Summary: Miss X complained about the Council changing her priority date on reregistering her housing application under its new Housing Allocations Policy. Miss X said the decision to change her priority date was unfair and put her at a disadvantage when bidding for a new home. We found there was fault by the Council in its handling of Miss X’s application. The Council’s fault had been advantageous for Miss X. In correcting the fault and changing her priority date, the Council had put Miss X in the position she should have been in from the outset. The apology already given by the Council suitably addressed any injustice to Miss X caused by its initial fault in not changing her priority date.

The complaint

1. Miss X said the Council wrongly changed her priority date after reregistering her application under its new housing allocations policy and twice confirming she had kept her original priority date. Miss X said the late change to her priority date was against the Council’s new housing allocations policy and inconsistent with the letter it sent her about reregistering under the new policy.
2. Miss X said the changed priority date disadvantaged her in bidding for a new home and caused distress. Miss X wanted the Council to reinstate her original priority date.

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 a council made its decision. If there was no fault in how a council made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. Where we find fault, we must also consider whether that 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), 26A(1) and 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council and relevant law, policy and guidance. I shared Council information with Miss X. I also gave Miss X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Every local housing authority (council) must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. Councils must make allocations in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
7. 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; and
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others.
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

8. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

The Council’s housing allocation policies

9. The Council had a 2012 Housing Allocations Scheme, which it had amended several times (the Scheme). To join the Council’s housing register under the Scheme, people had to be in housing need and either:

• have a local connection with Arun district, or
• come within a reasonable preference category (see paragraph 7).

10. Under the Scheme, in summary, ‘local connection’ concerned the time a housing applicant had lived and or worked in Arun district. For example, applicants living permanently in Arun district for at least five years immediately before applying to join the housing register had a local connection.
11. The Scheme defined ‘housing need’ on criteria set out in Priority Bands A, B and C, which included the reasonable preference categories. Each Band was split into categories. For example, Band A1, Band B1 and Band C1 generally concerned housing need linked to medical conditions. The Scheme placed applicants given reasonable preference on medical or welfare grounds, including disability, but without a local connection in Band C1. The Scheme placed homeless applicants given reasonable preference within Bands B and C.
12. Under the Scheme, applicants joining the housing register received a registration or ‘priority’ date. Generally, the registration date was the date the Council received the successful housing application. However, the registration date for homeless applicants could be earlier. This was where the Council accepted its full duty to accommodate the homeless person in line with homelessness legislation before receiving a housing application. The registration/priority date allowed the Council to set the priority order for applicants in the same Priority Band.
13. The Scheme was a ‘choice-based lettings’ scheme which meant housing applicants bid for available properties advertised by the Council. Using the priority order (see paragraph 12), the Council normally offered a property to the applicant at the top of the list.
14. In 2024, the Council replaced the Scheme with its Housing Allocations Policy (the Policy). Subject to listed exemptions, the Policy said people needed a local connection to join the housing register. The Policy defined ‘local connection’ differently to the Scheme. For example, applicants living permanently in Arun district for a least three years immediately before applying to join the housing register had a local connection.
15. The Policy contained Priority Bands A, B, C and D and the reasonable preference categories (see paragraph 7). The Policy said, where people met more than one reasonable preference category, the highest priority band applied. The Policy also split each band into categories. Bands A1, B1 and C1 all generally concerned housing need linked to medical/health and welfare conditions. The detailed wording of Priority Band B1 differed from that of the Scheme’s Band B1.
16. The Policy placed applicants with no local connection but given a reasonable preference to move on medical or welfare grounds, including disability, in Band C1. The Policy placed homeless applicants given reasonable preference in Bands A, B and C.
17. The Policy said the Council aimed to both register applications and process any change in circumstances within 14 working days. And, if a change of circumstances led to an applicant moving into a higher Priority Band, their priority date would be the date they were accepted into the higher band. The Policy said applicants would receive written confirmation of their registration date, priority status and reasons for it, and the property size they could bid for. The Policy set out how people could appeal if they disagreed, for example, with their priority band.

What happened

18. Miss X joined the Council’s housing register under the Scheme. Miss X did not have a local connection under the Scheme. The Council assessed Miss X’s application as Band C1 priority, recognising she had a reasonable preference on medical/welfare grounds. While on the register, Miss X asked the Council to give her application Band B priority and provided more information about her family’s health and medical circumstances. The Council said it could not give her Band B priority as she did not have a local connection under the Scheme.
19. In 2024, the Council wrote to people, including Miss X, on its housing register and asked them to reregister under the Policy. Miss X pointed to the Council’s letter saying reregistration would not disadvantage applicants and their housing need and priority date would remain unchanged. The Council’s letter also said an applicant’s ‘banding may have changed’ under the Policy.
20. When the Council published the Policy, Miss X had permanently lived in the Arun district for three but not five years. Miss X therefore had a ‘local connection’ under the Policy.
21. The Council assessed Miss X’s reregistration application and found she now had a local connection under the Policy. And, after reviewing all the information it held, the Council placed Miss X’s application in Band B1 (medical). The Council wrote to Miss X to tell of her of its decision and that her priority date was unchanged. This meant Miss X’s priority date remained the date she joined the housing register under the Scheme.
22. Miss X wrote to the Council saying she considered her application should have Band A priority. The Council replied saying Band B was correct. It referred to Miss X’s priority date as the date she joined the housing register under the Scheme.
23. Soon afterwards the Council wrote again to Miss X and said it had amended her priority date. The Council said Miss X only met the local connection criteria when it introduced the Policy. Miss X’s priority date for Band B1 was therefore the date the Policy replaced the Scheme.
24. Miss X complained to the Council. Miss X said the Council had twice confirmed her priority date under the Policy remained the same as that under the Scheme. It could not change her priority date once 14 working days had passed since it confirmed her reregistration under the Policy (see paragraph 17). The late change to the priority date was therefore not in line with the Policy. Miss X also pointed to the Council’s reregistration letter which said applicants would not be disadvantaged. Miss X said she had been disadvantaged as when bidding for properties she had slipped down the selection list since the Council changed her priority date. Miss X said she had disabled children and the Council was treating her unfairly because she had asked it to review her priority banding. Miss X asked the Council to reinstate her original priority date.
25. The Council accepted that, while moving Miss X to a higher Priority Band, it had not changed her priority date on reregistering her application or responding to her later asking for Band A priority. However, it had noticed its failure to comply with the Policy, which said, on moving to a higher Priority Band, a priority date changed to the date of that move (see paragraph 17). The Council said introduction of the Policy was the earliest date Miss X had a Band B medical housing need and local connection. The Council said it had had due regard to her family’s disabilities, awarding her application reasonable preference based on need. The Council apologised for its earlier error and any distress caused by the changed priority date but said it had to accurately apply the Policy in fairness to all applicants.
26. Miss X’s complaint also questioned how the Council had dealt with priority dates for other applicants that moved Priority Bands on reregistering under the Policy. Miss X said she was aware of many applicants moving to higher priority Bands but keeping their Scheme priority date. And, during the complaint procedure, Miss X made a freedom of information request about such cases. Miss X then said the Council had allowed 101 applicants to keep their Scheme priority date when moving to a higher Priority Band under the Policy.
27. The Council’s position was the 101 cases largely concerned homeless applicants. The Policy gave homeless applicants greater priority than the Scheme. Homeless applicants therefore moved to higher bands although their individual circumstances and housing needs had not changed. Such applicants therefore kept their Scheme priority date. Other applicants kept their original priority dates because it had made an error processing their application under the Scheme. This meant they had had the wrong Priority Band under the Scheme. In correcting the error on reregistering their applications under the Policy, they kept their Scheme priority date.
28. Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. Miss X referred to the time it took the Council to change her priority date after reregistering her application and the resulting unfairness. Miss X also pointed to the other applicants moved to a higher priority band without the Council changing their priority date. Miss X said she had not provided any further medical evidence on reregistering under the Policy. The Council could not therefore have ‘reassessed’ her application on moving her to Priority Band B. Therefore, the Council should not have changed her priority date.

A summary of what the Council told the Ombudsman

29. The Council said it had asked its officers to review all case information when reregistering applications under the Policy. The aim was to ensure the correct assessment of all applications. It gave its officers autonomy in applying the Policy. And, an officer’s assessment of medical information involved subjective judgement, which was why the Policy included review and appeal rights.
30. Its officers had assessed Miss X’s medical evidence under the Scheme. And it had told Miss X that, even with a local connection, her application did not meet the criteria for a Band B priority on medical grounds. The officer reregistering Miss X’s application under the Policy reached a different view on the same medical evidence. The officers did not notice that Miss X had not had a local connection under the Scheme. So, in awarding Miss X Band B priority under the Policy, it had kept her Scheme priority date. This error was again overlooked when it responded to Miss X’s request that her application have Band A priority. Miss X had then emailed some medical information. And, on then further considering her application, another officer had realised an error had been made on reregistering Miss X’s application under the Policy.

Consideration

Introduction

31. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. And our role is not to ask whether a council could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot question its decision regardless of how strongly a complainant may disagree with that decision.
32. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did. Here, I was aware of Miss X’s concerns about the Council reregistering other applicants under the Policy but not changing their Scheme priority date. However, my focus was on how the Council handled reregistration of Miss X’s application under the Policy.

The priority date for Miss X’s application

33. Miss X had been accepted onto the Council’s housing register because, while lacking a local connection, she had reasonable preference on medical grounds. The Scheme placed such applicants in Band C1 regardless of the extent of their medical housing needs. Once applicants had a local connection, under the Scheme and depending on their specific medical housing needs, they could also be placed in Band A1 or Band B1.
34. The Policy reduced from five to three years the time an applicant had to live permanently in Arun district to have a local connection. If the Policy had not included that reduction to three years, Miss X would have remained without a local connection. And, regardless of the housing needs of Miss X and her family on medical grounds, she would have been reregistered with Band C priority under the Policy.
35. However, with the Policy’s reduction to three years, Miss X then met the criteria for a local connection. Her circumstances therefore changed. And, as with the Scheme, a local connection meant Miss X could, depending on the extent of her medical housing needs, be placed in Band A1, Band B1 or Band C1 under the Policy. The Council in reregistering Miss X’s application and considering her medical housing needs against the Policy’s changed wording for Band B1, moved her to Band B1. That change of circumstances and move to Band B1 needed a change to Miss X’s priority date under the Policy. And, under the Policy, the new priority date would be the date Miss X had a local connection and could move into Band B1. And that was the date the Council published the Policy.
36. However, the Council did not change Miss X’s priority date when reregistering her application under the Policy. This was fault. The fault was of benefit to Miss X as the Council used priority dates in its selection lists within Band B for applicants bidding on available properties. I therefore did not find the Council’s fault caused Miss X significant injustice.
37. It is regrettable the Council did not immediately reregister Miss X’s application with a new and correct priority date. But, once it spotted its error, the Council acted quickly to put matters right and correct the priority date. I found no fault here.
38. I recognised the Council corrected the fault more than 14 working days after confirming Miss X’s reregistration under the Policy. The 14 working days in the Policy was a time target the Council placed on itself for registering applications and dealing with changes to applicants’ circumstances. The Policy says the ‘aim’ was to process changes in 14 working days. The time scale was not a mandatory legal date and did not prevent the Council from making decisions or correcting wrongly made decisions after 14 working days. I found no fault in the Council correcting its error more than 14 working days after reregistering Miss X’s housing application under the Policy.
39. Unfortunately for Miss X, correcting the priority date meant she slipped down the selection list within Priority Band B1 when bidding for properties under the Policy. However, the correction put Miss X in the position she should have been in from the date of her reregistration. Miss X had pointed to the Council’s letter saying reregistering under the Policy would not ‘disadvantage’ applicants as they would be assessed with the same housing need and priority date. I therefore recognised why Miss X would likely have been upset and frustrated and so complain when, after reregistering her application, the Council later changed her priority date.
40. However, I did not find Miss X was disadvantaged. Rather, Miss X gained a higher, Band B, priority under the Policy having had a Band C priority under the Scheme. The Band B priority did not arise, and could not arise, without Miss X having a local connection with Arun district. As explained in paragraph 35, Miss X achieved a local connection on introduction of the Policy with its changed local connection criteria. And, in line with the Policy, achieving a local connection and moving to Band B needed a new priority date. Here, that was the date the Council introduced the Policy. I found no fault in the Council’s decision to change Miss X’s priority date to June 2024.
41. I further found the apology already given by the Council suitably addressed any injustice caused by its overall handling of the reregistration of Miss X’s application under the Policy.

Back to top

Decision

42. I found fault causing injustice, which the Council had already acted to remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman