Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly removed him from its housing register when he refused an offer of accommodation in an area he did not select on his application. We find no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to remove him from its housing register when he refused an offer of accommodation. He complains in particular it:

• Said the offer was in an area of his choice, however he did not select the area on his application.
• Said he refused two offers of accommodation, when he actually only made one offer.
• Did not manage his request for a review of its decision in line with its policy.

2. He states the Council’s decision to remove him from its housing register has left his family in a one bedroom flat with his teenage daughter sleeping on a sofa in the living room with no privacy, which has caused distress and frustration.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing Allocation Law and Guidance

8. 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))
9. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:

• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.

10. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
11. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
12. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:

• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

13. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

The Council’s housing allocations policy

14. The Council’s policy states if an applicant refuses a reasonable offer of accommodation within an area of their choice, their application will be removed from the housing register. This is to ensure that the Council is able to prioritise those applicants in most housing need.
15. When an application is removed from the housing register, applicants will be eligible to apply to join again once a period of no less than twelve months has passed.
16. The policy describes applicants’ right of review about decisions that affect their application. It states the review will be undertaken by an officer more senior to the officer who made the original decision and who has not previously been involved with the application. The Council aims to complete all reviews within 56 days of the request. Applicants will be notified of the outcome of the review in writing with reason(s). There will be no further right of appeal against the decision.

What happened

17. Mr X, his wife, and their daughter live in accommodation with one bedroom. Their daughter sleeps on the sofa. In April 2024 he joined the Council’s housing register. He applied for two-bedroom accommodation. The Council placed him in band-three because his family has significant need for housing.
18. In September the Council offered Mr X a property with two bedrooms in Area Y. He visited the property and declined the offer. He told the Council the location was not convenient for his wife because of the distance to where she worked and the nature of her job. He also said it was not convenient for his daughter because of the distance and poor public transport to where she studied.
19. The Council wrote to Mr X and told him his application would be removed from the housing register because he had refused a reasonable offer of accommodation in an area of his choice. It told him how to request a review of the decision.
20. Mr X wrote to the Council and asked it to review its decision and reinstate his application. He explained there was no regular bus service from Area Y to the area his wife works in and the area his daughter goes to college. He also pointed out the letter said he had refused a second offer which was not true, and that it said he lived in an area he did not live in.
21. The Council promptly conducted a review of its decision. It wrote to Mr X and acknowledged errors in its previous letter. It confirmed he had been made one offer, not two. It also confirmed it had referred to him living in an area he did not live in. However, it stated he had refused a reasonable offer in an area of his choice, Area Y. It referred to its policy that if an applicant refuses one reasonable offer in an area of their choice, they would be removed from the housing register. For this reason it upheld its decision to remove Mr X from its housing register
22. In November Mr X wrote to the Council with concerns about its decision and review process. He said he had not selected Area Y on his application. It was therefore not an area of his choice. He also said he thought the review process was incorrect because it seemed the same person that made the original decision had dealt with his review.
23. The Council responded to his concerns. It said he had selected Area Y as an area of choice. It provided a screenshot that it said was of his application. The screenshot showed a list of several areas. Area Y and other areas were highlighted in grey. It also addressed his concern about the review process. It confirmed a second more senior officer had dealt with the review, not the person who made the original decision. It provided the name of both the officers.
24. In December the Council wrote to Mr X. It was following a request he had made for information about his application. It provided him a list of the areas he had selected in his application. Mr X said it was not a list of the areas he selected, it was just a list of all the areas he could have selected.
25. When Mr X complained to the Ombudsman he said he was sure he did not choose Area Y when applying to the housing register. He said he would not have selected Area Y due to the lack of public transport for his wife and daughter to travel to their work and place of education. He explained he was not confident the Council had kept a proper record of the areas he selected. He was also concerned the person that had conducted the review might not have been a neutral person.

Analysis

26. The main reason the Council removed Mr X from its housing register is because it says he refused a reasonable offer of accommodation within an area of his choice. I acknowledge Mr X firmly believes he did not choose Area Y when completing his application.
27. However, the Council has provided digital records of Mr X’s housing application that is evidence Mr X selected all available areas, including Area Y, when making his application.
28. The Council provided further screenshots of its digital records of Mr X’s application and information about the computer system it uses. It explained the list of areas in the screenshots described in paragraph 23 were all selected by Mr X. The grey highlights were a result of the visual design of the computer system and did not signify anything.
29. I have carefully considered this evidence with reference to all Mr X’s comments and concerns. I have also considered the errors in the Council’s letter detailed in paragraphs 20 and 21.
30. Based on the available relevant evidence I have decided it is more likely that Mr X did select Area Y. For this reason, I find no fault with the way the Council made its decision to remove Mr X from its housing register because it was in line with its housing allocation policy detailed in paragraph 14.
31. I have also seen no evidence the same person made the initial decision and considered Mr X's review. For this reason I find no fault in the way the Council decided the review because it was in line with its housing allocation policy detailed in paragraph 16.
32. Because there was no fault in how the Council made its decisions, I cannot question the outcome.

Back to top

Decision

33. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr X’s complaint because I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman