Summary: Ms O complained on behalf of Ms X that the Council failed to award Ms X the correct priority under its previous housing allocations policy. Ms O said Ms X may have been able to obtain housing before the policy changed in 2022. Ms O said it caused Ms X unnecessary and avoidable distress. We do not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. Ms O is from a community group. She complained on behalf of Ms X that the Council failed to award Ms X the correct priority under its previous housing allocations policy.
2. Ms O said Ms X may have been able to obtain housing before the policy changed in 2022 as she would have had high enough priority to successfully bid on suitable properties. Instead, Ms O said Ms X and her partner have been left living in unsuitable temporary accommodation which puts the partner at risk of harm. Ms O said it caused Ms X unnecessary and avoidable distress and has impacted Ms X’s mental health.

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. 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)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. As I have said above (paragraph six), we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. In this case, Ms O brought Ms X’s complaint to the Ombudsman in March 2024. The timeframe of Ms X’s complaint is from December 2019 to February 2022, which is outside the 12 months referred to above.
9. Ms O explained that English is not Ms X’s first language. Ms O said Ms X did not realise at the time that there was any suggestion the Council should have given her application higher priority. Ms X did not know details of the Council’s allocations policy because of the language difference.
10. Ms X was later put in touch with Ms O’s organisation who then made the complaint to the Ombudsman on Ms X’s behalf.
11. I find there are good reasons why Ms X did not bring her complaint to the Ombudsman within 12 months of the Council’s decision in December 2019. For this reason, I have decided there are good reasons to exercise our discretion and investigate this complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. Ms X has given written consent for Ms O to represent this complaint on her behalf. I therefore consider Ms O is a suitable person to represent this complaint on Ms X’s behalf.
13. I considered the information and documents provided by Ms O and the Council. I spoke to Ms O about Ms X’s complaint. Ms O and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.
14. I considered the relevant legislation and Council policy, set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

15. 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))
16. 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))

17. The Council had a housing allocations policy in place when it made its decision on Miss X’s application in December 2019. This policy was updated in February 2022.
18. The housing allocations policy in place at that time said if households had been awarded more than one reasonable preference, the Lettings Agency would do an additional assessment of the household’s needs. This assessment would determine whether the household should get any additional preference.
19. The policy said an initial assessment would determine if the household’s needs fell into more than one reasonable preference group. After that, if the below eligibility criteria were met (see paragraph 20), an assessment for additional preference could be done.
20. The policy said the assessment for additional preference started with two questions. Firstly, could the household currently secure suitable housing through the Lettings Company service. Secondly, is the household homeless or owed a duty of homelessness. If the answer to either of those questions was ‘yes’, the policy said an assessment of additional preference was not required.

What happened

21. The Council accepted a homeless duty to Ms X’s family years ago. In December 2019, the Council awarded additional preference for Ms X’s partner on medical grounds.
22. The decision letter was from a Lettings Agency officer. It said that Ms X could bid on properties from a range of categories that were accessible and could meet her partner’s medical needs.
23. In 2023, Ms X complained to the Council. In its response, the Council said Ms X had two reasonable preference groups: that the Council owed her and her family the homelessness duty; and, that the Council had awarded Ms X’s partner medical priority.
24. The Council said it did the initial assessment to see if Ms X was eligible for the additional priority assessment. It said it decided Ms X was able to secure housing through the Lettings Agency because the offer letter in 2019 set out which property categories could meet her partner’s medical needs. For this reason, Ms X was not eligible for additional preference.

Analysis

25. Ms O complained that the Council failed to award Ms X the correct priority under its previous housing allocations policy. Ms O said under the policy in place at the time, the Council gave additional priority if an applicant was entitled to two or more reasonable preference categories. Ms O said that because Ms X had two reasonable preferences (the homelessness duty and the medical priority), the Council should have awarded Ms X additional priority.
26. I have considered how the Council made its decision that Ms X was not eligible for additional preference.
27. The policy in place at the time said an assessment of additional preference was not required if the answer to either of two questions was ‘yes’ (see paragraph 20).
28. I have considered the two questions. Firstly, could the household secure suitable housing through the Lettings Company service. The Council assessed that ‘yes’ Ms X could secure suitable housing through the service because Ms X could bid on properties in several different categories, all of which could meet Mr X’s medical needs. I see no fault in how the Council decided this.
29. The second question was whether the household was homeless or owed a duty of homelessness. The Council correctly answered ‘yes’ to this because it owed Ms X that duty.
30. Both of the answers to those questions were ‘yes’. Therefore, an assessment of additional preference was not required. As this decision was made in line with the Council’s policy, I cannot question the merits of the decision. For this reason, I find no fault.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation. I do not find fault with the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman