Summary: Mr X complained the Council had intentionally withheld suitable properties from him on its housing bidding list and it wrongly removed his permission to bid for sheltered properties. He also said it had caused delays in its voids process for three flats he had successfully bid for. We found no evidence the Council had withheld properties on Mr X’s bidding list, and we previously found no fault in how in it reached its decisions on his bidding permissions. We found it did cause a service failure due to the delays in its voids process. The Council agreed to apologise and make payment to Mr X to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty this caused him.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about the Council’s handling of his housing application. He said it:
• caused deliberate delays to its voids process for flats he had successfully bid for, which prevented him moving in to the properties;
• manipulated his housing list so that eligible flats and bungalows were not shown in his preferred areas for several years; and
• gave him inconsistent information about properties on its housing list when he submitted data requests.
2. As a result, Mr X said he has experienced distress, and he has had a loss of opportunity to move to suitable temporary and permanent properties.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Mr X’s concerns about delays in the Council’s void process and manipulation of its housing list since 2021.
4. The final paragraph of this decision explains why I have not investigated Mr X’s concerns before 2021 and the Council’s responses to his data requests.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses;
• discussed the complaint with Mr X on several occasions and considered the vast amount of information he provided; and
• considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries, including its Lettings Policies.
8. Mr 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

Council Policy

Lettings Policy

9. The Council allocates its housing according to its Lettings Policy. The Council places housing applications into one of four bands according to an applicant’s housing needs. People in Band A have an urgent need to be rehoused.
10. In some circumstances the Council recognises a cumulative need where an applicant has more than one assessed need. If someone has more than one assessed need in Band A their cumulative need would result in Band A+. Band A+ is the highest priority the Council can award.
11. Once an applicant is given a priority band, they can bid on homes advertised by the Council. The Council advertises homes according to the priority band of the applicant. This also sets out what type of property an applicant can bid for. The Council categorises properties as:
• General needs;
• Over 55 preference, which is for applicants over 55 years;
• Category one, which is for applicants over 55 years with an assessed need for sheltered accommodation; and
• Category two – Retirement Life, which is for applicants over 6 years with an assessed need for sheltered accommodations with an onsite support worker.
12. In some cases, the Council will agree to identify a home for an applicant and offer it to them direct without advertising it. This is known as a direct let. The Council will normally make one reasonable offer to an applicant eligible for a direct let. Where possible, a direct let offer will consider an applicants’ preferences.
13. Applicants applying for older people’s sheltered housing must show that have care and support needs, such as:
• age related frailty;
• physical and mental health issues;
• multiple health problems that mean the individual needs support;
• sensory impairment;
• loneliness and isolation or safety and security; and
• current and future ability to utilise the support service.
14. The Council records applicants housing need and any offers of accommodation on a computer system.

Letting Standards

15. The Council aim is to re-let good quality homes as quickly as it can. To do so it carries out improvements to its properties through planned programmes, which may include replacing kitchens, bathrooms, windows, doors, re-roofing or rewiring.
16. When a housing applicant had successfully bid for a property and the previous tenants notice has expired, the property is placed in the Council’s voids process in which the Council:
• inspects the property to determine if repairs or improvements are needed;
• assesses if asbestos is present, and arranges a further survey to determine the works required to remove this safely; and
• tests electrical installations, gas supply and the plumbing and water systems to the property.

Background

17. Mr X is a Council tenant. He has serious and complex physical and mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) caused by anti-social behaviour. This means he is very sensitive to noise and fearful when in contact with other people.
18. Mr X has had ongoing problems with the neighbours at his current home for several years. The Council has previously investigated Mr X’s reports of anti-social behaviour and claims suitable properties were being withheld from his bidding list. His complaints have also been the subject of a previous Ombudsman investigation.
19. Because of the anti-social behaviour Mr X has experienced, he wants to move to another Council accommodation in a quieter area. The Council acknowledged this and assessed Mr X as statutorily homeless.
20. The Council has given Mr X housing allocation priority Band A+, which is a cumulative award made up of Band A medical need and Band A homelessness. He can also bid for ‘Over 55 preference’ housing, but in the past the Council would only consider his application if no older applicant bids.
21. Because of Mr X’s medical conditions, the Council recognised a bungalow may be suitable and added this to Mr X’s housing profile. The Council also agreed to identify homes in his preferred area which may be suitable for Mr X and offer them to him direct without him needing to place a bid.
22. The Council has confirmed, if Mr X is successful in a bid for a flat and he moved in, his housing application will remain open so he can bid for suitable bungalows.

Mr X’s housing application status

23. Mr X says he cannot see bungalows and some flats which should appear on his bidding list in his preferred areas, which he believes the Council intentionally withholds. He said this is because he can only see properties which are outside his areas of his preference.
24. The Council told Mr X its housing bidding system is automated. The properties available for an applicant to bid on are generated based on their need. There is no human involvement, it is done automatically. It also said:
• it had offered Mr X some bungalows in his areas of preference which he had refused as they had limited parking, he did not like the area, or he had concerns about anti-social behaviour from neighbours;
• it had checked his status on its system and was satisfied his information and needs were correct, which included his Direct Let status for his preferred area;
• it had told Mr X to login weekly on its housing application system to ensure he did not miss any properties and offered Mr X assisted bidding;
• bungalows were in short supply and those that do become available in Mr X’s preferred areas had been advertised; and
• Mr X had not been offered direct lets since 2021 as no properties had become available in his preferred area.
25. Mr X continues to believe the Council is withholding bungalows in his preferred areas and manipulates is bidding lists so he cannot see when a property is advertised.
26. Mr X submitted four data requests to the Council for information about suitable bungalows and flats, which the Council has advertised over the past two to three years. He said the Council’s responses were inconsistent as the starting period of his requests have remained the same, but the number of properties on the lists it provided him have reduced. He said this should not be possible as his later requests were for a longer period.

Mr X’s housing bids

Flat 1

27. In late 2020 Mr X successfully bid for a flat (Flat 1) in one of his preferred areas. When the tenant moved out, the Council placed the flat in its voids process. It inspected and found repairs were needed before Mr X could move in. The repairs took six months.
28. Mr X was unhappy about the time it took the Council to repair the Flat 1. So, in spring 2021 Mr X told the Council the flat was no longer suitable to him.

Flat 2

29. Mr X successfully bid for another flat (Flat 2) in Spring 2021.
30. The Council said it the previous tenant vacated Flat 2 a month after Mr X’s bid. It completed its Health and Safety Check, and its voids contractor surveyed the property, and shared the works required with the Council. As there were also concerns about asbestos in the property, the Council made a referral to its Asbestos Team.
31. The Asbestos Team surveyed the property and found works were needed.
32. In summer 2021 the asbestos was removed, and the Council asked its Building Services Contractor to complete the repair works identified for the property.
33. In autumn 2021 Mr X complained to the Council about the time it had taken it to repair the property and enable him to move in. He also said the Council had caused delays in its voids process for Flat 1.
34. In response the Council told Mr X its repairs work started in August 2021, but he could continue to bid for other properties while waiting for the works to finish. It also said he had told the Council Flat 1 was no longer suitable for him, so he was no longer being considered for this flat.
35. Mr X did not believe the Council’s response and said it was deliberately causing delays. He said it did not look like repairs were being done from the outside and believed repairs had started earlier as a new kitchen appeared to have been fitted. He said the Council’s properties should be available within four weeks of being advertised and asked to move in immediately.
36. In response the Council explained how its voids process works. It said there had been delays completing the repair works as asbestos had been identified. Further delays were caused by COVID-19 safe working practices, material shortages, labour market pressures and Brexit, which were outside the Council’s control. It could not let Mr X move in until the repairs were completed, which it expected to be within a month.
37. Two months later the Council told Mr X the flat was ready and offered him a viewing.
38. Mr X told the Council he did not want to accept the flat as he did not accept the Council’s reasons for the delays in getting Flat 2 ready and believed it had delayed this intentionally. He also said he would not accept the flat until bungalows showed on his bidding list as he:
• needed a bungalow and a flat was only a temporary measure;
• would be trapped in the flat as he had previously been told it could take more than five years to be placed in a bungalow after accepting a flat;
• believed the Council manipulated his bidding list to exclude suitable bungalows in his preferred areas. This was because his data requests to the Council showed several properties which had been let in the past two years, which had not appeared on his bidding list, and he had not been offered direct lets; and
• believed the Council only put bungalows on his list for a short period when the Ombudsman has previously investigated his concerns.
39. In late 2021, the Health and Safety Executive told Mr X it had not been notified of any works for the flat, as the Council had previously told him.
40. In response to Mr X’s concerns, the Council accepted incorrectly told him it had referred the asbestos works for the flat to the Health and Safety Executive. It explained this was not required if the work was very limited and would take a very short time to address without disturbing the material. It apologised for the incorrect information but found this did not cause a delay.

Flat 3

41. In late 2021 Mr X bid for another flat (Flat 3). The Council’s advertisement showed a picture of the outside of another flat in the same block. It said the flat had a communal garden, adaptations, required repairs, and explained it was under notice which may be retracted.
42. Mr X was initially placed third on his bid for the flat and questioned this with the Council.
43. The Council found this was an error and Mr X should be first on the list. It explained this was because his priority had been extended incorrectly. However, it had corrected the error and his bid had been successful. It told him the flat was under notice and required repairs. As the tenant was still under notice, it could not offer a viewing inside the flat, but it told Mr X he could view the flat from the outside.
44. Mr X viewed the flat from the outside. He found it had a fence around the garden, a small decking area which was accessed through the garden doors.
45. Over the following three months Mr X asked the Council several times for an update on the flat. However, the Council told him the flat was still under notice by the previous tenant, but it could not tell him when this would end.
46. Mr X complained to the Council about its refusal to tell him when the notice period would end and lack of clarity over when he could move in.
47. In response the Council said it had told Mr X the flat was under notice when he bid, but it could not share when the notice would end due to data protection rights of the tenant. It explained the tenant had since oved out and the flat was now in the voids process and were due for repairs.
48. Mr X continued to ask the Council for updates about when the flat would be ready. The Council responded to Mr X’s requests but said it could not say when it would be ready.
49. In Summer 2022 the Council told Mr X it had finished the repairs, and it offered him a viewing of the flat.
50. Mr X viewed the flat, but found it was not how is looked when he first viewed it from the outside in late 2021. This is because the garden decking area and fence had been removed, and the garden doors has been replaced with windows.
51. Mr X was not happy with the Council’s responses. He asked the Ombudsman to investigate his concerns the Council was manipulating his bidding list and the delays he has experienced for the three flats.
52. In response to my enquiries the Council said:
• over the past year, its voids to re-let process took on average around 17 weeks due to factors such as material shortages, labour market pressures, COVID-19 practices, and Brexit;
• the length of a voids process for individual properties varies depending on the repairs required. This may be due to the time since a property as last in the voids process, the works the Council have done during a tenancy, or the works a tenant may have done;
• it advertises properties when it receives notice from a tenant, which informs potential bidders the property is on notice, in repair, or ready to let;
• it aims to re-let properties as soon as it can. It considered it good practice to do a Pre-tenancy Termination Visit, but no formal schedule of works is undertaken until a property has been vacated and a Health and safety check has been completed;
• it had not completed a Pre-tenancy Termination visit for Flat 3. It became aware of the previous tenant’s alterations to the property when its voids team surveyed the property in early 2022; and
• Flat 3 took longer to get ready for Mr X as it required some asbestos works, internal work, and external work following the previous tenant’s unapproved alterations. This included arranging for bespoke windows to be fitted.
53. The Council also said it’s voids to re-let process before COVID-19 was within is target of four weeks. However, external factors have meant the process takes much longer, which it acknowledges is excessive. It had therefore conducted a review of its voids process.
54. Mr X also provided evidence to shows the properties which became available on his bidding list since 2021 and the discrepancies he found in the Council’s responses to his data requests.
55. During my investigation of the complaint, Mr X has decided to decline the flat as he did not find the flat suitable. He also said he believed the Council failed or delayed offering him enough support the move and assurances regarding his ongoing bidding for bungalows. Mr X said he intends to raise a new complaint with the Council regarding these issues.

Analysis

56. We have previously investigated Mr X’s complaints about the Council withholding bungalows from his bidding list and his bidding permissions. I will not re-investigate what we have already considered, therefore my investigation relates only to events from 2021 onwards.

Manipulation of Mr X’s bidding list

57. Mr X said no bungalows in his preferred area appeared on his housing list for the period I have investigated. He said this shows the Council is manipulating his housing list to stop eligible homes from appearing.
58. I have seen Mr X’s housing profile. It reflects the priority he has been awarded, confirms his medical need for a flat or a bungalow under the categories of ‘general needs’ and ‘over 55 preference’, and the areas he would prefer to live in. I have also seen a list of homes Mr X placed bids on or was offered.
59. The evidence showed since 2021 Mr X had been able to bid for a large number of flats and several bungalows across the Council’s areas. This included some flats within his preferred areas. However, the number of bungalows available on his bidding list were very limited. The bungalows which did become available in Mr X’s preferred areas either:
• had adaptations and were therefore offered to other applicants with needs for properties with such adaptations; or
• were refused, or not applied for, by Mr X due to limited parking or issues with anti-social behaviour from a neighbour, which would impact his health conditions.
60. I have not seen evidence the Council has manipulated its housing list for bungalows in his areas of preference. This is because Mr X’s evidence is consistent with the Council’s records of the properties which became available to it in these areas.
61. In reaching my view, I also found the bungalows in Mr X’s preferred areas which did become available did in fact have adaptations made to them, which in line with the Council’s Policy should therefore be offered to applicants with assessed needs for such adaptations first.
62. As I have not found fault in the Council’s system or the process it followed, I have not found the Council at fault for manipulating its housing bidding list, or withholding properties for Mr X.

Direct lets

63. Mr X also said he received no direct let offers from the Council in the last year. On the evidence seen, the only properties which became available in Mr X’s preferred area were adapted properties. It is the Council’s Policy not to offer such properties to applicants with no assessed needs for such adaptations. I have therefore not found the Council at fault for failing to offer Mr X a direct let in his preferred area.
64. The Council has offered Mr X bungalows in the past. However, those properties were not in Mr X’s areas of choice, or Mr X had concerns about parking and anti-social behaviour in the area. The Council’s policy states it will try to accommodate applicants’ preferences when it makes direct offers, but this is not always possible. I therefore found the Council was not at fault.

Delays in the Council’s voids process

65. Mr X said the Council intentionally caused delays in its voids process for the three flats he successfully bid for. He believes this is because it does not want him to be moved to another flat or a suitable bungalow.
66. The evidence shows, for each of the three flats, it took the Council at least 6 months from the date Mr X was successful in his bid to its offer for him to view and move into the flats. This included the notice periods of the previous tenants.
67. It is the Council’s aim to re-let properties as soon as possible after they become available. Its Lettings Policy and Lettings Standards do not set timescales for how long this should take, but it aims to do so within four weeks.
68. The Council said its current voids to re-let process takes on average around 17 weeks due to factors such as material shortages, labour market pressures, COVID-19 practices, and Brexit. While I cannot fault the Council for circumstances outside its control, I am satisfied its delayed voids process was a service failure.
69. In reaching my view, I found the Council should have:
• followed good practice to pre-inspect flats before the previous occupiers moved out. Although, this was unlikely to have led to a quicker voids process, as the Council’s Policy is to complete a full inspection and draw up the works required after a tenant has left the accommodation;
• given Mr X some information about its expectation of when Flat 3 would enter the voids process during the notice period of the outgoing tenant to manage his expectations;
• ensured it managed Mr X’s expectations regarding the Council’s voids process delays and the time it may take for available properties to be at a lettable standard, when it advertised its properties, and when further repairs work was identified;
• responded with estimated timescales to Mr X’s requests for when he would be able to move into the flats he had successfully bid for, when it became aware its voids process would take longer than what the Council would normally expect; and
• provided correct information about asbestos works for Flat 2.
70. I acknowledge the Council had taken steps to address the concerns about its long voids process and had implemented some changes to improve this. It has also attempted to manage Mr X’s lack of trust in the Council by not making promises regarding timescales it could not keep. However, I found it did not do enough to manage Mr X’s expectations caused by its delayed voids process.
71. I therefore found the Council caused Mr X distress due to the delay and uncertainty about when he would be able to move into the three flats, which he had successfully bid for. However, Mr X decided not to move into any of the flats, and he remained able to bid for other properties during the voids processes. The distress he experienced for these were therefore limited to the uncertainty the Council’s handling caused him at the time.
72. Also, I found the Council did not advertise Flat 3 to have access to a private garden, which the previous occupier had put in place without the Council’s permission. However, the Council should have told Mr X about its decision to remove the works which had taken place and re-instate the communal garden.
73. I found this has caused Mr X some distress due to the uncertainty this caused. However, as Mr X has since decided not to move into the flat, this is limited to the distress the Council’s handling caused him.

Back to top

Agreed action

74. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mr X, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. Apologise in writing to Mr X, and pay him 250 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty he experienced as a result of the Council’s failure to manage his expectations during its delayed voids process for the three flats;
2. pay Mr X a further £150 to acknowledge the unnecessary time and trouble he had to bring his concerns to the Council’s attention.

In total the Council should therefore pay Mr X £400.

75. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:
1. continue implementing improvement to is voids process as identified in the Council’s review of its Lettings Standard Policy and voids processes to ensure it limits delays in re-letting homes which requires repairs;
2. review how the Council’s ensures its housing applicants are informed about expected timescales for when advertised properties on its housing register bidding list are ready for let, and how it keeps successful applicants informed about delays due to unforeseen works which may be needed after further surveys of properties;
3. remind its staff of its good practice procedure to pre-inspect homes before tenant’s notice expires to plan any repair works required to avoid delays in its voids process.

Back to top

Final decision

76. I have completed my investigation with a finding the Council caused a service failure in its voids process and there was fault in how it managed Mr X’s expectations, which caused him some injustice. It was not at fault for manipulating or withholding bungalows from Mr X’s bidding list.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

77. I have not investigated Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s handling of his housing application and properties shown on his bidding list before 2021. This is because the Ombudsman has previously investigated his concerns where we did not find the Council at fault. This includes Mr X’s view he should be entitled to bid for ‘Category one’ and ‘Category two’ properties.
78. I have also not investigated Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s inconsistent responses to his data requests for properties advertised on its housing register. This is because issues about the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider such complaints.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman