Summary: There was no fault in how the Council has dealt with Ms X’s housing situation. It could have explained more fully how it had considered her suggestion that she add her grandmother to her application, and how it could approach any problems with mould. However, overall, it has applied its policy and explained why it cannot depart from this.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council has not dealt with her housing situation properly. In particular she says the Council:
• Has wrongly refused to allow her to add her grandmother to her housing application.
• Has not properly considered the impact of mould in her current property.
• Did not deal with her complaint to it in time, and did not properly address the issues she complained about.
2. Ms X says that the Council’s failings have meant that she risks losing the priority that the time she has accrued on the housing waiting list has applied to her housing application; her health and that of her children and grandmother has been put at risk; and she suffered distress, frustration, and uncertainty.

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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms 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

The law and guidance

7. 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))
8. 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))

9. 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

What happened

10. Ms X’s grandmother is a council tenant. Ms X and her two children live with her grandmother in the property, but are not named on her tenancy.
11. The property has three bedrooms but the layout and size means that is it not suitable for the household. Her children are disabled with developmental conditions, and cannot share a room. The current property has one double and two single bedrooms.
12. Mrs X’s grandmother made a transfer application because she finds it hard to manage the stairs at the property. Separately, Ms X and her children have a housing register application and have been on the housing register for 11 years.
13. The Council’s medical officer assessed how the property was impacting on the health of the disabled children. It decided that one of the bedrooms is very small and this was impacting on one of the children. The Council awarded some additional priority to Ms X’s housing application on this basis. Ms X asked the Council to review this decision because she felt the child needs their own room. Ms X sent the Council medical information but on review, the Council was not persuaded that the child needs their own room. The Council did not alter the priory added to Ms X’s housing application.
14. Ms X had been told by a housing officer that she could add her grandmother to her housing application if she claims carers allowance for her. Ms X cannot claim carer’s allowance for her grandmother as she already receives this for her caring responsibilities elsewhere.
15. The Council has since confirmed that in any case, it cannot add Ms X’s grandmother to her housing application. It has explained that this is because its housing allocations policy treats housing applications separately to transfer applications for existing tenants. Ms X’s grandmother is an existing tenant and so she cannot be part of a housing application. The Council has explained that Ms X’s grandmother can add Ms X and the children to her transfer application.
16. I asked the Council whether it had considered its discretion to depart from the policy and allow Ms X to add her grandmother to her housing application and keep the priority she has built up over 11 years. The Council said that it could not depart from its policy because it would bypass the transfer process and would not be a fair application of the priority banding system. It explained it allocates its stock differently between existing tenants and new applicants.
17. The Council says that even taking the household as a whole, the property is not overcrowded because there is enough room for the two adults and two children. It has assessed that Ms X’s daughter’s health and disability is affected by the property being small and it awarded Ms X some additional priority for this reason.
18. Ms X complained to the Council that it had told her that she could add her grandmother to her housing application, but now it is saying that this cannot be done because Ms X’s grandmother is already a council tenant.
19. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint a month later. It apologised that this was outside its normal timescale. The Council confirmed that it could not add Ms X’s grandmother to the housing application. It did not address that the Council had originally told Ms X that it could do this, nor the circumstances of their particular case, including the medical needs of her grandmother and children and the suitability of the flat.
20. Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two of its process. She said that she understood the policy but she had asked the Council to exercise discretion. Ms X also explained that there was mould in the property and it is affecting the family’s health. Ms X asked the Council again to consider its duties under the Human Rights Act and Equality Act.
21. The Council responded to Ms X’s stage two complaint. It again said that Ms X’s grandmother should add Ms X and the children to her transfer application. The Council said that if the property was affecting her grandmother they could ask the Council to assess this. The Council did not specifically address Ms X’s complaint about mould and damp in the property. It told Ms X to complain to the Ombudsman if she was not satisfied with the response. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman and her solicitor is handling her concerns about mould in the property.
22. In response to my enquiries, the Council has explained that it would not authorise a transfer on the basis of damp or mould and a tenant should contact the repairs team to have mould in the property treated.

Was there fault by the Council causing injustice to Ms X and her family?

23. I cannot say whether the Council told Ms X that she could add her grandmother to her housing application if she claimed carers allowance for her. However, I have no reason to disbelieve Ms X, and it is clear that this was her understanding. This advice was wrong. It may have caused some frustration but I cannot recommend the Council adhere to its original advice if this was wrong and not allowed under its policy.
24. The Council says it cannot allow an existing council tenant to be added to a housing application. This is a reasonable application of its allocations policy.
25. It has explained why it cannot depart from its policy. It has not shown that it considered this at the time and it could have addressed this more explicitly when Ms X asked it to. However, it is clear that this would not have altered the outcome of Ms X’s complaint.
26. The Council invited Ms X to request a medical assessment to see if the property was impacting on the health of her family members. It did not specifically address Ms X’s concerns that mould and damp in the property was affecting their health. The Council has since explained that Ms X should report damp and mould to the repairs team. The Council could find that the damp is so severe, the household is effectively homeless. However, it would need to assess this first and whether it was so severe that it would be unreasonable for the household to stay there. It can do this via a medical assessment if Ms X requests this.
27. Ms X says that the Council has not properly considered that one of her disabled children needs their own bedroom. However, the Council specifically considered this when Ms X asked it to review its decision on how the housing is impacting on the child’s health.
28. Overall, the Council could have given fuller responses to Ms X’s complaints but it did deal with the main issues. Any shortcoming in its responses did not impact significantly on Ms X’s family.
29. Ms X has said that the Council has not considered its duties under the Equality Act and Human Rights Act.
30. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act or the Human Rights Act, as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. 
31. The Council is not proposing that it ignores the medical conditions, disabilities, and vulnerabilities of Ms X’s family members, nor their human rights. It is saying that to be considered as one household, Ms X and her children need to join her grandmother’s transfer application.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman