Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to rehouse her after her son had a serious injury. We have not found the Council to be at fault. It assessed Miss X’s transfer request in line with its published allocations policy. The delay in rehousing her was due a shortage of suitable three-bedroomed properties in the area.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s response to her request for a housing transfer after her son was involved in a serious accident.
2. Miss X says she should not have been allowed to return to her flat when her son was discharged from a rehabilitation unit. This caused significant distress and frustration. Both her physical and mental health have been adversely affected

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)
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

How I considered this complaint

6. I discussed the complaint with Miss X and reviewed the evidence she sent me.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.
8. I considered the relevant law, guidance and Council policy, as set out below.
9. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered all comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and Council policy

Housing allocations

10. 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))
11. 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))

The Council’s allocations scheme

12. The Council’s housing allocations scheme sets out the rules for qualifying to join the housing register, how applicants are prioritised and how the Council manages the allocation of available properties.
13. The Council’s scheme has three levels of medical priority:

• Band 1 (Emergency): A person has an exceptionally urgent need to move.
• Band 2 (High Priority): A person needs to move urgently as their physical and mental health is severely adversely affected by their current housing situation.
• Band 3 (Medium Priority Plus): A person has a non-urgent need to move due to overcrowding or their physical or mental health is being significantly adversely affected by their current housing situation.

14. The scheme has two lower bands of non-medical priority:

• Band 4 (Medium priority).
• Band 5 (No priority).

15. The size of a property an applicant can bid for is based on the number of people in the household. Two children under the age of ten are expected to share a bedroom.

Choice based lettings

16. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.
17. Available properties are assigned a mobility category;

• A – wheelchair accessible throughout.
• B – wheelchair accessible in part.
• C - newer built adaptable properties with features such as a level approach, downstairs WC etc.
• D - easy access.
• E - step free.
• F - general needs.

What happened

18. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.
19. Miss X is a council tenant. She lived in a two-bedroom flat (“the Flat”) with her young children, Y and Z. Z has a diagnosis of autism and other special needs.
20. In September 2022, Z sustained a serious brain injury when he fell from a balcony. He spent several months in a brain injury rehabilitation centre (“the Centre”). The view of the professionals involved with Z’s care was that the Flat was unsuitable for many reasons, including the potential risk of a fall from steps that led up to the Flat. She was told she needed to be found a three bedroomed house or a bungalow.
21. The Council assessed Miss X’s transfer request in November 2022. Having sought advice from the Council’s medical adviser, Miss X was awarded Band 3 priority. She was entitled to bid on two bedroomed ground properties with accessibility category D. Two weeks later, this was increased to Band 2 with accessibility category C. Her request for an additional bedroom entitlement was rejected.
22. Z was discharged back to the Flat in January 2023. Miss X says she was unable to take her children outside without her support worker because of the risk posed by the concrete stairs she had to use to access the property. This had a detrimental effect on their well-being and led to severe back problems from trying to carry Z.
23. In February 2023, following another medical assessment, the Council assessed Miss X as needing a three-bedroom property. The Council says this decision was based on additional information from Z’s social worker.
24. Miss X says she was not told about this decision.
25. An occupational therapist carried out an assessment of the Flat in October 2023. This identified the property as posing an extreme risk to Z.
26. Miss X was rehoused in a three-bedroomed property in March 2024.

Miss X’s complaint

27. Miss X first complained to the Council in September 2023.
28. Her complaint was not upheld because the Council said her transfer application had been assessed in accordance with its allocations policy.
29. Miss X was dissatisfied with this response. She explained she was unable to bid on general needs properties (Category E) with a view to it being adapted to meet Z’s needs. This would widen her scope and increase her chance of being the successful bidder.
30. The Council’s stage two complaint response (January 2024) said:

• Miss X could still be offered a category A or B property if there was no one with higher priority;
• Miss X was able to bid on category E properties. An assessment would be made on a case-by-case basis if it was suitable for adaptation; and
• Miss X had been offered two houses. One was not suitable for adaptation, and one was rejected by Miss X as being in an unsuitable location.

31. On this basis, Miss X’s complaint about her transfer application was not upheld. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

32. It is entirely understandable why Miss X was disappointed and frustrated by having to return to the Flat when Z was discharged from the Centre in January 2023. Miss X says this should not have been allowed to happen.
33. In support of this view, she provided the Ombudsman with minutes from discharge meetings held at the Centre in January 2023. These minutes, together with reports from various professional involved with Z’s care, clearly evidence his special needs, the severity of his injury and the challenges that would be presented to Miss X in caring for her family in the Flat. Miss X was told by an occupational therapist that she did not understand why Miss X had not been offered a three-bedroom property straight away.
34. I accept this will have raised Miss X’s expectations that the Council was failing in its responsibility towards Z. But this inability to rehouse Miss X at this time, was not necessarily evidence of fault by the Council.
35. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas, especially when the requirement is for a larger property in London. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published allocations policy.
36. The case records show the Council reviewed Miss X’s priority in November 2022, December 2022 and February 2023. Each of these reviews led to an increase in Miss X’s eligibility.
37. Whilst I acknowledge Miss X felt she should have been allowed to bid on three-bedroomed properties from the outset, the law does not allow the Ombudsman to question a council officer’s professional assessment of a housing application if there is no evidence of fault in the way that the decision was made. I cannot call the merits of a properly made decision into question, however strongly others may disagree.
38. In this case, I am satisfied each review decision followed the procedure I would expect to see. The available evidence was referred to the Council’s medical adviser who made a recommendation to the Council. I have seen evidence Miss X was advised of this decision in February 2023.
39. Once Miss X was able to bid on three-bedroomed properties, she was understandably frustrated she had to wait about a year to be rehoused.
40. My overall assessment is this delay in rehousing Miss X and her family was as a result of a chronic shortage of suitable properties in a specific area, as opposed to fault by the Council. I have been provided with a copy of Miss X’s bidding history. This shows she was the bidder with the highest priority for several three-bedroomed properties from April 2023 onwards. It also shows she was able to bid on non-adapted properties. The Council has explained why only one of these proved to be suitable for Miss X and she was rehoused at the earliest available opportunity.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have not found the Council to have acted with fault. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman