Summary: Miss W complains about the Council’s handling of her need for rehousing following alleged acts of anti-social behaviour against her. She says the Council delayed in finding her alternative housing and, once it did make her an offer, that this was unsuitable for her household’s needs. We found the Council delayed in deciding whether to offer Miss W alternative accommodation. It also failed to appropriately consider and decide the matter of suitability, as well as her request for an internal review. The Council’s fault ultimately delayed Miss W being rehoused in suitable accommodation and meant her concerns about the property offered were never considered. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the significant injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Miss W) complains about the way the Council’s handling of her need for alternative social housing under its Allocations Scheme due to anti-social behaviour at her then property. Specifically, Miss W alleges the following:

1. Anti-social behaviour: The Council failed to promptly act on her numerous reports of ASB and the impact this was having on her housing situation. She says there was a lack of timely progression in having her case referred and heard by the Council’s Social Needs Panel (SNP) for it to decide whether to give her greater priority to move.
2. SNP Decisions: Once the Council’s SNP heard her case and situation, it delayed in deciding whether to rehouse her. Further, she says that when a decision was eventually made, this limited her to being offered a like-for-like one-bedroom flat which failed to consider her housing need and the amount of time she had spent on its housing register. Miss W says she should be offered a two-bedroom property.
3. Type of Property: After the SNP revised its decision so she could be offered a two-bedroom property, it unfairly limited offers to flats and skipped her bids for houses. She says this was despite being permitted to bid for all types of properties on the Council’s housing register prior to the SNP’s decision.
4. Property Suitability: The Council pressurised and intimidated her into accepting a property she considered was unsuitable due to her concerns this was too close to areas visited by the perpetrator of ASB when occupying her current property. She says the Council acted in a discriminatory manner by failing to carry out due diligence and liaise with the police to determine whether the property was safe.
5. Review Request: The Council wrongly refused to accept her request for an internal review about the suitability of the property it had offered. The Council did not handle her complaints about the above issues in accordance with its policy and procedure. She says the Council’s responsiveness to her concerns was poor, delayed and failed to address the issues raised.

2. In summary, Miss W says that following months of enduring harassment and threats, she now feels victimised by the Council’s actions (or lack of). She says the situation is severely impacting both her and her daughter’s mental health and has seriously impacted their overall well-being, including her and her daughter’s ability to carry out daily activities. Miss W further explains that she feels vulnerable and experiences daily fear for her and her daughter’s safety due to being forced into an unsuitable property and the risk of encountering the perpetrator of ASB at her previous property.
3. As a desired outcome, Miss W wants the Council to take action to reduce the risk of harm to her and her daughter, such as seeking an injunction against the perpetrator. She wants the Council to be held accountable for the alleged failings and to explain why she has been treated the way she has and to justify its decision-making. Miss W also seeks an apology from the Council and compensation to remedy the impact caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
6. 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).
7. 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(1), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Miss W and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. Both parties had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My findings

Background and Legislative Framework

Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB)

9. This is defined in law under s.2 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Councils have a general duty to tackle ASB and have powers under this legislation to for that purpose. However, ASB can take many different forms (conduct that has or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress being just one example) and when someone reports a problem, councils should decide which of their powers is most suitable.
10. There is no formal ‘process chart’ for an ASB investigation. A robust investigation is case-specific, proportionate to the severity, frequency, and impact of the behaviour, including the vulnerability of victims. It should involve receiving and assessing reports and whether the behaviour amounts to ASB. We do not expect councils to investigate trivial matters. If a council does investigate, it should consider the circumstances of both the complainant and perpetrator and, where appropriate, check information from other agencies such as the police.
11. In deciding whether to take any action, councils should have regard to their available powers such as to serve a perpetrator of ASB with a community protection notice. However, wider powers and duties apply such as monitoring effectiveness and escalating where necessary.

Housing Allocations Scheme

12. In accordance with section 166A(1) and (14) of the Housing Act 1996, all local housing authorities 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.
13. Section 166A(3) requires allocation schemes to give reasonable preference to applicants who are homeless, living in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing, who need to move on medical or welfare grounds and/or people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others.
14. The Council gives reasonable preference to applicants through a banding system. If an applicant qualifies under the Allocations Scheme, their housing needs are assessed and they are then placed into one of five priority bands which can be summarised (other criteria apply) as follows:

1. Band 1 (Emergency Priority): Reserved for applicants with exceptionally urgent housing needs, including emergencies, urgent decants, under-occupiers, tenants releasing adapted homes, or those unable to leave hospital due to unsuitable housing.

2. Band 2 (High Priority): Applies to applicants needing urgent rehousing due to severe medical or social needs, unsafe or unsuitable housing, or where “Move On” legal obligations apply (e.g. hostels, mental health units or armed forces).

3. Band 3 (Medium Priority Plus): Covers applicants with significant but less urgent needs, including those in temporary accommodation, overcrowded households, or with notable medical or social needs that are serious but non-urgent. It also includes applicants owed a full housing duty under s193 Housing Act 1996 and those in unsatisfactory housing.

4. Band 4 (Medium Priority): For applicants who are homeless or owed certain statutory duties but not in higher bands, including those under sections 190, 193 and 195 of the Housing Act 1996. It also applies to some social housing tenants moving for work, and homeless applicants outside Waltham Forest with limited local connection.

5. Band 5 (No Priority): Covers applicants not meeting the criteria for higher bands, or those with sufficient financial means. It also includes people whose only housing issue is sharing facilities without other priority needs.

Council’s Social Needs Panel (SNP)

15. Section 2.3 of Appendix 1 of the Council’s Allocations Scheme establishes the SNP that meets at least once a month to consider requests for urgent transfers of council tenants due to risk of violence or harassment. The Panel’s role is to make decisions on the cases put before it. Section 2.3. of Appendix 1 states:

“The Panel may consider… Requests to transfer following harassment…. NB People in these circumstances will be moved via one direct offer only, to a property of the same size and type as the property they are moving from, unless there is evidence that this will disadvantage them – for example if they are close to being allocated a larger property…”

16. The SNP may decide the level of priority to be awarded on social or welfare grounds, to make an exception to the usual accommodation size rules or that there is a need for a household to live in a particular locality.

Review Rights and Statutory Guidance

17. Section 13.1 of the Allocations Scheme covers the types of housing decisions which carry a right of review by a senior officer of the Council who was not involved in previous decision-making. This includes any decision “about the facts of his/her case which are likely to be, or have been, taken into account in considering whether to allocate accommodation.”
18. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process and that there should be a timescale for requesting a review (21 days is suggested as reasonable). Reviews should normally be completed by a set deadline (8 weeks suggested as reasonable).

Chronology of Events

19. Since 2018, Miss W began living at Property A (a one-bedroom flat) with her now teenage daughter. Over the years she lived there, Miss W was bidding for two-bedroom properties on the Council’s housing register. This is because based on the Council’s Scheme, the age of her daughter meant she had a two-bedroom housing need.
20. In mid-2022, Miss W says she witnessed a perpetrator (who was the partner of her neighbour) assaulting two girls outside her property. She says the perpetrator was held in remand and returned to her neighbour’s property approximately ten months later. She says that shortly after his return, she and another neighbour filed noise complaints due to disturbances from the perpetrator.
21. Over five months in 2023, Miss W says the perpetrator began vandalising her property and acting in a threatening manner by banging on her front door. She reported the incidents to the Council and police.
22. In late November 2023, Miss W made a same-day report to the Council and police following an alleged incident where the perpetrator threatened to harm her and her daughter. Miss W “said she fled” the property with her daughter and began living with her parents in order to remove any immediate risk of harm. Miss W never returned to living at the property.
23. In December 2023, Miss W says she became aware from her neighbour that there had been further acts of vandalism on the property.
24. In January 2024, Miss W says her property had been broken into. She also says that when she and two family members visited the property to install a security camera, the perpetrator threatened her and her family members which resulted in police attendance and an arrest being made.
25. In early February 2024, the Council submitted a report (completed six days earlier) for referral to the SNP in order for it to make a decision whether to offer Miss W an alternative property due to ASB matters she had been experiencing. The referral report contains a checklist which identifies rehousing details and sets out Miss W can be considered for all types of housing (e.g. flat, house).
26. One day later, the SNP met to discuss and decide Miss W’s case following the Council’s internal referral report. On the same date, the SNP approved an urgent move for Miss W. The decision records that the Council would make Miss W one direct offer only for an alternative one-bedroom flat on a ‘like for like’ basis away from the current location but within the Council’s area.
27. At some point during the same week, Miss W says she had a telephone with the Council’s housing officer who told her the SNP’s decision was to offer her a like-for-like one-bedroom flat. She says she did not receive the official outcome letter regarding that decision made by the SNP.
28. In mid-February 2024, Miss W submitted a stage one complaint to the Council. She complained the Council has neglected to conduct a thorough assessment of her housing needs, instead proposing an inadequate one-bedroom property. Miss W explained the Council’s decision to only offer her one-bedroom property would mean her needing to start a new application for a two bedroom, erasing all priority and time accumulated over the last eight years. She says she ought to have been successful for a two-bedroom property by that point and refers to the Council’s website which states those in Band 3 are typically housed within five years.
29. In early March 2024, the Council responded to the complaint at stage one. It said that although a discussion took place at the SNP regarding her rehousing application, no formal decision had yet been issued to Miss W. The Council told Miss W that no decision had yet been made and advised her that she could only request a review of that decision when the decision letter is sent to her. The Council apologised for the delay in making a decision and the confusion the delay had caused. It said the SNP will consider the points made in her complaint and confirm the decision in next two weeks.
30. In mid-March 2024, Miss W made a complaint to the Ombudsman. We determined the complaint was premature at this stage and referred it back to the Council in order for it complete its complaints procedure under stage two.
31. In late April 2024, the Council sent Miss W a revised decision following the SNP’s reassessment. This confirmed the SNP had exercised discretion and the Council would now make Miss W one direct offer for a two-bedroom flat away from the location of her current property. The decision also confirmed the SNP had awarded Miss W Band 2 under its Allocations Scheme which meant she now had higher priority for an urgent move.
32. In late July 2024, the Council made a direct offer for alternative property which was the same which Miss W had bid for. It asked Miss W to contact the Council to arrange a viewing urgently. The offer letter also stated that Miss W was required to view and accept the property within the next three days, otherwise it would be assumed she was refusing the property and her current higher priority awarded by the SNP would be removed immediately. The Council also emphasised the SNP’s decision was limited to one direct offer and it would not be making any further offers for alternative accommodation.
33. The next day, Miss W emailed the Council that she cannot attend a viewing before 5 August 2024 due to being away on work and that cannot take leave at such short notice. She explained the Council’s actions were causing her serious stress due to informing her of the one-offer policy and that not viewing the property would result in her losing priority status. Miss W questioned why she could not be shortlisted for another property she is first place for and was not immediately ready to be let and which allows her time to arrange a viewing and her work schedule.
34. Days later in early August 2024, Miss W made a further complaint to the Council, having not received a response to her earlier email that she could not view the offered property. Miss W also provided a copy of an email from her line manager which confirmed that she could not be approved annual leave at such short notice. On the same day, the Council contacted Miss W and it agreed to extend viewing until a day in mid-August 2024.
35. Three days after agreeing the extended view date, the Council emailed Miss W to say the viewing and not be brought forward and was now scheduled one week earlier. The Council again highlighted that the property offer would stand as Miss W’s one direct offer. It also responded to Miss W’s point about why she could not be shortlisted for another property she had bid for at the same time and was currently first place for. The Council said Miss W was not considered for this other property due to this being a house and not a flat. In the same email, the Council officer also commented on Miss W’s reasoning why she could not view sooner due to work. The officer said he had “numerous friends and colleagues” who are also employed by Miss W’s employer, “and do not foresee that they will be unable to provide an additional resource to release you for a short while”.
36. On the same day, Miss W emailed the Council asking that her concerns be treated as a stage two complaint, having perceived the most recent contact as a response to the complaint submitted three days prior. She escalated the matter on the basis the Council had acted unacceptably by unilaterally bringing forward the agreed viewing date by a week (to four days’ time), which she had already explained she could not attend. Miss W also objected to the officer’s comments about her workplace, describing them as “an attempt to leverage personal connections to pressure me into viewing the property” and “an invasion of my professional boundaries and work rights.” Finally, she clarified that although the SNP had agreed to offer her like-for-like 2-bedroom accommodation, she retained the right to bid for both flats and houses as before her Band 2 award. She said being told her bids for houses would be disregarded felt punitive and targeted.
37. The next day, the Council’s Head of Lettings sent a reply to Miss W’s most recent complaint. This confirmed it would honour the viewing that was agreed initially. The Council also clarified that Miss W did not need to decide whether to accept the property until then, but that she could not be considered for other properties while being offered the one viewing had been arranged for.
38. In mid-August 2024, the Council sent Miss W a stage one complaint response in relation to her complaint concerning the unilaterally changed viewing date and officer comments. The Council responded by saying the officer was not intending to intimidate Miss W by stating he knows people at her employer and cannot see why she could not take leave to attend a viewing. It also said that Miss W can only be considered for flats while in Band 2 and so the complaint was not upheld.
39. Around a week later, Miss W viewed the property offered to her by the Council and immediately emailed the Council on the same day to enquire about how she could appeal the offer on same date. Miss W said that while the offered property does meet her needs, having viewed this she has concerns about locality and the risk of encountering the perpetrator. Having not received a response from the Council about how she could appeal, Miss W signed a tenancy agreement two days after viewing which commenced the same day. She explained she felt forced to sign due to the Council refusing to accept an appeal and confirming this was a one-time offer following SNP assessment. Miss W says had she not, she would face having to move back to her current property where ASB had been perpetrated against her.
40. In late August 2024, Miss W sent a further email to the Council requesting how to appeal the offer of the property. She also referred her complaint back to the Ombudsman to now include allegations the Council has forced her to accept the property and withdrawn her appeal rights.
41. In early September 2024, the Council responded to Miss W’s request for an appeal. This informed that Miss W had 21 days to appeal from the date the property was offered to her, which was on 31 July 2024. The Council said Miss W was now out of time to request a review of the property offer.
42. The following week, Miss W responded seeking further escalation of her complaint. In this, she noted that the Council had sent her two stage one complaint responses despite having escalated to stage two previously. As to her seeking a review, Miss W explained the property was not viewed until mid-August 2024 and that it had not explained that the appeal period would start from the date of the offer. Further, Miss W said she could not have reasonably considered the property before viewing it, and pointed to there being no prior consideration of suitability by the Council, or discussions with her on this subject. She also complained that the Council had disregarded her bid for another property on the basis it simply did not want to offer her a house.
43. In mid-November 2024, the Council responds to Miss W’s stage two complaint. It said Miss W’s complaint in early August 2024 was treated as new complaint due to being about actions of specific Council officer. The Council also stated that the SNP had engaged with police disclosures before making its decision. It again rejected to carry out a formal review its decision to offer her the alternative property on the basis this was out of time under the time limits of the Allocations Scheme. The Council did not uphold the complaint.
44. In February 2025, Miss W moved into the new property. She says there was some delay doing so because she was trying to appeal the decision and there were repair works which needed to be completed.

My Assessment

Our Jurisdiction: Time Limits

45. By law, we cannot investigate a complaint, or part of a complaint, made to us more than 12 months of the complainant becoming aware of the issues, unless there are good reasons to exercise discretion in that respect. Some of the issues raised by Miss W which are relevant to this investigation date back to July 2023. I have therefore considered whether the complaint raised, or any part of it, has been made in time. As outlined in the above case chronology, Miss W first brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in March 2024. We referred the complaint back to the Council in order for it to consider all of the issues raised by Miss W. After receiving further complaint responses from the Council, Miss W brought her complaint back to us in August 2024 which now included an alleged failure to accept her request for a review on the suitability of the property offered.
46. Given the two different points Miss W brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, I consider all parts of the complaint have been raised within 12 months of her becoming aware of the issues. I have therefore accepted all parts of Miss W’s complaint have been made to us in time and so I have investigated all of these.

Complaint Outcome (a): ASB and Referral to SNP

47. The Council has confirmed it investigated allegations of ASB, including those reported by Miss W between July 2023 and January 2024. The available evidence also shows it determined that ASB was being perpetrated by the individual concerned. For the purposes of referring Miss W’s situation to the SNP, it produced a report at the end of January 2024. This concluded that, “with the seriousness of Miss W’s case, we believe a direct offer will give a more imminent and permanent solution to the issue she is facing with her neighbour’s partner.”
48. The case was referred to the SNP in early February 2024. However, Miss W raises in her complaint that the Council delayed in making the referral, noting that she felt forced to leave her home in November 2023 and move in with family members until the matter was resolved. I have therefore considered this point.
49. The SNP referral report expressly requires details as to why rehousing is necessary as opposed to any other steps to resolve matters. The reasoning given by the Council’s tenancy officer are recorded as:

“The resident does not feel safe in her home due to the threats made by the perpetrator. She has not been living at her home since November 2023. Until there is further police involvement, or an injunction can be carried out, we feel the best step is to move Miss W and her daughter.”

50. In my view, and based on the above, there is no reason why the report could not have been referred to the Council’s SNP within two weeks of the ASB incident in late November 2023 which is when Miss W left her property. Despite the fact the Council carried out inquiries into the ASB following the incident, its decision to recommend rehousing was based on the evidence it received in November 2023.
51. Miss W is entitled to reasonable preference under the Allocation Scheme which the Council chooses to give effect to under its banding system and the SNP. In Miss W’s case, her reasonable preference relied on the Council assessing needs through the SNP in a timely manner. I see no reason why the Council could not have referred Miss W’s case to the SNP by no later than 8 December 2023. The Council did not make the referral until 5 February 2024. I therefore find fault as the Council delayed in doing so by 8 weeks.

Complaint Outcome (b): SNP Decisions

52. The Council’s SNP met and considered Miss W’s case the day after the referral was made. I requested and received the minutes of that meeting from the Council and these record the following decision having been made on the same day:

“Case approved for an urgent move. Tenant to be made one direct offer only, of an alternative 1 bedroomed flat on a ‘like for like’ basis away from the current location but within the boundaries of LBWF.”

53. This is consistent with Miss W’s point that she was told the decision by her tenancy officer shortly after the SNP heard the case. She then emailed the Council challenging the SNP’s decision and sought a review of that decision. It is unclear why the Council responded to this email and advised Miss W that while the SNP had met, it had not yet made a decision on her case and as such, she could not have a review.
54. As the decision had been made and Miss W had been notified of it, she was entitled to request and receive a review of this. The Council clearly misled Miss W in its response to her concerns and deprived her of a review. This was fault and I have considered the question of injustice under my findings about communication and complaint handling generally (below).
55. The Council apologised for the delay in the SNP making a decision, but confirmed it would notify Miss W of its decision within the next two weeks (by 22 March 2024). The Council did not notify Miss W of the revised decision (awarding Band 2 priority and one direct offer of a two-bedroom flat) until 30 April 2024.
56. The Council could have made the revised decision when it first considered Miss W’s case in February 2024. When Miss W responded to the original decision, she did not provide anything which could be considered as new information. Her points of challenge strictly related to her housing need and time on the housing register which is information the Council already had. On balance, the need for a revised decision was due to the SNP not considering these specific points as it should have. I therefore find fault.
57. The SNP’s revised and correct decision came 13 weeks after the referral report was signed off as completed. I consider two weeks would have been a reasonable amount of time for the SNP to have considered and decided Miss W’s case following the referral report being completed. This is because the SNP met again to reconsider Miss W’s case and the Council told her she would receive a decision within the next two weeks when it responded to her concerns. I therefore find fault as the Council delayed in correctly deciding Miss W’s referral for rehousing by 11 weeks. Considering the Council’s delay in referring Miss W’s case to the SNP, the overall delay in her being awarded greater priority and its decision to make her a direct offer of rehousing was 19 weeks. This caused a significant injustice to Miss W because ultimately, she could have been rehoused considerably sooner, and in a property which she considered was suitable.

Complaint Outcome (c): Type of Property

58. Following the SNP’s revised decision, Miss W bid for a number of properties which included flat and house type properties. However, from correspondence sent by the Council relating to other concerns, she discovered that the Council had disregarded her bids for a house. The Council clarified that Miss W could only be offered a two-bedroom flat and referred to her the SNP’s revised decision and section 2.3. of Appendix 1 of the Allocations Scheme which limit a direct offer to a “like for like” property. As Miss W was to be rehoused from her then one-bedroom flat, this is what led to the SNP to originally decide she only be rehoused in property of the same size and type. Although the Council confirmed that the SNP had exercised discretion on property size, it said it had not for property type.
59. There is a clear rationale as to why the Council adopts a “like for like” policy, in that it seeks to promote fairness and consistency by ensuring an applicant is not allocated a larger property over others who have been on the waiting list for a considerably longer period of time. It also prevents prejudice to the efficient use of limited housing stock. Housing authorities have stock constraints and certain property types (e.g. larger houses, bungalows, and adapted homes) may be in short supply. That said, the policy retains flexibility so that discretion can be exercised where an offer of a “like for like” property would cause disadvantage.
60. In my view however, I do not consider the Council has properly considered the facts of the case when it offered a “like-for-like” property. Miss W was already eligible to bid for a two-bedroom house, as confirmed by the Council’s internal report to the SNP. For the purpose of rehousing, this clearly identifies that she is eligible for both two-bedroom flats and houses. Further, given the amount of time Miss W has been on the housing register, she could realistically have been offered a property of this size and type. As Miss W explained, the Council offered her a two-bedroom property in December 2022. Further, one of the properties Miss W bid for after the SNP decision was a two-bedroom house and, as of the end of July 2024, her bid on that property was ranked first place.
61. I do not consider a decision to exclude Miss W from being offered a two-bedroom house is aligned with the Council’s policy. An offer of such a property would not cause the prejudice which section 2.3 of Appendix 1 seeks to avoid, but rather is just reflective of Miss W’s housing need and time on the register. therefore find fault by the Council for failing to exercise discretion on property type as it did with size.

Complaint Outcome (d): Property Suitability

62. It is well established that any accommodation secured must be suitable for the applicant and their household. Location is a core factor when determining suitability which should be considered alongside the vulnerability of household members, particularly in light of the events which have led to Miss W’s rehousing becoming necessary. Importantly however, it is not for me to determine whether the property offered to Miss W was suitable, particularly given this carries a right of review. I have however investigated whether the Council properly considered suitability given Miss W’s review request was refused.
63. I note one of the points raised by Miss W is that the Council failed to consult with the police about whether the location was suitable and safe. I do not find however that there is any requirement for the Council to do this. Whether a location is suitable is a matter the Council is entitled to decide by having regard to any concerns. While I have not seen any evidence the Council considered whether the property was suitable for Miss W’s household before offering it to her, it must be noted that Miss W did bid for this property initially. This is what led the Council to make her a direct offer and on the face it, that seems reasonable.
64. This does not mean the Council need not consider the issue of suitability, particularly when concerns are raised. It would also be unfair in my view that an applicant should be regarded as having accepted a property was suitable based on an initial bid and without having yet viewed this and the surrounding area. A bid cannot be considered anything more than an expression of interest. I am not persuaded though the Council was at fault for relying on Miss W’s bid and making an offer of the property, alongside inviting her to view this.
65. When Miss W did view the property, she contacted the Council on the same day raising concerns about suitability on the basis of location. At the point, the Council should have offered a review. Its failure to do so was fault.

Complaint Outcome (e): Review Request

66. As set out above, Miss W promptly informed the Council after the viewing that she did not consider this was suitable, as well as enquired about how she should go about seeking a review of the offer decision. I found no evidence the Council responded to Miss W’s email, therefore prompting her to make a complaint the following week. The Council responded a week after that complaint and refused to consider a review request due to this having not been made within 21 days of being offered the property. On the available evidence, I find the Council’s refusal was fault for the following reasons:

1. The Council’s direct offer was made on 30 July 2024 and does not set out any information concerning Miss W’s awareness of when a review would need to be made (noting 21-day window). This falls short of statutory guidance which requires review procedures to be clear and fair to the applicant.

2. The Council initially expected Miss W to view property and accept this within 48 hours. Her circumstances meant viewing by then was not possible, and so there was agreement to delay the viewing until 20 August 2024. It would be procedurally unfair and prejudicial to treat the requirement to request a review within 21 days as running from the date of the direct offer as opposed to the agreed viewing date. At the least, I would expect the Council to have consider exercising discretion and extending time limits so it could take this and the concerns raised into account, yet it did not and fettered its discretion.

3. Given Miss W’s detailed concerns outlined to the Council by email and enquiries about her appeal rights on 20 August 2024, this should be treated as a review request made in time. The emails were sent by Miss W 20 days after the direct offer and it was plain from this what her grounds were. The review request was made in time.

67. By refusing to accept Miss W’s review requests, the Council was also at fault for having not considered her concerns and whether the property offered was suitable. In terms of any injustice caused to Miss W as a result, I cannot say whether the property is suitable as that is a matter for the Council to decide. However, I see no benefit in referring that decision-making back to the Council by recommending it make that determination now. This is because doing so would not remedy the prior injustice to Miss W in that, on balance, she would have been offered another suitable property much sooner had the Council not delayed by 19 weeks in referring to the SNP and it making it awarding higher priority.

Complaint Outcome (f): Complaint Handling and Communication

68. I have already made a finding of fault in that the Council misled Miss W in its correspondence stating that the SNP had not yet made a decision when in fact it had. A further instance where the Council’s communication had been poor was the period immediately following it making a direct offer of the property at the end of July 2025. Despite the direct offer stressing the urgency of time and requiring Miss W to arrange to view the property and accept this within 48 hours, the Council did not respond to her email sent the next day about not being able to view the property within this timeframe, nor did it respond to her telephone calls.
69. Eventually the Council did contact Miss W, but only following her submitting a new complaint about the issue. They agreed an extended viewing date in mid-August 2024. However, having clearly not noticed this agreement, the Council sent a formal complaint response to Miss W unilaterally changing the viewing date. In my view, the Council’s response (at stage one) also contained inappropriate comments concerning the Rehousing Manager having a number of connections to people working for Miss W’s employer and why he did not accept Miss W could not attend an earlier viewing. These comments had no relevance and were not case specific. Objectively, I can also see why Miss W would have found them highly pressurising and intrusive.
70. When the Council realised that prior agreement had been made, internal emails between officers acknowledge fault and encourage contacting Miss W to honour this, as well as to apologise for “mishandling and communication error.” Despite this, when the Council responded by issuing a further stage one response to Miss W’s complaint, it did not uphold this, nor did it make any expressed finding about communication failings. That seems to me to be a failing of the Council to accept responsibility despite knowing it was at fault and that this caused confusion.
71. In addition, the way the Council handled the complaints by issuing two stage one responses also caused Miss W confusion. The Council commented that it treated her latter complaint, which sought escalation to stage two, differently on the basis it raised issues with a specific officer. In my view, the issues were largely the same and I see no reason why it required a separate stage one response. I find there have been multiple instances throughout the complaint history where the Council’s communication and complaint handling has been poor. Taken together, I consider this caused Miss W a significant injustice due to the considerable uncertainty and anxiety suffered, as well as time and trouble.

Back to top

Agreed actions

72. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to take the following actions within the following timeframes:
1. Within one month of this final decision, the Council will:

• Send Miss W a written apology which acknowledges the fault and injustice identified in this decision statement, as well as the specific actions it intends to take to prevent such problems from reoccurring.
• Reinstate Miss W’s Band 2 and priority date with restored bidding rights (including for houses). It should then make her a direct offer for rehousing within a reasonable time frame which can be informed by any bids she makes. The Council will speak with Miss W about the suitability of the property’s location prior to making an offer.
• Pay Miss W £400 to serve as an acknowledgement of the distress and uncertainty caused to her, as well as for her time and trouble.
2. Within three months of this final decision, the Council will:

• Review how it makes applicants aware of their review rights in cases of a one-time direct offer for rehousing, as well as how it assesses and records decisions about the suitability of accommodation before and after a property is offered. The Council will adopt measures to improve its service in these areas. This should include sending written information about an applicant’s review rights at the time of making a property offer, and when that right is engaged and expires.

73. The Council should provide evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

74. I find fault by the Council causing Miss W a significant injustice. It has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman