Summary: Miss X complained the Council told her she was eligible for a four-bedroom property but then changed its mind, and she had to pay for two properties. Miss X said this had a significant financial impact and caused distress and frustration. We find the Council at fault and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to remedy this.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council told her she was eligible for a four-bedroom property but then said she was only eligible for a two-bedroom property. She complained she was paying for two properties because the Council put her in temporary accommodation but did not take back her previous social housing, which she still had to pay for.
2. Miss X said there was a significant financial impact of paying council tax for two properties, and she is now in debt. She said it has affected her mental health, and caused unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. As I have said above, we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons.
8. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman in October 2024 about the Council’s decision in January 2024 that she was only eligible for a two-bedroom property. This decision was different from the Council’s previous decision, made in 2022.
9. Miss X thought the Council’s 2024 decision was wrong, which is why she complained to the Ombudsman. This complaint was in time. However, during the investigation it became clear that it was the Council’s 2022 decision that was wrong.
10. Miss X could not have known this in 2022. When she found out, she complained to the Council and then the Ombudsman within good time. Therefore, I consider there are good reasons to exercise our discretion and look back at the Council’s 2022 decision.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered the information and documents provided by Miss X and the Council. I spoke to Miss X about her complaint. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.
12. I considered the relevant policy and procedure, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

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))

The Council’s housing allocations policy

14. The Council’s housing allocations policy sets out different bands according to applicants’ priority. Band one is the highest priority, and it includes emergencies and management transfers.
15. The policy says:

“Applications agreed for a move from social housing due to a management transfer … will be considered for the same size accommodation as they currently occupy.”

The Council’s management transfer procedure

16. The Council’s management transfer procedure says a management transfer is when a tenant is transferred to another property because of “serious anti-social behaviour, nuisance or harassment or where their continued occupation is likely to result in physical harm”.
17. The procedure says management transfer cases are given a higher priority than all other cases. Properties offered to applicants will be on a like for like basis. Applicants can bid for properties.

What happened

18. In 2022, Miss X was living with her family in a two-bedroom property with a secured tenancy. After an incident, for safety reasons, Miss X and her children could not live there anymore. The Council decided to transfer Miss X to another property as a management transfer. The Council told Miss X she was in band one and eligible to bid for a four-bedroom property. The Council placed Miss X in temporary accommodation.
19. In January 2024, the Council told Miss X she was in band one and eligible to bid for two-bedroom properties.
20. Miss X asked for a review. She questioned why the Council had changed its mind from a four-bedroom property to a two-bedroom property. She said when she moved into her original property, she only had two children. She said she now had five children, so a two-bedroom property would be overcrowded. Miss X also said she had to pay bills on her previous property and the temporary accommodation.
21. The Council reviewed its decision. It said it was correct that Miss X should be eligible for a two-bedroom property under the management transfer scheme. This was because management transfers are on a like for like basis.
22. Miss X complained.
23. In its response, the Council said management transfers are to move tenants because their safety is at risk. It said it therefore aims to resolve the safety issue, not deal with overcrowding.
24. The Council said as a management transfer case, Miss X could only move to a like for like property, which is a two-bedroom property. This is because her tenancy at her previous property was for two bedrooms. The Council said once the risk had been removed by rehousing Miss X, she can apply for a larger property through the housing register.
25. The Council said it had assessed Miss X as needing a four-bedroom property. It said this was incorrect because this assessment related to an applicant who is asking to be housed for reasons that are not a management transfer.
26. The Council apologised for this error.

Analysis

Number of bedrooms

27. Miss X complained the Council told her she was eligible for a four-bedroom property but then said she was only eligible for a two-bedroom property.
28. The Council accepts that initially, in 2022, it wrongly assessed Miss X’s management transfer as a homelessness application and therefore assessed her as needing a four-bedroom property because of overcrowding. It said this caused confusion.
29. The Council accepts that in 2022 it should have told Miss X she was eligible for two-bedroom properties because she was on the management transfer list, and this meant she could only get a like for like property. So because she left a two-bedroom property, she was only eligible for a two-bedroom property.
30. The Council’s 2024 decision that Miss X was eligible for a two-bedroom property was in line with its policy and procedure. So, I do not find the Council at fault for telling Miss X in January 2024 that she was eligible for a two-bedroom property because her application was a management transfer.
31. I find the Council at fault for telling Miss X in 2022 that she was eligible for four-bedroom properties. This was not in line with its policy or procedure because Miss X was a management transfer case, not a homeless application.
32. I find this fault caused Miss X injustice because it caused raised expectations and uncertainty. I am satisfied the Council has apologised for the injustice.

Miss X’s previous property

33. Miss X complained she was paying for two properties because the Council put her in temporary accommodation but did not take back her previous social housing, which she still had to pay for.
34. The Council said it does not ask tenants to hand back their property while waiting for a management transfer. It said this would mean terminating the tenant’s secure tenancy, which only happens when they are offered and accept another permanent secure tenancy.
35. I find no fault with the Council for not taking back Miss X’s previous property.
36. Miss X said she had to pay rent and council tax for both properties. I have considered this.
37. Regarding rent, Miss X said her rent for the temporary accommodation was covered in full by housing benefit, so she did not contribute towards this. She said at the same time, she was being charged weekly rent for her previous property. She said this was mostly covered by universal credit but she had to pay a small monthly shortfall.
38. I do not find any injustice to Miss X here. This is because she had to pay the shortfall for her previous property, which is what she would have to pay anyway if she was living in a property with a secured tenancy. And, she did not have to pay towards the temporary accommodation.
39. Regarding council tax, Miss X said she got a reduction in council tax for the temporary accommodation. But she said she had to pay full council tax on her previous property as well. She said this caused debts.
40. The Council said Miss X was liable to pay full council tax for her previous property because she still held a secure tenancy there. This is in line with the law. However, the Council considered Miss X’s case and agreed a financial award which cleared the outstanding council tax balance on her previous property.
41. I find that any injustice to Miss X has been remedied by the Council agreeing a financial award to clear the outstanding council tax balance.

Council advisors

42. Miss X said she had one Council advisor, but they left. After that, the Council told Miss X to contact the manager. She said she then had another advisor, but they left too. She said the Council again told her to contact the manager.
43. There is no fault here. This is because the Council gave Miss X another way to make contact while she did not have an allocated officer. This was appropriate.

Back to top

Action

44. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Miss X of £200. This is to remedy the uncertainty and raised expectations by wrongly telling her she was eligible for a four-bedroom property.
45. In arriving at this figure, I considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies. I have taken into account the level of injustice caused, the impact on Miss X, and the length of time involved. I consider £200 is appropriate and proportionate.
46. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Decision

47. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman