Summary: Mr C complained about the way the dealt with several housing related matters. He says the Council failed to award him the appropriate priority on the housing register. We find the Council was at fault because it delayed dealing with Mr C’s housing application. It also placed it him in the wrong priority housing band. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Mr C complained about the way the Council dealt with several housing related matters. He says the Council failed to award him the appropriate priority on the housing register.
2. Mr C also complained the Council wrongly advertised the property he lives in, and it failed to deal with anti-social behaviour and harassment from his neighbour.
3. Mr C says the matter has caused distress, upset, and has severely impacted his health.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated Mr C’s complaint as outlined in paragraph one above. I have not investigated his complaints in paragraph two for the reasons explained at the end of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. 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)
7. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
8. 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

9. I considered information Mr C submitted with his complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
10. Mr C 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

The Council’s housing allocation scheme

11. The Council’s housing allocation scheme sets out how it will prioritise applications for people who apply and for those who should be given reasonable preference for housing. Reasonable preference may be given if someone is living in overcrowded or unsanitary housing.
12. Eligible applicants are placed in one of the four priority bands to reflect their level of housing need. Band 1 is the highest priority and Band 4 is the lowest.
13. Applicants who are one bedroom short will be granted reasonable preference and will be placed in Band 3. Applicants who are two bedrooms short will be placed in Band 3.
14. Housing applicants can ask the Council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

What happened

15. Mr C and his wife moved into a Council owned property in January 2018. His wife was heavily pregnant. There is a separate bedroom in the property, but Mr C says it is very small.
16. The Council amended Mr C’s priority banding to Band 3 overcrowding a few months later because of the arrival of his son.
17. Mr C submitted a housing application the following year and said, among other things, that he was living in an overcrowded property. A contractor came to measure the property on 19 September 2019. The contractor told Mr C he was living in a bedsit and not a one-bedroom flat.
18. Mr C sent the Council a further housing application the following day. He said he was living in unfit conditions, he was suffering from hardship, he had an exceptional and medical need to move, and he was living in an overcrowded property.
19. Mr C called the Council on 24 October and chased for an update. The Council apologised for the delay and said it could not provide a timescale of when it would review his application
20. The Council reviewed Mr C’s application on 3 June 2020. It wrote to him and said he would remain in Band 3 overcrowding, and he was eligible to bid for two-bedroom properties.
21. Mr C emailed the Council on the same day and explained he did not have enough space in the property. He also said it should amend his priority banding because he was dealing with threatening behaviour from his neighbour. The Council responded on 11 June and said its housing officers had been dealing with the anti-social behaviour issues. It also said there was a high demand for social housing and so he could consider renting privately or moving into a housing association property.
22. Mr C complained to the Council on 23 July about the failure to amend his priority banding. He said he was living in a bedsit and not a one-bedroom property.
23. The Council reviewed Mr C’s case on 5 August and asked him for more information. It said he had not provided any information to support that he was living in unfit conditions, that he had an exceptional need to move or that he was suffering from hardship. It also said if he wanted to apply for a medical award, he needed to submit a medical practitioners report.
24. The Council responded to Mr C’s complaint. It apologised for the delay in reviewing his application and said it was because of the high volumes of applications it had received. It explained the procedure for an immediate transfer can only be made by the police if they believe a tenant is in danger of serious physical harm if they were to remain in a property. It said it had not received a request from the police, and therefore he did not meet the criteria for an immediate move.
25. Mr C emailed the Council on 25 August and asked it to review his complaint. He sent the Council further emails on 27 August with pictures of his living conditions.
26. The Council reviewed the information Mr C had provided on 11 November. It noted he had not provided any evidence to support his application.
27. The Council also responded to Mr C’s complaint on the same day. It said it had reviewed his file, but his housing priority remained the same.
28. Mr C responded the following day and said the main issue was that he was living in a bedsit and not a one-bedroom property. He said the Council had failed to consider that part of his case.
29. The Council issued its final response to Mr C’s complaint on 20 January 2021. It said although Mr C is living in a studio/bedsit property, it is considered to be one bedroom accommodation in line with its housing allocation scheme.
30. Mr C remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

31. The Council said in response to Mr C’s complaint that a studio/bedsit property is classed as a one-bedroom property and this in line with its housing allocation scheme. I have checked the Council’s housing allocation scheme and there is no reference to studio or bedsit properties. Therefore, the Council provided inaccurate information to Mr C, which is fault.
32. When the Council responded to my enquiries, it accepted its housing allocation scheme is silent in relation to the allocation and assessment of bedsit and studio accommodation. It says it will amend its housing allocation scheme and the 12-week statutory consultation will start in November 2021. It will publish the new housing allocation scheme next summer (2022).
33. The Council has now increased Mr C’s housing priority to Band 2 overcrowding, with an award date of 5 August 2020.
34. We would normally expect councils to deal with housing applications in a timely manner. Four to six weeks is what we consider an appropriate time to process applications.
35. The Council took nine months to review Mr C’s application, which represents a delay of at least seven months. This is fault.
36. Although the Council has now increased Mr C’s priority banding, it has given him an award date of 5 August 2020. I consider if there had been no delays, the Council would have reviewed Mr C’s housing application by 1 November 2019. I therefore consider the Council should backdate Mr C’s priority band award to 1 November 2019.
37. The Council has provided me with a list of two-bedroom properties that Mr C bid on from November 2019 that it let to applicants with a Band 2 award. I have looked at applicants with similar circumstances to Mr C. I consider that if the Council was not at fault, it is more likely than not it would have offered him a two-bedroom property at the end of July 2020. This is because a Band 2 applicant that bid on the same property as Mr C received an offer at the end of July 2020. It took 59 days from the Band 2 priority award date to the Council offering the applicant the property. If the Council had awarded Mr C Band 2 priority in November 2019, he would have been waiting much longer than 59 days, and so I find it more likely that not it would have offered the property to him.
38. The Council’s faults have caused Mr C a significant injustice. He has lived in overcrowded housing for longer than necessary. He has also been put to time and trouble in raising these issues with the Council.
39. When the Council responded to my draft decision, it confirmed it will support Mr C with advice and assistance to ensure he is well informed when he bids on future properties. It says he should be able to secure a property through the housing register within a reasonable timeframe.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. To remedy the injustice caused by fault, by 6 December 2021 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr C.
• Backdate Mr C’s priority band award date to 1 November 2019.
• Pay Mr C £150 to reflect his time and trouble.
• Pay Mr C £2,250 to reflect the time he has been living in unsuitable housing. This is calculated at £150 per month from August 2020.

41. The Council has agreed to pay Mr C £150 per month from 21 December 2021 if it has not offered him a suitable property. These payments will stop when the Council offers Mr C a suitable property.
42. The Council has agreed to amend its housing allocation scheme by 31 August 2022 to include the assessment and allocation of bedsit and studio accommodation.

Back to top

Final decision

43. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr C an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

44. The Ombudsman cannot investigate late complaints. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain about something a council has done. Mr C complained the Council wrongly advertised the property he lives in. He moved into the property in January 2018 but did not refer his complaint to the Ombudsman until March 2021. I am satisfied Mr C had opportunities to refer this complaint to us sooner and therefore I will not exercise discretion to investigate it.
45. Mr C also complains the Council failed to deal with anti-social behaviour and harassment from his neighbour. He says the Council should have taken action against his neighbour and removed him for breaching his tenancy. Mr C and his neighbour are both Council tenants. We have no power to investigate complaints about councils when they are carrying out their role as landlords of their social housing properties. Mr C should refer his concerns to the Housing Ombudsman Service.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman