Summary: The Council is not at fault for requiring Ms X to move to a property the same size as her current one. However, the Council raised Ms X’s expectations when it said it would make her a direct offer of housing after six months. It also wrongly recorded reasons for skipped offers and failed to consider what support Ms X and her child might need. This is fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £700, and take action to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has failed to offer her a suitable property despite accepting in August 2019 that she needs to move as an emergency. In particular she says the Council:

1. Has not offered her a suitable direct let
2. Will only allow her to apply for properties with two bedrooms, which is smaller than she needs
3. Recorded a skipped offer because she did not attend a viewing at a property which she says she was not invited to view

2. Ms X says that the current property is negatively affecting her physical and mental health and the health of one of her children.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I spoke to Ms X about the complaint.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
9. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

10. 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))
11. 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))

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

12. Bidding: The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. This means housing applicants can apply for available properties. This is called bidding. The Council advertises new properties on a weekly cycle.
13. Priority band: The Council places applicants who qualify to join the housing register in a priority band from Band A (highest priority) to Band D (lowest priority). This priority is the first factor the Council uses to allocate a property.
14. Band A: So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band A where a tenant needs to move due to risk of violence. This is sometimes called “emergency band” or “emergency priority”.
15. Bedroom size: The Council’s usual property size rules would make Ms X eligible for a three-bedroom property. However, the Council’s allocations policy says:

“Council tenants placed in Band A due to risk of violence or harassment are allowed to bid for or be offered a property with the same number of bedrooms as their current home.”

16. Direct offer: This is where the Council offers a property directly to a particular applicant instead of advertising it in the weekly bidding cycle.

What happened

17. Ms X is a Council tenant. Her property has one bedroom fewer than she needs. She joined the Housing Register in February 2018. In 2019, Ms X asked the Council to move her urgently. She said she needed to move because she was in fear of violence from her ex-partner. She also said that one of her children had difficulty mobilising in their property, which has steep internal stairs. I shall refer to this child as B. B has a condition which is exacerbated by exertion. Climbing the stairs in their home makes B very short of breath. For people with B’s condition, this can have serious effects.
18. Ms X explained that to manage this, she carries B up the stairs. B is now in early adolescence. Ms X is finding it increasingly difficult to carry B and has problems with her back as a result. Ms X says the stairs are too steep and narrow to be able to install a stairlift.
19. In August 2019, the Council awarded Ms X Band A priority. This is because it accepted she had an urgent need to move. In its letter to Ms X awarding the Band it said that if after six months in the emergency band Ms X had not successfully bid for a property, it would make her a direct offer.
20. Six months later, in February 2020, the Council wrote to Ms X. It said the six month period was ending and so it would start looking for a direct offer for her. It explained that this would be for a two-bedroom, ground floor, level access property and would not be in any of the parts of the Borough it considered not to be safe for Ms X.
21. Meanwhile, Ms X could continue to bid for properties each week.
22. As of May 2021, Ms X remains in her current property.

My findings

Has not offered a suitable direct let

23. In August 2019, the Council accepted Ms X needed to move as an emergency. Its letter said it would make her a direct offer after six months. This created an expectation that Ms X would get an offer of a property after six months.
24. The Council says after six months it starts looking for suitable properties to make a direct offer. It does not guarantee to make an offer after six months. Its letter does not explain this and instead says it “will” make an offer. This is fault. This unnecessarily raised Ms X’s expectations and caused confusion. This is an injustice to Ms X. The Council should pay Ms X £300 to acknowledge this.
25. The Council says it has now changed its letter template to say that applicants “may” get a direct offer after six months. This should help to manage applicants’ expectations in future.

Property size

26. Ms X complains the Council will only allow her to transfer into a two-bedroom property when she needs three-bedrooms.
27. The Council’s allocations policy says emergency transfers will be to an equivalent size property.
28. Households like Ms X’s who move to another property in an emergency transfer but are over-crowded can then have their previous priority band date reinstated and re-join the list for a larger property. This means the need to move in an emergency does not affect the position on the register going forward. In other words, when Ms X moves into another two-bedroom property, her application will return to the band her over-crowding merits, but the application will be back-dated to February 2018.
29. When the Council has followed its own allocations policy, we will not normally find fault. In this case, there is no evidence the Council failed to consider relevant information before applying its emergency transfer policy. Therefore, I find no fault with the Council requiring Ms X to move to a two-bedroom property.

Skipped offers

30. Ms X’s bidding history shows the reason she was unsuccessful for some properties where she placed high on the list. Two of these say under “Bypass reason” that Ms X “did not attend viewing”.
31. In response to my enquires, the Council confirms that Ms X was not invited to view these properties. Rather, applicants with an earlier priority band date accepted offers.
32. The Council has not explained why Ms X’s bidding history records these as “did not attend viewing”. I consider this inaccurate information to be fault. It caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty as she thought she had missed out on properties. The Council should pay Ms X £200 in recognition of this.

Current property

33. Ms X’s current property has internal stairs which cause difficulty for B. Carrying B up the stairs causes Ms X chronic back pain. The Council assessed the family as needing a level access ground floor property.
34. There is no evidence the Council has considered if or how it might support Ms X and B to manage in their current property while waiting for a move. This is fault.
35. As a result, Ms X does not know if there are any aids, adaptations or support she could access to mitigate the impact of the property on her and on B. This is an injustice to Ms X and to B. The Council should pay Ms X £200 in recognition of this avoidable uncertainty.

Back to top

Agreed action

36. To remedy the injustice from the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Ms X in writing.
• pay Ms X £700.
• consider what support Ms X and B need to manage in the current property.
37. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
38. The Council has amended the letter awarding Band A to make it clear that it does not guarantee a direct offer after six months. This is welcome. The Council should also take the following action to further improve its services:
• Ensure officers record a “bypass reason” which accurately reflects the circumstances to avoid causing unnecessary confusion and distress to unsuccessful bidders for social housing.
39. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have completed my investigation. There is fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman