Summary: Ms X complained about the priority the Council gave her on its social housing register. There was fault at some stages of the decision-making process, but this did not affect the final outcome or cause Ms X any injustice. The Council should issue reminders to relevant staff and review how it identifies and manages possible conflicts of interest, to prevent similar fault in future.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the priority she was given under the Council’s social housing allocation scheme. She says the organisation that made that decision on behalf of the Council:
• did not properly consider all the issues it should have when making its decision; and
• wrongly refused to increase her priority under the scheme.
2. As a result, Ms X says she and her child are living in unsuitable accommodation and their mental health has been affected. She wants the Council to give her increased priority so she can move home.

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. 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. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended).
6. 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.
7. 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

8. I considered evidence provided by the Council and Ms X as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Ms X, the Council and Ms X’s landlord 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 allocations

10. 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))
11. 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))

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 / a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

Council’s allocations scheme

14. The Council is a partner in a local choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which are advertised. The local choice-based letting scheme is a partnership between the Council and several local social landlords. The Council has agreed with the Partnership that the partner landlords manage and decide housing register applications on behalf of the Council.
15. In this decision I refer to that partnership as ‘the Partnership' and Ms X’s landlord, who is a member of the partnership, as ‘her/the Landlord’.
16. The Council’s allocation scheme assigns priority to applicants through different “bands”.
17. For people who need to move for medical, health or welfare reasons, the scheme says the following bands apply:
• Gold band – where the applicant’s current home has a direct impact or serious compromises a medically diagnosed health/wellbeing condition where moving would remove or significantly improve that impact.
• Silver band – where the applicant’s current home has a detrimental impact or is compromising a diagnosed health/wellbeing condition where moving would remove of improve the impact.
18. The Partnership operates a two-stage review process for housing register decisions, including someone’s banding or priority:
• Stage one – a review carried out by a senior officer of the partner landlord responsible for the person’s housing application, who has not been involved in the original decision.
• Stage two – a review by two senior officers from members of the Partnership who produce a report with recommendations within 56 days of the request for a stage two review. After sharing the report with the partner landlord responsible for the person’s housing application, the partner landlord should send the decision to the person within seven days. The stage two review is decided based on written submissions and documents, though the panel can have a conversation or meeting with the applicant if they decide they need to.

What happened

19. Ms X joined the Council’s housing register several years ago. Ms X’s housing application is managed by her Landlord.
20. In mid-2021 the Landlord gave Ms X silver band on health/welfare grounds.
21. Ms X asked for an increase to gold band. The Landlord asked Ms X to complete a health questionnaire which she returned in late 2023, with some medical evidence.
22. In the questionnaire, Ms X explained that her relationship with the Landlord, how it was managing her tenancy and the conduct of some of its staff were impacting both her and her child’s mental health. She also explained several physical health conditions she had. Ms X said the ongoing relationship with her Landlord and its conduct meant she now had a greater need to move.
23. The Landlord considered Ms X’s request and decided the evidence she had provided did not meet the requirements for gold band priority. In its decision the Landlord noted the medical evidence Ms X had provided did not show a connection between her current home and her health conditions.
24. Ms X asked the Landlord to review its decision in late 2023. She explained why she disagreed with the decision and provided more information about why she felt the ongoing relationship with her Landlord was affecting her and her child.
25. In early 2024 the Landlord upheld its original decision that Ms X did not qualify for gold band. In its review decision the Landlord explained:
• the evidence Ms X had provided about the impact of her homes on her child’s health conditions was several years old and referred to their former home;
• it could not take into account any dispute Ms X had with the Landlord (in connection with management of her current tenancy);
• the physical health conditions Ms X had were not related to her current home and would remain even if she moved;
• there was no evidence to show that Ms X’s current property was directly impacting or seriously compromising her health/wellbeing; and
• based on all the information it had considered Ms X correctly had silver band priority.
26. Ms X asked for a stage two review around a few weeks later. Again, Ms X explained the reasons she believed she should have greater priority. She also provided a letter from her GP supporting her application to move.
27. The Partnership arranged a stage two panel around a month later, made up of two officers from different partner landlords. The panel considered the evidence Ms X had provided in her original request, her review requests and the medical evidence she had provided.
28. The panel decided that Ms X’s silver band priority was correct. In its report the panel:
• acknowledged Ms X had ongoing disputes with her Landlord, and that this might create a conflict of interest as the Landlord was also dealing with her housing application;
• acknowledged that Ms X’s child experienced childhood trauma, but there was no evidence showing the link between Ms X’s current home to any difficulties her child was experiencing;
• agreed that Ms X had a need to move on health/wellbeing grounds, but that this only met the criteria for silver band priority; and
• recommended that Ms X’s housing register application be moved to a different partner landlord.
• explained that there was no medical evidence linking Ms X’s current home with her or her son’s health conditions.
29. The Landlord sent Ms X its decision, based on the stage two panel report around a month later. In its letter the Landlord offered to transfer Ms X’s housing application to a different partner landlord.

My findings

30. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide what priority for housing Ms X should have; that is the Council’s decision (in this case, through the Partnership and partner landlords) to make. Our role is to consider whether the Council, and Partnership/partner landlords have made those decisions properly. If there was no fault in how those decisions were made, we cannot question the outcome.

The Landlord’s decision in late 2023

31. There was no fault in how the Landlord made its 2023 decision about Ms X’s priority. It clearly considered all the information Ms X had provided at that point and the Council’s allocations scheme. It also explained its reasons for its decision in its letter to Ms X.
32. I appreciate Ms X disagrees with the decision the Landlord made. Since there was no fault with how the Landlord made that decision, I cannot question the outcome.

The stage one review by the Landlord

33. I do consider there was some fault with how the Landlord carried out the stage one review, but I do not consider this affected the outcome.
34. In its stage one review decision the Landlord said it was “unable to take into consideration any dispute that [Ms X] may be having with [her] landlord”. There is nothing in the allocation or review scheme which limits the types of evidence or factors which partner landlords can consider as part of their decisions. In this case the relationship and dispute with Ms X’s landlord had some relevance to her complaint, since she had claimed this was impacting her health. Therefore, I consider the Landlord’s failure to consider was fault.
35. However, I do not consider that made a difference to the final outcome. The medical evidence Ms X provided with her stage one review request did not show any link between Ms X’s current home, including the relationship with her landlord, and her health conditions. Had the Landlord considered the information about the ongoing disputes, it is likely it would have reached the same decision.
36. In any case, although the Landlord did not consider the disputes with Ms X’s landlord, the stage two panel did consider this.

The stage two review by the Partnership

37. There was no fault in how the Partnership considered the stage two review. It clearly considered all the evidence and points Ms X raised in her review and explained the reasons for its decision.
38. There is no evidence Ms X asked for an opportunity to meet with the panel as part of her review. Ms X was able to clearly explain her reasons for wanting to move in writing and panel clearly decided it did not believe it needed to speak with Ms X.
39. The Council accepts that there was a slight delay in sending the stage two panel report to Ms X’s landlord, who then forwarded it to her within seven days of receiving it. Since Ms X received the stage two decision within the overall maximum timescale for the stage two review process, I do not consider that delay was fault.

Other issues

40. In its response to my enquiries the Council said the Partnership does not have any process to identify potential conflicts of interest in cases similar to this. While conflicts of interest are likely to be rare, I consider a lack of a process to identify such cases is fault. The Council has said it will raise this at a meeting of the Partnership with a view to developing such a process. That is a suitable service improvement which I have adopted below.

Back to top

Action

41. When a council commissions or arranges for another organisation to provide services we treat actions taken by or on behalf of that organisation as actions taken on behalf of the council and in the exercise of the council’s functions. Where we find fault with the actions of the service provider, we can make recommendations to the council alone. Here we have found fault with the actions of the Partnership and make the following recommendations to the Council.
42. Within three months of my final decision the Council should:
• ensure a reminder is issued to all staff making housing register decisions on its behalf, that they should consider and weigh all relevant evidence when making decisions, including on review/appeal; and
• review how the Partnership identifies and manages potential conflicts of interest where a member of the Partnership is both the landlord of a resident, and also responsible for making decisions about their housing register application. The Council should ensure there is a suitable policy and procedure in place to ensure potential conflicts are identified and managed appropriately.
43. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

44. I find fault not causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to prevent similar fault and potential injustice in future.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman