The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We did not find fault with the Council’s decision not to award Miss X a higher priority banding. It considered all the information she provided with her housing application and applied its allocations scheme.
The complaint
Miss X complained about the Council’s decision not to award her a higher priority band on its housing register. She said the Council failed to properly consider her circumstances and apply discretion in reaching its decision.
She said this caused her distress and prevented her moving to a safer location. Miss X would like the Council to award her a higher banding priority.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Miss X and considered the information she provided with her complaint. I considered the information from the Council with relevant law, guidance and policy.
Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Law and guidance Allocations 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)) The Localism Act 2011 introduced new freedoms to allow councils to better manage their waiting list and to tailor their allocation priorities to meet local needs.
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)) Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons: that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation; that the applicant is not a qualifying person; a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9)) 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 scheme The allocations scheme sets out how the Council allocates its social housing. The scheme is to make sure priority is given to those most in need, as defined in legislation and in accordance with local priorities. This is to ensure the Council makes the best use of its housing stock.
The scheme has five priority bands, band one is the highest and five is the lowest. It places applicants in a band according to need. If an applicant qualifies under more than one band they will be awarded the highest priority that anyone of their assessed need is entitled to.
Its allocations scheme sets out some examples of exceptional circumstances when an applicant may be awarded a higher band because of additional exceptional or urgent housing needs. These include: Emergency medical, welfare or disability related needs.
Applicants fleeing domestic abuse who are living in a refuge or similar safe house, or in temporary accommodation recognised by the Council’s homelessness service and have been assessed by a Manchester MARAC or similar multi- agency arrangement as urgently needing to move for safety and security.
The Council says the demand for social homes in Manchester is substantially greater than the number of homes available. It says it is unrealistic for most people to think they will get a social home. Therefore, most people need to consider other housing options.
What happened Miss X applied to join the Council’s housing register in 2020. The Council accepted her application and awarded her Band four priority. She is eligible to bid on properties with a 55+ age restriction, sheltered or retirement properties.
Miss X was unhappy with her banding. She appealed the decision but the Council did not uphold her appeal. It explained she was not awarded medical priority because her medical conditions were long term and did not relate to her accommodation.
Miss X submitted further information in December 2021 and January 2022. This explained why Miss X wanted to move to Manchester and away from the area where she lived because of the domestic abuse she experienced whilst living there. The Council considered the information but it did not change its decision. It acknowledged why Miss X wanted to move to a different area but explained there was no evidence why that had to be Manchester.
In April and May 2022 the Council told Miss X that any further evidence or information to support her case would be welcome and would be reviewed. It said Miss X did not provide any further information.
Miss X was unhappy with the Councils response. She complained and received a response in May 2022. The Council did not uphold her complaint. It explained what information it considered to reach its decision and how it applied its housing allocation scheme.
The Council told Miss X she should discuss her safety concerns with her landlord and the Police if she was unsafe in her property. It said she could consider making a homeless application if it was not safe for her to remain in the property.
Miss X remained unhappy and asked for her complaint to be escalated. The Council gave its final response in June 2022. It upheld its original decision. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman.
My findings
I did not find fault with the way the Council assessed Miss X’s housing application.
We would not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We would not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme.
Miss X applied to join the Council’s register. It considered the information she provided and awarded her Band four. Miss X was unhappy with the decision and appealed but the Council upheld its decision. In its response the Council explained what information it considered to reach its decision.
It explained she did not meet the criteria to award medical priority because her medical conditions were long term and did not relate to her accommodation. It evidenced how it reached its decision and how it applied the relevant section of its allocations policy.
The Council also explained why it did not use its discretion to award her application a higher priority because of domestic abuse. It told her: The domestic abuse you have suffered is historic. We understand that your abuser was jailed for his crime. There was no evidence of any abuse or risk since then and there is no assessed risk at this time.
You received support from your landlord and the Police to put security measures in place at the time.
Neither your landlord nor the Police have any concerns about you continuing to live in your current home.
You had three offers of relocation to a suitable new home which you refused. Any of these properties would have been suitable and would have offered you a new start.
Miss X disputes the final point. She says she did not refuse the offer of three other properties. She says her landlord gave incorrect information to the Council. On balance even if the information about the offers was incorrect, I do not think it would change the decision.
The Council explained how it considered the information and applied its allocations scheme to reach its decision.
I understand Miss X does not agree with the Council’s decision but there was no fault with the way it was made. Therefore, we would not question the professional judgement of the decision maker.
Final decision
I did not find fault with the Council. I completed my investigation.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate I did not investigate Miss X’s complaint that her landlord provided incorrect information to the Council about the property offers it made her. This is a complaint about the landlords actions not the Council. Miss X should complain to the landlord about this.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman