The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to allocate her and her children a property and improperly lowered her housing band priority status on several occasions. She said this situation caused her and family distress and upset. There was fault when the Council reduced Miss X’s housing priority band status incorrectly. There is no evidence this fault negatively affected Miss X.
The complaint
Miss X complained the Council failed to allocate her and her children appropriate housing and has incorrectly lowered her housing band priority status several times.
She said the Council’s actions have caused her and her family distress and upset.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided. This included the Council’s chronological summary of the medical information supplied by Miss X, the Council’s housing bid records and email correspondence between Miss X and the Council.
I wrote to Miss X and the Council with my draft decision and gave both the opportunity to comment before I made my final decision.
Law and the Council’s Allocation Scheme 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)) Applicants who are eligible for housing will have their housing need assessed based upon their circumstances.
Applicants are placed in one of four priority bands from Band 1 the most urgent banding to Band 4, the least urgent.
What happened In 2016, Miss X and her young children became homeless. The Council placed them in temporary accommodation and awarded Miss X Band 2 priority on its housing register. In 2017 the Council offered Miss X a property, but she found it unsuitable and did not accept it.
Miss X wrote to the Council in April 2020 to complain about her living conditions. She provided a supporting letter from her GP describing her mental health and asked the Council to place her in Band 1. She sent further information to the Council including letters from her children’s school.
The Council acknowledged that Miss X’s mental health was poor but said this did not qualify her to move to a higher banding. The Council also said the evidence Miss X supplied regarding the condition of her home related to a previous accommodation she no longer lived in.
Miss X continued to contact the Council requesting a higher housing band. The Council’s housing options service re-assessed Miss X’s housing application and wrote to her on 3 March 2021 to inform her she did not qualify for higher priority banding.
Miss X complained about the decision. She said the Council failed to properly consider the medical information she had provided and was penalising her for refusing a property in 2017. She also complained the Council placed her in Band 3 each time it moved her to another property.
The Council investigated and wrote to Miss X and agreed it had briefly placed her in Band 3 in November 2020, January, and June 2021 when she had moved locations but rectified the error on each occasion within a few weeks.
The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint on 6 April 2021. The Council confirmed she did not meet the criteria to qualify for higher banding and suggesting alternative housing she could consider.
Miss X complained to the Council on 17 August 2021 to advise she had been placed in Band 3 again. The Council wrote to Miss X the following day to apologise and explain it had placed her back in Band 2. The Council said it had communicated with its accommodations team to ensure this did not happen again.
Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman as she was unhappy with the Council’s actions.
In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council confirmed it has not awarded any Band 2 applicants with a property which met Miss X’s requirements since 2017. The Council said Miss X has provided records showing she has repeatedly bid for four-bedroom properties and has not been successful as these properties are in high demand. The Council said it has given Miss X advice on how to increase her chances of successfully bidding on a property.
Findings
Miss X complained the Council has failed to provide her and her family with suitable housing. The Council has provided evidence showing Miss X has had the opportunity to bid on properties that meet her requirements in line with her banding. I can appreciate Miss X is unhappy her bids have been unsuccessful, but this is not the fault of the Council. Properties which meet Miss X’s requirements are in high demand. I can see the Council has given Miss X advice regarding other housing options available to her. There is no fault with the Council’s actions.
Miss X has also complained the Council did not properly consider the medical information she provided. The Council has provided a summary of the information Miss X has supplied and the reasons it did not move her to a higher banding. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a decision the Council has correctly made. There is no evidence the Council has acted with fault when it made its decision.
Miss X has complained the Council has moved her into a lower priority band several times. The Council has conceded this happened due to an admin error. This is fault. The Council has confirmed it corrected the issue quickly and has provided feedback to the relevant department to ensure it does not happen again. The Council has also confirmed the issue did not disadvantage Miss X. Whilst I can understand that this part of the complaint is likely to have caused Miss X inconvenience, I do not consider the fault caused a significant injustice to her.
Final decision
The Council was at fault for placing Miss X in the wrong priority banding on multiple occasions. There is no evidence this caused Miss X a significant injustice. I have completed the investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman