Summary: Mr & Mrs X complain the Council failed to properly deal with repairs they reported about a friend’s council property they stayed in when they were homeless. They also complained the Council failed to give their housing application the correct priority. The repairs issues were outside our jurisdiction. We considered there was no fault in the way the Council decided Mr and Mrs X’s housing priority.

The complaint

1. Mr & Mrs X complain that the Council failed to properly deal with repairs they reported about a friend’s council property they stayed in when they were homeless. They also complained the Council failed to give their housing application the correct priority.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated Mr and Mrs X’s complaint regarding their housing priority. I have not investigated the repairs issues they raised about their friend’s council property. The reasons for this are set out in the last section of this statement.

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 cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 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 spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided. I asked the Council for information and I considered its response to the complaint. I considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s Housing Allocations Policy

7. Section 3.2 of the policy sets out eligibility criteria for joining the Council’s housing register. It states applicants need to be able to show that they have lived in Bristol continuously for two years at the time of their application (or have close family carers who have lived in the city for two years). Alternatively, they may be eligible if their place of work is in Bristol and they are unable to commute to work from their current home.
8. Section 4 sets out how the Council prioritises applications. The policy sets out four bands. Band One is for those with the highest housing needs, Band Four is the lowest.
9. Band One criteria includes tenants who have acute overcrowding – where they have three bedrooms less than required. It also includes applicants who have urgent medical needs. This is defined as someone who has a serious and/or life threatening physical or mental health condition which is related to their current housing. It also includes situations where someone needs to be discharged from hospital but their home is unsuited to their medical needs and the impact would be assessed as severe. Band One is also allowed if the applicant does not fit into one of the specified categories but in the opinion of the Housing Managers, they have an exceptional and urgent need to be rehoused within three months.
10. Band Two priority includes severe overcrowding; where the applicant has two bedrooms less than they need in their present accommodation. It also includes unsatisfactory housing. This is defined as unsanitary or unsatisfactory housing conditions serious enough to pose an immediate threat to the health and welfare of the occupants. Band Two also includes applicants who need one additional bedroom (where there is also a crowding and space hazard). It also includes Homeless applicants.
11. Band Three amongst other things is for applicants who have one bedroom less than they need, but where there is no crowding or space hazard. It also includes some homelessness applicants and some medical and welfare issues.

‘Composite Needs’

12. Where someone has multiple housing needs (in the same band) the Council will backdate their application priority date by six months.
13. If someone has multiple needs that fall between two different bands, the Council will grant them the higher band in addition to backdating their application priority date by six months.

What happened

14. On 3 January 2020 the Council awarded Mr and Mrs X Band 3 housing priority. This reflected their need for an additional bedroom. In a letter they also gave Mr and Mrs X advice on potential homelessness.
15. On 6 February Mrs X provided a letter from a medical professional which evidenced there were additional health and welfare needs associated with Mr and Mrs X’s young son.
16. On 13 February the Council stated Mr and Mrs X’s application remained in Band Three, but with an effective date backdated to 3 July 2019. This reflected that they had two housing needs; an additional bedroom and an accepted health and welfare need. The Council’s letter noted that Mr and Mrs X were living with a friend in a one‑bedroom property, so they did not have their own bedroom. However, before it could grant Band Two, it would need some more information to verify their circumstances. It explained what this was.
17. On 13 March the Council says it received more information. However, the Council needed further verification to establish Mr and Mrs X were eligible for housing and had a local connection. The Council suspended Mr and Mrs X’s ability to bid for properties until it received proof they were eligible.
18. On 26 March, on receipt of more information, the Council re-activated the application and referred the application for Band Two priority on the basis of severe overcrowding and health and welfare needs. Band Two priority was applied to the application on 6 April. The effective date remained the same.
19. Ordinarily, someone on the Council’s housing register is able to bid for properties that they are eligible for and which suit their needs. However, during the COVID‑19 lockdown in 2020, the Council suspended all bidding. It continued to make direct offers to those people in the most need. It explained that it was necessary to suspend bidding because vacant properties became scarce and nearly all housing associations stopped making new properties available.
20. At the end of May, Mrs X questioned asked the Council why his family were not on the direct offer list. He explained his friend’s accommodation was not suitable for his son and he was concerned about this. The Council stated it was only making Direct Offers to people that had current homelessness applications with the homelessness team. It explained Mr and Mrs X did not meet the criteria for a direct offer.
21. Mrs X argued they were legally homeless because the accommodation they had was severely overcrowded and unsuitable for their young child. She threatened to take legal action against the Council. Several councillors also made contact with the housing department.
22. Mr and Mrs X provided a further letter from a medical professional dated 10 June and Mr X complained about the repairs issues and raised concerns about priority. They asked the Council to provide a secure tenancy and compensation for moving and decorating costs. They stated they would then only continue legal action in respect of the issues the repairs caused to the son’s health. They asked why the Council declined to accept a homeless duty towards them. Mr and Mrs X also explained the issues of disrepair at their friend’s property and how this contributed to their concerns, particularly about their son’s health.
23. These contacts and emails from Mr and Mrs X explaining their situation led to a Housing Manager reviewing their case. He responded in writing.
24. The Housing Manager commented that the repairs manager would contact them separately about the repair issues. He explained that their current Band, Band Two, and the backdating of their effective date correctly reflected their acute overcrowding and their health and welfare needs which were primarily associated with their son. The manager recognised the family were effectively homeless and they could present as homeless if they wished to. However, he stated homelessness cases were placed in a lower band for 56 days, after which they were moved up to Band Two. So, he cautioned that treating them as homeless may have a negative impact on their priority rather than improve it. This was because Mr and Mrs X were already in Band Two.
25. The Housing Officer stated in any event that having reviewed their circumstances he had decided to upgrade Mr and Mrs X’s housing priority to Band One, the highest priority band. This was to reflect that they have exceptional need given all their circumstances. The Council kept their original priority date.
26. In June Mr and Mrs X told the Council they were aware of a council property becoming vacant and undergoing refurbishment works. They asked the Council to consider offering this to them as it met their eligibility requirements, and it was near to family for support. The Housing Manager noted their interest but stated it would need to be allocated in line with the Council’s allocation policy.
27. On 6 July 2020 the Council made a direct offer of a property to Mr and Mrs X, which they accepted. I understand the repair works being carried out to the property had to be completed before Mr and Mrs X could move in, and some additional works were needed after they moved in.
28. The Council responded to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint formally after they came to the Ombudsman. In that response the Council acknowledged that the earlier correspondence from the Council should have explained how they could escalate their complaint if they wished to. The Council reminded officers of the need to follow the complaints process. In respect of the complaint handling, the Council upheld the complaint.
29. In respect of the issues regarding Mr and Mrs X’s priority for housing, the Council ran through the banding decisions it made. It explained that during the COVID-19 pandemic it had to make direct offers rather than allow bids. It explained many properties were being let on this basis and this included the direct offer made to Mr and Mrs X in July. The Council stated a last minute repairs issue was necessary to correct a problem identified with their new property. This was only identified once the shower was used. Unfortunately, this led to a ten-day delay in them moving into the property while the issue was resolved.

Was there fault by the Council

30. In addition to their complaint concerning housing priority, Mr and Mrs X were engaged in correspondence with the Council about repairs to their friend’s home which is a council property. I understand that the need for repairs forms the background to issues they raised. However, we cannot investigate the repairs issues themselves. The reasons for this are set out in the last section of this statement.
31. I recognise Mr and Mrs X were dissatisfied with the housing priority they were granted during 2020. However, our role is to consider whether the Council considered the application properly, taking account of the relevant factors and its housing allocations policy. If the Council did consider the situation properly, we cannot act as an appeal body and decide whether we would have made a different decision on the same facts. I have considered the complaint on this basis.
32. The Council originally granted Band Three Priority. This reflected that Mr and Mrs X’s circumstances at that time; that they lacked one bedroom. In March 2020, after validating Mr and Mrs X’s eligibility for the housing register further, the birth of their son and following medical evidence of health and welfare needs, the Council revised the application and granted Band Two. The Council also backdated the priority date by six months to reflect that Mr and Mrs X had multiple housing needs. These decisions are in accordance with the priority criteria in the Council’s policy.
33. I understand Mr and Mrs X considered they should have greater priority due to the condition of the property they were residing in and the repairs needed, particularly in view of their new-born son. However, Band Two of the Council’s policy criteria reflects situations in which households are living in unsatisfactory housing conditions and those with overcrowding where space is an issue. It would also apply if the Council had considered them homeless.
34. When a manager reviewed their application he granted additional priority. However, this does not evidence that Mr and Mrs X’s priority was incorrect previously. The policy allows managers to grant Band One priority in exceptional circumstances by discretion. This discretion was being applied and was the reason for the decision taken here.

Bidding

35. Mr and Mrs X were prevented from bidding from March 2020 until September 2020. This was because the Council ceased all bidding as a result of the COVID‑19 pandemic. I recognise that this was difficult for them, and for other families that were prevented for placing bids when they had good reasons for needing to move into more suitable accommodation. However, I do not consider this represented fault by the Council in what were exceptional circumstances. I note the housing officer accepted, at times, the Council could have better explained the reason for its position. He apologised for this.

Complaint

36. When Mr and Mrs X complained to the housing manager in June, the Council acknowledged that its response ought to have made clear that Mr and Mrs X could ask to escalate their complaint. The Council acknowledged this was not appropriate, apologised and reminded officers of the correct process. However, the officer’s response had reviewed and upgraded Mr and Mrs X’s housing property in response to the representations they made. He had also apologised for inadequate earlier replies to their queries. So, in other respects the response was satisfactory.
37. The complaint process should have been made clear and Mr and Mrs X’s contact in June should have been treated as a Stage One complaint. However, the response to the complaint did properly consider the situation Mr and Mrs X raised and it proposed positive action to help resolve it. This led to a direct offer within four weeks. As a result, overall, I do not consider the complaint response represents fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

38. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

39. We cannot consider the actions of a council when it is acting in its capacity as a landlord. This is because the Housing Ombudsman exists to provide a route for complaints to be made by tenants about their landlord. The Council did not place Mr and Mrs X in temporary accommodation. Rather, Mr and Mrs X moved in, temporarily, with a friend who is a council tenant. As this was not Temporary Accommodation provided by the Council under the Housing Act, the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to consider the repairs aspect of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman