusing letters and changes to his points sometimes without adequate explanations, meant he was caused avoidable distress. I am therefore recommending a symbolic payment.

Back to top

Action

28. To remedy the injustice caused as a result of the fault identified in this case the Council will, within one month of my final decision, make Mr X a symbolic payment of £150.
29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

30. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman