Summary: Miss B complained about the Council’s decision to reduce her housing priority when she refused an offer of accommodation. We find that the Council failed to properly record her reasons for refusing the offer, wrongly reduced her housing priority and failed to properly consider her request for a review of the decision. As a result, Miss B has remained living in unsuitable accommodation and she has suffered significant distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Miss B. It has also agreed to make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains that the Council unreasonably reduced her housing priority when she refused an offer of accommodation which was unsuitable for her mobility needs. She says that as a result of the Council’s actions, she remains living in unsuitable accommodation.

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 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. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Miss B and the Council have 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

7. The Council’s housing allocations scheme sets out the rules for qualifying to join the Housing Register, how applicants are prioritised and how the Council manages the allocation of available properties.
8. The scheme places applicants in a priority band from Band A (highest priority) to Band D (lowest priority).
9. Band A applicants are entitled to refuse one reasonable offer of accommodation. An offer of accommodation will be considered reasonable if the property being offered will meet the housing needs of the applicant. If a final offer is refused, applicants are demoted to Band D for a period of 12 months.

Background and key events

10. Miss B joined the housing register in December 2023.
11. In March 2024, a Council Occupational Therapist assessed Miss B’s mobility needs. The assessment concluded that she needed wheelchair-accessible accommodation on one level, with ramped or level access and accessible bathroom facilities. Due to the urgency of her need for rehousing, the Council increased Miss B’s housing priority to Band A.
12. In June 2024, Miss B successfully bid for a flat. The Council’s offer letter stated that it considered the property suitable and warned that if she refused it, she would lose her Band A priority and would be placed in Band D for 12 months.
13. When Miss B viewed the flat, she found that it was on the first floor and only accessible via a flight of stairs. She considered it unsuitable due to the number of steps, the distance from shops and bus stops and its poor condition. Miss B says that a Council officer present at the viewing agreed that the property was unsuitable and assured her that she would not lose her priority if she did not accept it. Miss B then refused the offer.
14. In September 2024, the Council told Miss B that it had reduced her housing priority from Band A to Band D because she had refused the offer. The letter informed her of her right to request a review within 21 days.
15. Miss B submitted a review request 38 days after the decision, explaining that health issues had prevented her from responding sooner, and she provided supporting medical evidence. Miss B also explained why the property was not suitable for her mobility needs. However, the Council decided not to carry out a review because her request was late.
16. After we asked the Council for information about Miss B’s complaint, it decided that the property offered in June 2024 was not suitable for her mobility needs. It reinstated her Band A priority, and backdated it to 25 March 2024.

Analysis

17. The Council demotes applicants from Band A to Band D if they refuse one suitable offer of accommodation. The Council explains this to applicants when it tells them how much housing priority they have been awarded and when it offers them accommodation. However, I do not consider the allocation scheme clearly explains the consequences of refusing an offer. It states, “Band A applicants are entitled to one refusal of a reasonable offer of accommodation, except those who are homeless or owed a homelessness duty who will have no entitlement to a refusal of a reasonable offer of accommodation.” This suggests applicants who are not homeless have a right to refuse one offer without penalty.
18. The Council selected “dislikes other aspect of property” as Miss B’s reason for rejecting the offer. The Council accepts that the reason was recorded incorrectly and that, had there been no fault here, the refusal would not have counted against Miss B and she would have retained her Band A award.
19. The Council’s allocation scheme allows for review requests to be accepted outside of the 21-day timescale in “exceptional circumstances”. The officer considering Miss B’s request wrongly based her decision on the date the offer was refused, rather than the date of the decision to reduce her housing priority. As a result, the officer considered Miss B’s request was 75 days late, when it was actually 17 days late. The medical evidence Miss B provided related to this shorter period. Had there been no fault by the Council here, I consider it would have been more likely to accept the review request and overturn its decision to reduce her housing priority.
20. While the Council has now accepted that the property was not suitable for Miss B, and it has reinstated and backdated her Band A award, this does not fully remedy the injustice caused. Had Miss B remained in Band A, as she should have done, it is likely that she would have secured suitable accommodation around 12 months ago.
21. I consider Miss B has remained living in unsuitable accommodation as a direct result of the failings identified. This has caused her significant difficulties and distress.

Back to top

Action

22. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Miss B for the failings identified in this case. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance when making the apology.
• Make a payment of £2400 to Miss B. This is a symbolic payment to acknowledge the length of time she has remained in unsuitable accommodation and the distress she has experienced due to the failings identified in this case.

The Council has also agreed to take the following actions within eight weeks of my final decision:

• Remind relevant officers to accurately record the reason applicants have given for refusing offers of accommodation.
• Remind relevant officers that the 21-day timescale for considering reviews starts from the date of the decision, not the date the accommodation was refused.
• Amend its housing allocation scheme to make it clear that all applicants in Band A will be demoted to Band D if they refuse a suitable offer of accommodation.
3. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

24. I have completed my investigation and uphold Miss B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy Miss B’s injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman