Summary: Mr Y and Mrs X complained the Council had failed to support them to move to a suitable accommodation and its officers gave mixed information. The Council agreed it should have increased Mr Y’s and Mrs X’s priority Band in 2020. We also found the Council’s communication caused some limited confusion for Mr Y and Mrs X. The faults did not result in a missed opportunity for the family to move to a suitable accommodation, an apology from the Council is therefore enough to acknowledge the limited distress its faults caused them.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr Y and Mrs X, complained the Council failed to award them the correct priority on its Lettings Scheme and support them enough to move a larger property. They also said the Council’s communication with them was poor.
2. As a result, Mr Y and Mrs X said they had a loss of opportunity to move to a suitable property which has caused them distress and impacted the family’s health.

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 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)
5. 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

6. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Mr Y’s and Mrs X’s complaint and the Council’s responses;
• discussed the complaint with Mr Y and Mrs X and considered the information they provided;
• considered the information I received from the Council in its response to my enquiries; and
• considered the law and policy relevant to the complaint.
7. Mr Y and Mrs 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’s Lettings Policy

8. The policy sets out how the Council assesses applicants’ needs and how it lets its choice-based properties. It sets out the types of properties applicants will be considered for. Applicants have their household’s needs placed in to one of 4 bands depending on their need. Band A is for those with the highest, most urgent, housing need and Band D the lowest, for those with no assessed housing need.
9. In some circumstances, the Council considers the cumulative need where a household has more than one distinct assessed need which falls within Band A. This is Band A+.
10. Applicants with a medical recommendation from the Council will also be considered for offers of houses and maisonettes, where it is reasonable and practicably capable of adaptation to their needs.
11. Properties available through the Council, registered providers, and Leeds Rental Standard properties are advertised so applicants can bid for them. The advert will set out the lettings criteria for the property. Registered providers who advertise their own properties use their own lettings criteria to decide which applicant to offer the property to.
12. Properties are advertised according to the applicant’s priority band and under a quota system according to the length of time the application has been registered and having a local connection to the Ward area (Date of Registration, or DORQ). Under the DORQ quota, up to 15% of Council properties will be advertised to give preference to those with a connection to the Ward area of the property with the longest date of registration on the register, regardless of their priority band.
13. Allocation of properties to successful applicants are done by the Council’s local housing teams for the areas each are responsible for.

Background

14. Mr Y and Mrs X has a large family. In 2020, they were living in a four-bedroom property in another Council’s area.
15. In 2020 Mr Y and Mrs X applied to the Council’s housing register. They said in their application they have a large family and were living in another Council’s area. They also made reference to they were originally from and had family in the Council’s area.
16. The Council accepted Mr Y’s and Mrs X’s housing application and gave them a Band C priority with a six-bedroom need. They were giving a bidding number to apply for homes under its Letting Scheme.
17. In early 2021 the Council listed a property under its registration quota on its Lettings Scheme. Mr Y and Mrs X bid unsuccessfully as the property was given to an applicant with connection to the ward area of the property.
18. A month later the Council listed a seven-bedroom property (Property Z) under the Council’s housing needs quota.
19. Mr Y and Mrs X bid for Property Z but were unsuccessful as several other applicants had a higher priority band. The successful applicant had Band A priority since 2015.
20. In Spring 2021 Mr Y and Mrs X moved into private rented accommodation in the Council’s area. They told the Council they had moved, and explained they were living in overcrowded conditions.
21. The Council decided a housing needs assessment was required for Mr Y and Mrs X. It found they were entitled to Band A priority with a seven-bedroom need. This was because they were overcrowded by two rooms or more.
22. The Council also agreed to backdate their Band A priority to 2020 when they first joined its housing register. This was because Mr Y and Mrs X had told the Council in May 2020, they could not afford their four-bedroom property and had a local connection to the Council’s area. It said it should have awarded them Band A at the time.
23. In summer 2021 Mr Y and Mrs X’s son’s GP issued a letter which showed his current medical needs. This was not uploaded to their housing application at the time.
24. Following Mr Y and Mrs X’s ongoing calls and requests to the Council, it told them private renting may be their best option to secure a suitable property. The Council arranged a call with its private renting team, but Mr Y and Mrs X said they did not receive the call. When the lettings team did call, Mr Y ended the call as they preferred to have a meeting in person.
25. Mr Y and Mrs X said they had been told by a friend within the Council a suitable property had become available. They said the Council told them to contact its local housing team for the area, who informed them this was Property Z and it had already been allocated.
26. Mr Y and Mrs X was not happy with how the Council had handled their housing application and their current housing conditions. So, they asked the Council for a meeting with senior housing officers. The Council agreed.
27. Mr Y and Mrs X recorded the meeting with two of the Council’s senior housing officers and provided a copy of their son’s GP letter. In the meeting the officers said:
• Mr Y and Mrs X’s priority had been increased to Band A+, which was the highest priority available. This was due to their recent information regarding their son’s medical needs;
• they had already applied for Property Z and were now top of the list for Property Z due to their increased priority;
• it is likely Mr Y and Mrs X will be allocated Property Z either through the bidding process or through a Direct let. The Officer could not confirm it would be theirs, but said there was nothing to suggest it wouldn’t be as they were the only family with the high assessed need and level of priority;
• Property Z was in the voids process for repairs, which had been ongoing since early 2021 as extensive repairs were needed; and
• he would contact the local housing manager to enquire about the allocation of Property Z to Mr Y and Mrs X and find out when the repairs would be completed.
28. The following day, the Council’s local housing team manager for the area of Property Z told Mr Y and Mrs X:
• they had already bid on Property Z with their Band C priority previously. Several other applicants had higher priority at the time the bidding process ended. Mr Y and Mrs X therefore had not and would not be offered Property Z;
• the Council had followed its lettings policy and the successful applicant would be offered the property when the repairs were completed;
• they had not been disadvantaged as their Priority award had been correct at the time, based on the information the Council had; and
• they had been given mixed information through their contacts with various officers and Council staff. She apologised and said this had been identified as a training need for its staff.
29. Mr Y and Mrs X had several further email correspondences with different Council officers. Their MP also asked the Council for clarification of the mixed information they had been given.
30. The Council did not change its view and explained it had followed its Policy. It said its private sector lettings manager would look for privately rented accommodation in Mr Y’s and Mrs X’s preferred areas. It also said it would allow them to move to a five-bedroom privately rented property to improve their housing situation. If they were moved to private accommodation, they would retain their Band A+ priority and could continue bidding for any suitable properties which becomes available.
31. In late 2021, the Council had not listed any suitable properties on its Letting Scheme, and it had not found any suitable private rented properties which met Mr Y and Mrs X needs. So, they complained to the Council.

The complaint

32. Mr Y and Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of their housing application. They said:
• the Council’s officers had failed to support them to be rehoused since 2020 when they incorrectly were given Band C priority;
• they had been given incorrect and mixed information about Property Z which caused confusion and led them to believe they would be offered the property;
• they had been discriminated against due to their race and raised concerns about the transformation in their preferred areas with white middle class people being moved into the area; and
• they had not been offered any suitable privately rented properties which met their needs.
33. In response the Council apologised for the six weeks it had taken the Council to assess Mr Y and Mrs X’s housing needs after they provided their son’s medical information. However, it found:
• its delay had not caused them a disadvantage, as they had not bid on any properties during the period;
• its officers had given them the correct information regarding Property Z, and had explained the reasons why they would not be allocated it;
• its private sector lettings team had offered Mr Y and Mrs X a five-bedroom property, which they had refused as it was not in their preferred area. It had not identified any other privately rented accommodations in their preferred areas which was affordable and big enough to meet their needs.
34. Mr Y and Mrs X has not made an application to the Council as homeless. They said this is because they have been advised this could result in being housed temporarily in areas they do not wish to go to.

Analysis

35. Mr Y and Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of their housing since 2020. Parts of their complaint is therefore late. However, I have found it appropriate to exercise my discretion to consider the complaint from 2020 when they applied to the Council for support with rehousing. This is because it was first in 2021 the Council agreed it should have increased their priority under its Letting Scheme in May 2020.

Mr Y’s and Mrs X’s priority band

36. The Council considered Mr Y and Mrs X’s application to its housing register in Spring 2020. Based on their application, they were given Band C. I am satisfied the Council considered the information they had provided with their application. It reached a decision in line with its Policy, and I cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decision.
37. In 2021, the Council agreed it was at fault for failing to change Mr Y’s and Mrs X’s priority to Band A under its Policy in May 2020 as it received further information from them regarding their housing needs and circumstances at the time. But it found it considered their son’s GP new medical needs when Mr Y and Mrs X told the Council verbally about these in the Autumn 2021 meeting. The Council then granted them Band A+ priority the same day.
38. The Council was therefore at fault for failing to apply the correct priority Band to Mr Y and Mrs X in May 2020. However, I have not found this caused Mr Y and Mrs X an injustice. In reaching my view, I am conscious they:
• would not have been successful in their application for Property Z regardless of the Council’s fault. This is because the successful applicant also had Band A priority but had been registered longer than Mr Y and Mrs X under the Council’s Lettings Scheme. In line with the Council’s Policy this applicant should therefore be allocated the property; and
• did not bid for any new properties during the delay. They did therefore not miss out on any opportunities.
39. Also, Mr Y and Mrs X is frustrated the Council has had no properties available through the Council’s Letting Scheme and through its private sector rented team since. I acknowledge their frustrations and the conditions in which they are currently living. However, I cannot fault the Council for circumstances outside its control. In this case, this is the limited availability of very large properties either through social housing or private renting, which would meet Mr Y and Mrs X needs and be affordable to them.

Council’s communication

40. Mr Y and Mrs X said the Council’s officers told them incorrect and mixed information which caused them some confusion. However, the Council said it had given Mr Y and Mrs X correct information.
41. The evidence shows Mr Y and Mrs X contacted the local housing office and the Council’s main housing office. They spoke to several housing officers and managers either by phone, email or in person.
42. The local housing team manager told Mr Y and Mrs X they had already bid on Property Z and it had been allocated to another applicant. However, communication with other Council officers, including the recorded meeting set out in paragraph 29, shows the information they were given suggested they were top of the list for Property Z, and this may lead to it being offered to them.
43. While, I have not seen evidence the Council promised Mr Y and Mrs X they would be allocated Property Z. I am satisfied the Council’s communication in the meeting caused confusion. This appears to be due to the senior officer being unaware the bidding process for Property Z had ended with another applicant being successful, but it had not yet been allocated due to the extensive repairs required.
44. I have found the Council at fault for how it communicated with Mr Y and Mrs X during the Autumn 2021 which caused some confusion. However, I found the injustice this caused is very limited as the Council wrote them the following day and explained in detail why they would not be allocated Property Z.

Discrimination

45. Mr Y and Mrs X told the Council they believe they are being discriminated against based on their race. They said this is because there has been a transformation of their preferred area with an increase of white middle class residents. They also referred to the ethnicity of the successful housing applicant for Property Z.
46. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council discriminated against Mr Y and Mrs X either through its actions or its policies. I acknowledge the demographics of their preferred area may have changed. However, such changes may occur due to external factors such as the desirability and rental cost of an area. Without any evidence to the contrary, I cannot make a finding the Council or its policies have discriminated against Mr Y and Mrs X.

Homelessness

47. Normally, I would expect a council to consider a housing applicants current housing circumstances as set out it the Housing Act 1996 to determine if they should be considered homeless based on the conditions they are living in.
48. However, Mr Y and Mrs X did not apply to the Council under homelessness legislation, and they told the Council they did not want it to consider them as homeless. They said this was because they did not want to be housed temporarily in areas outside their preference. I have therefore not found the Council at fault as it considered Mr Y and Mrs X’s wishes.

Back to top

Agreed action

49. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mr Y and Mrs X, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. Apologise to Mr Y and Mrs X in writing for its errors.
50. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:
1. review and communicate to all staff how the Council should respond to enquiries about the status of advertised properties. Responses should be consistent with its Policy to supporting customers and promoting self-service options, whilst mitigating risk of providing inaccurate information; and
2. Remind its officers to only provide accurate information about the availability of properties on its Lettings Scheme or seek information from its local housing offices before providing such information to applicants.

Back to top

Final decision

51. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault on the substantive matters complained about. However, there was a short delay in applying the correct housing priority band which caused a limited some injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman