Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application. The Council was at fault for the delay in assessing her housing need and for poor communication. It has already apologised and offered a payment to acknowledge the frustration this caused which was an appropriate remedy. There was no fault in the way it has applied the policy or in what it allows Miss X to bid for.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application. She says she is being discriminated against because despite her disability and need for a level access property, she is unable to bid on bungalows because of her age.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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)
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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. Miss X first applied for housing in February 2022. The Council closed the application as it considered Miss X did not have a housing need. She applied again in October 2022. We expect complainants to come to us within 12 months of being aware they have cause for complaint. I have exercised my discretion to consider what happened back to October 2022 because it was only after that application was assessed and Miss X began bidding on properties, she became aware of the age restriction placed on bungalows. I am not investigating what happened with Miss X’s first application. It was open to her to come to us at that time and there are no good reasons to consider it now.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered information supplied by Miss X and the Council’s response to our enquiries.
7. I gave Miss X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law and guidance

The Equality Act

8. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
9. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
10. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
11. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.
12. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.

Housing allocations

13. 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))
14. 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.
15. The Ombudsman recognises that 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.

The Council’s housing allocations policy

16. The Council’s allocations policy places applicants into one of four bands – emergency, gold, silver and bronze. Those assessed based on medical needs are awarded either Gold – group one medical or silver group two medical priority.
17. Properties are advertised on-line and applicants can bid on up to six properties each bidding cycle. The successful applicant is the applicant with the highest banding and the earliest effective band date.
18. The policy states that applicants can place bids only for those properties which they have been assessed as being eligible for. It states that ‘some properties are only available for older persons, these will be advertised showing the age restriction’.

What happened

19. Miss X is an adult who lives with her mother. Miss X has a physical disability which affects her movement and speech. In October 2022 Miss X applied to join the Council’s housing register. She said her health condition was made worse by her housing, her mother wanted her to leave and her home was in a poor condition which was affecting her health. Miss X provided a GP letter which explained her medical conditions, but which did not explain how her current housing situation was unsuitable due to these. The Council asked for further evidence. This was not provided so it closed the application but did not notify Miss X.
20. Miss X contacted the Council in January 2023. She said she felt discriminated against because of her disability. She provided a letter from her mother who wanted her to move out and supporting information from a mental health worker.
21. The Council contacted Miss X in March 2023 to request further information. It decided it needed a better understanding of her housing need and referred her for a housing need assessment. The assessment recorded Miss X’s current accommodation was unsuitable. She required a step free, wheelchair accessible property with all rooms on one floor. The assessment stated ‘a bungalow property would be ideal as this would provide its own access, off street parking, an adapted front door lock and all rooms would be accessible via wheelchair’.
22. Miss X emailed the Council three times in June 2023 but got no response until late August 2023 when the Council explained about the availability of properties and bidding. The Council explained properties advertised for over 55s would not show as available for her to bid on.
23. In April 2024 Miss X complained to the Council. She said she needed to be close to her support network and the property should be a bungalow. Yet she was unable to bid on a bungalow as all local bungalows were advertised for over 55s. She wanted to be able to bid on bungalows for over 55s as a reasonable adjustment.
24. The Council responded at stage one of its complaints’ procedure in June 2024. It apologised for the time taken to assess Miss X’s application and to respond to the points she raised. However, it did not feel this was discrimination. It said Miss X was placed in gold band with priority for level access adapted properties. It explained the age limit for properties was set by the housing provider and Miss X would need to contact the housing provider direct to request a review of their age restriction decision.
25. Miss X remained unhappy. Two housing officers met with Miss X in early July to discuss her application, banding and bidding. Following this the Council considered her complaint at the next stage of its complaints’ procedure. It explained that reasonable adjustments of the Council’s housing allocations policy did not include allowing applicants to bid on properties that would not be available to them due to conditions imposed by the landlord. It said there was no right of review regarding this. It accepted there was fault in the time taken to assess Miss X’s application and complete a housing need assessment and apologised for this. It did not consider this was discrimination. It said it recognised housing allocation policies should be reviewed and said BCP Homes (which oversees Council owned housing stock) was already reviewing their policy. It advised Miss X to expand her geographical areas of preference to maximise opportunities for property offers.
26. The Council agreed to backdate Miss X’s effective date to October 2022 and to pay her £100 to acknowledge the impact of the delay in the housing needs assessment.
27. In response to my enquiries the Council said it did not own any housing stock in Miss X’s area of choice. The main housing provider in that area had one general needs bungalow and 146 bungalows for over 55s. It provided information which showed there were 30 one-bedroom properties advertised in Miss X’s area of choice between April 2023 and March 2025 which were ground floor or above ground floor with a lift. Of these six were over 55s bungalows and 16 were ground floor flats. Miss X did not bid on any of the properties.
28. The Council confirmed it had commenced the review of the policy to ensure consistency for properties it manages. It said previously in Poole all general needs ground floor flats and bungalows were advertised for anyone of any age with an evidenced need for ground floor accommodation. In Bournemouth bungalows were routinely available to those aged 60 or over with consideration given to someone aged under 60 if there needs could not be met through general needs accommodation. Now, ground floor flats or bungalows will be labelled to give priority to those who require ground floor accommodation based on age, disability or medical need. The over 55 restriction applies only to properties managed by registered providers in line with their allocation policies and to certain sheltered housing schemes.

Findings

29. The Council, in its complaint response to Miss X, accepted it was at fault for the delay in carrying out a housing need assessment and for its poor communication. The Council was also at fault for closing Miss X’s housing application in late 2022 without notifying her of this. The Council has apologised to Miss X and offered her £100 to acknowledge the impact of the fault. It also backdated her effective date for bidding. This was an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused.
30. Miss X is unhappy that she is unable to bid for bungalows in her area of choice. The Equality Act allows for positive discrimination based on age where this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. We cannot determine whether the Equality Act has been breached, only a court can do that. The evidence shows the Council has given due regard to the Equality Act in its housing allocations policy. It sets out that some properties have age restrictions and has assessed Miss X’s application in line with the policy. It has also reviewed its policy for its own housing stock to ensure consistency and to best meet the needs of the local population.
31. Miss X is impacted by the age restriction imposed by the main social housing provider in her area of choice, but this has not excluded her from the allocations scheme altogether. Miss X’s housing assessment states a bungalow would be ideal. However, she is assessed as needing a one-bedroom level access property. The Council has advertised a number of one-bedroom flats in Miss X’s area of choice which may have met Miss X’s assessed need. It was open to Miss X to bid for these. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has assessed Miss X’s application or applied its housing allocations policy.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation. There was fault causing injustice which the Council has already remedied.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman