The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to increase her banding on the housing register. The Council considered Mrs X’s requests in line with its allocations policy without fault.
The complaint
Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to increase her priority on the housing register.
Mrs X says she and her family remain in an overcrowded property which is causing distress.
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 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) 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 considered Mrs X’s complaint.
I considered information from the Council including its housing allocations policy.
Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Housing allocations Relevant law 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)) 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)) 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 allocations policy The Council has a Housing Allocations Policy which explains the rules and procedures which determine how it allocates housing properties.
All qualifying households are placed into one of three bands. Band one have the most urgent housing need and those in band two have a higher need than those in band three. If circumstances change applicants can apply to move up a band.
The parts of the banding scheme relevant to this complaint are: Band one includes tenants whose homes are assessed as being statutorily or critically overcrowded and those whose housing conditions are having a seriously adverse effect on the physical or mental health of either the applicant or a member of their household.
Band two includes tenants whose homes are deemed to be severely overcrowded (short of two or more bedrooms of their assessed need) and those whose housing conditions are having a negative effect on the physical or mental health of the applicant or a member of their household.
Band three includes those who are living in overcrowded conditions (one bedroom short of their assessed need).
The section of the policy relevant to this complaint is bedroom entitlement. The policy explains that the Council has rules which determine the size of accommodation applicants are eligible to apply for.
When determining how many bedrooms a family is eligible for, the Council uses the following criteria: A separate bedroom is allocated to: Each married or cohabiting couple or single parent Any other person aged 21 years or more Each pair of children of either sex under 10 years Each pair of children of the same sex under 21 years Any person who cannot be paired.
Exceptions to the above includes recommendations from appropriate professionals that a separate bedroom is required.
Under legal rules, bedrooms, living rooms, dining rooms and box rooms all count as rooms people can sleep in.
What happened Mrs X lives in a two bedroomed house with her husband and four children. Her four children consist of a boy and girl under 10 years of age and a boy and girl who are over 10 years old but under 21.
The Council placed Mrs X into band three of the housing register in 2022 with eligibility to apply for 3 bedroom properties as they are currently overcrowded and lacking the additional bedroom.
Records show a family support worker wrote to the Council in January 2023 raising concerns that Mrs X and the family were living in overcrowded accommodation.
In October 2023 a doctor wrote to the Council on behalf of Mrs X requesting it increase their banding priority. The letter said the children were struggling in such a small space which was affecting their mental wellbeing.
The Council responded to the medical evidence in November 2023. It said it had considered the doctor’s letter and its allocations policy but said the information did not warrant a change in banding and they remained in band three. The letter contained Mrs X’s right to ask for a review.
Mrs X also wrote to the Council about her husband who was suffering from back problems due to the sleeping conditions. The Council responded to this in January 2024 and said Mrs X’s husband did not meet the criteria to increase banding and confirmed it had received no supporting evidence. It said adult social care would arrange an Occupational Therapist assessment of his mobility and once it had received a report it would reassess whether to increase the banding. The letter confirmed Mrs X’s right of review.
Mrs X formally complained to the Council in December 2023 about its decision not to increase the family’s banding to either band two or one. She said it was unlawful for her eldest children who are of the opposite sex to share a bedroom. She said the current property did not meet the family’s needs. She said her husband was off work with back pain caused by the poor sleeping arrangements.
The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint in January 2024. It said it had carried out an overcrowding assessment in 2021 and found the property was not statutorily overcrowded. It said it is not unlawful for children of the opposite sex over 10 years of age to share a bedroom. The Council was satisfied it had applied its allocations policy correctly. With regards to the medical issues, the Council referred to its letter which found her children’s mental health issues did not meet the criteria for a health award.
The Council accepted Mrs X had been waiting for several years to move home however its demand for housing outstrips supply. It confirmed a number of families were in higher bands than Mrs X.
Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to us.
My findings
The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. The Ombudsman also recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.
Mrs X is in band three of the housing register to move to a three bedroom house. She sent in medical information about both her children and her husband which said this was caused by poor living conditions. The Council on both occasions decided not increase the banding. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered the medical information. In addition, both of these decisions came with a right of review and it was open to Mrs X to use these rights.
The second issue is around bedroom entitlement. Mrs X has a spouse and four children. In line with the Council’s policy it is reasonable for the two girls and two boys to both share a bedroom and it is also reasonable for Mrs X and her husband to use the living room as a bedroom. The Council accept the family need a 3 bedroom house however as it is not statutorily overcrowded there is no requirement to increase the banding. The Council is not at fault.
Final decision
I completed this investigation as I found no fault.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman