Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his housing application and said his home is overcrowded. He said this impacted his family’s physical and mental health. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his housing application and said his home is overcrowded. He said this impacted his family’s physical and mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. If we are satisfied with a Council’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 that part of Mr X’s complaint about how the Council considered his housing application.
5. I have not investigated any reference to disrepair issues. This is because Mr X is a secure Council tenant. Any matters relating to the state of repair in his property is for the Housing Ombudsman to consider.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read Mr X’s complaint and spoke to him about it on the phone.
7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

9. 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))
10. 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))

11. The Council policy confirmed the Council has three bands for applicants, bands A, B and C.
12. The policy confirmed the Council would allocate band B to applicants “who are severely overcrowded and have at least two rooms less than the number of rooms to which they would be entitled to under Haringey’s Housing Allocations Policy. This includes reception rooms that could reasonably be used as bedrooms.
13. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
14. The Ombudsman recognises the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. 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 lettings scheme policy.

What happened

15. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
16. Mr X moved into a secure council tenancy in 2007. Since then, his family has increased in size and the family are now overcrowded. The Council accepted Mr X is severely overcrowded and allocated him a band B priority under its allocations policy.
17. Mr X complained to the Council in November 2023. Mr X said he was overcrowded and the bidding system was not working for him.
18. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in December 2023. The Council did not uphold the complaint. It set out many others were on the housing list and there was much demand for housing. The Council told Mr X the average wait was over eight years but this was an average and the estimated wait was much longer.
19. Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint in January 2024. He expressed his frustration about the waiting time. He said he had been waiting over ten years for rehousing. Mr X asked if there was another way to rehouse tenants.
20. The Council responded in February 2024. The Council said it appreciated his frustration, but there was no evidence of wrongdoing in awarding him band B. The Council advised Mr X to increase his bidding on properties and potentially widen the search area. The response explained other transfer choices would not be an option for Mr X.
21. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Mr X would like the Council to apply band A to his case and accept its duties to his family.
22. In response to my enquiries the Council stated it applied its policy correctly.

My findings

23. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
24. It is clear that Mr X’s circumstances are complicated. Mr X lives with his family in a one-bedroom flat with a reception room. The Council has accepted Mr X is severely overcrowded. However, the Council policy states it would allocate band B to people “who are severely overcrowded and have at least two rooms less than the number of rooms to which they would be entitled to under the Council’s Housing Allocations Policy. This includes reception rooms that could reasonably be used as bedrooms”.
25. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
26. The Council assessed Mr X as being overcrowded by three bedrooms. Given the policy includes a reception room, this means Mr X is overcrowded by two bedrooms. The Council explained its decision to Mr X. The Council has correctly applied its allocation policy. The Council was not at fault.
27. Paragraph 14 explains the Ombudsman recognises the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We appreciate this is a difficult situation causing Mr X an injustice. However, this injustice is not caused by fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation. I have not found fault by the Council.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman