Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his application to join the housing register. We did not find the Council to be at fault because it correctly applied its housing allocations policy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling his housing register application. Specifically, he complains the Council:
1. failed make a direct allocation when a property in a specific location became available, despite agreeing to do so in the stage one complaint response;
2. gave contradictory information about direct offers. Mr X was told this was not possible, contrary to the Council’s allocations policy;
3. failed to respond to direct allocation suggestions/correspondence in seven days (this being a commitment given during the complaints procedure);
4. operates a discriminatory allocations policy. Its additional preference criteria unfairly discriminated against disabled people who are unable to contribute towards the local economy; and
5. provided incomplete information about the medical assessment. This cast doubt on whether the assessment was carried out properly.
2. Mr X says his lack of suitable accommodation over a prolonged time period and the Council’s case handling caused significant distress and impacted on his well-being.
3. Mr X is represented by his mother, Mrs Y, in making this complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated what has happened from when Mr X was accepted onto the Council’s housing register to when Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in June 2024. Although Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s failure to allocate him a property after this time, this has not yet been through the Council’s complaints procedure. The law expects the Ombudsman to allow councils the opportunity to potentially put things right in the first instance, so this part of his complaint is premature. In any event, the Council made a direct offer in November 2024 and so there is no ongoing significant injustice for the Ombudsman to potentially remedy.
7. I have not investigated 1(e) above. This is because the Council promptly reassessed Mr X’s banding after he requested a review of this decision. As there is no outstanding injustice, the Ombudsman cannot add anything further for Mr X.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I spoke to Mr X’s representative, Mrs Y, about the complaint and considered the information she provided.
9. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.,
10. I considered the relevant law, guidance and Council policy, as set out below.
11. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations - relevant law, guidance and policy

Housing allocations

12. 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))

The Council’s allocations policy

13. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. The Council places housing applicants into one of three bands according to their housing need. Band One is the highest priority and Band Three is the lowest.
14. Additional preference will be awarded in certain circumstances, including if the applicant is in a working household and contributes to the economic growth of the district or contributes to the local community.
15. Applicants awarded additional preference are given priority over an applicant in the same priority ban who does not have it.
16. The Council will seek to match a suitable applicant to an adapted property. This may mean a higher priority applicant may be bypassed to make best use of the adaptations.
17. Where an applicant has multiple high-level needs and an urgent need to be rehoused, the head of service has discretion to award Band One priority and make a direct offer.

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. In January 2023, Mr X applied to join the housing register.
20. In June 2023, Mr X was awarded Band Two priority with a one-bedroom entitlement. Following representations made by Mrs Y, he was awarded Band One with a two-bedroom entitlement. He did not qualify for additional priority.
21. Mrs Y complained about the Council’s handling of the application. She also asked the Council to award additional priority.
22. In response, the Council:

• apologised for the time taken to process the application. This was caused by excessive demand and limited resources. However, Mr X had not missed out on any suitable properties during that time;
• confirmed its previous position that Mr X did not qualify for any additional preference because he did not meet the criteria; and
• agreed to consider making a direct offer if a suitable property in Mr X’s specific area became available. This has been approved by the head of service.

23. Mr X was reassured by this commitment. However, no progress was made in being rehoused despite him identifying potential suitable properties in August and November 2023. Mrs Y was also frustrated by council officers not responding quickly enough to emails. She also raised concerns about the additional preference criteria being discriminatory because disable people would be unlikely to be able to meet the criteria.
24. These concerns led to a further complaint in February 2024.
25. In response, the Council agreed:

• to reply to correspondence about potential properties within 7 days; and
• to assess compliance of the additional preference criteria with equalities legislation.

26. Dissatisfied with this outcome and continued lack of housing, Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. Since making enquiries of the Council, the Council has made a direct offer to Mr X in November 2024.

Analysis

27. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas, including that of the Council. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for its decision about eligibility and priority if it has properly considered the information provided by the applicant and applied its allocations scheme correctly.
28. The records show Mr X waited approximately 22 months before he was offered a property. Although I accept this was far from ideal for Mr X and his family, this does not necessary indicate there was the Council was at fault.
29. In this context I will consider Mr X’s areas of complaint.

Failure to make a direct offer

30. A two-bedroom property in the right area became available in August 2023. Mr X expected to be made a direct offer following the Council’s commitment to do so.
31. The Council explained this particular property was not actually available.
32. A further two potential properties became available in November 2023 and February 2024. The Council explained why both were not suitable for a direct offer.
33. Although I understand Mr X had raised expectations following the Council’s commitment to consider a direct offer in its complaint response, this did not mean an offer would be forthcoming straight away. Any offer was still dependent on a suitable property becoming available. My overall assessment is lack of availability was the reason why a direct offer was not made, as opposed to Council fault.

Failure to respond to direct allocation suggestions/correspondence in seven days

34. I found no evidence of the Council failing to respond to Mrs Y’s emails within an unreasonable timeframe. While I can see some emails were not acknowledged straight away, there was no excessive delay in the Council’s communications with her. The Council complied with its commitment to respond within seven days in the event of a suitable property being identified by her as per its commitment during the complaints process. The Council was not at fault.

Giving contradictory information about direct offers.

35. The Council’s allocations policy sets out two circumstances where a direct offer can be made by officers. The criteria relevant to this complaint is where the applicant has a composite housing need and the case has been considered by the “Special Needs Priority Panel”.
36. Mr X’s application was considered by this Panel in June 2023 and its decision informed what Mr X was told in the stage one response about consideration being given to a direct offer.
37. Within Mr X’s case records is one letter that incorrectly states that a direct offer can only be made in cases of homelessness. However, I do not consider this error was sufficiently detrimental to amount to fault because the Council had already agreed to make a direct offer to Mr X in accordance with the allocations policy.

Discriminatory allocations policy

38. In response to Mrs Y’s concerns about this issue, the Council agreed to consider whether its allocations policy contravened equalities legislation. The Council did so by seeking legal advice. The Council has provided the Ombudsman with a copy the advice it received. This advice shows the issue raised by Mrs Y had already been considered by the courts. Judgments in several cases confirmed the Council’s additional preference criteria was not unlawful. The Council was not at fault.

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation. I have not found the Council to be at fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman