Summary: Ms B complained about the way the Council considered her request for a priority move from her current council property. She considered the Council did not properly consider her circumstances and the offer made did not improve her chance of being rehoused to a suitable property. She had to continue to live where she had been subject to anti-social behaviour and in a property that was too small for her needs. There was fault by the Council. To remedy the injustice caused to Ms B the Council will apologise, make a payment to her and ensure she has the higher priority for bidding for new properties.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Ms B. She complained about the way the Council considered her request for a priority move from her current council property. She considered the Council did not properly consider her circumstances and the offer made did not improve her chance of being rehoused to a suitable property. She had to continue to live where she had been subject to anti-social behaviour and in a property that was too small for her needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and power

2. 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 the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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. 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

5. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Ms B and spoke to her I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. Ms B 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

6. Ms B lives in a one bedroom Council property with her baby. She suffered anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour. Under the Council’s policy she could bid on one and two bedroom properties.
7. The social welfare panel considered her situation in August 2022. It awarded her higher priority (moved up from band B to band C) but on the basis she could only bid for a one bedroom property.
8. Ms B questioned this with the Council and submitted an appeal.
9. The Council said she was too late to appeal. Its position was that she may be able to return to a band C so she could bid for two bedroom properties but she would not then be considered as a priority management transfer.

Analysis

10. The Council’s housing allocation policy had a number of sections that refer to the role of the social welfare panel. The policy states “the purpose of the Panel is to consider and award additional priority to homeseekers and tenants where a household is experiencing severe hardship as a result of a combination of different factors which make the need for rehousing more urgent than when considered separately... Three levels of priority Banding and additional bedroom need will be considered and the household will be awarded the appropriate Band on the merits of their circumstances, taking into account multiple needs.”
11. It goes on to say the person will be placed in the appropriate band. Band B is for cases of “persistent harassment of a serious but not life-threatening nature”. And that there is no right of appeal against decisions of the panel.
12. In the part of the policy that concerns transfers it refers to those who will qualify for Band B. There is one section about approvals by the social welfare panel. This refers to people suffering extreme harassment. There is another section that refers to urgent management transfers. This says that such transfers will be to properties of the same size and type.
13. The Council did not apply its policy properly when considering Ms B’s situation. The matter was considered by the social welfare panel but the policy does not stipulate that any priority awarded by the panel should be on a like-for-like basis. That limitation is only referred to under urgent management transfers. Therefore it was not in accordance with the policy for the Council to impose a condition that the increased priority was limited to one bedroom properties.
14. Although it did not adversely affect Ms B the policy states there is no right of appeal against a decision of the social welfare panel. This suggests there was some confusion about the basis on which Ms B’s application was being considered.
15. The consequence of the fault was that Ms B could not bid on two bedroom properties since the panel decision in August 2022. I do not know whether Ms B would have been able to make any successful bids in that time and there are too many factors to allow me to make a judgement on the point. But, nonetheless, Ms B has suffered injustice as she may have been able to make a successful bid which would have resolved her difficult situation. The only way to remedy that injustice is for the Council to make a payment to her.
16. The Council agreed a revised Housing Allocation Policy in January 2023, which is likely to be enacted in September 2023. The revised policy will consider all such cases, both transfers and home-seekers through the singular Social Welfare priority route and via the social welfare panel. This means that transfers and home-seekers will be considered equally in terms of the assessment and decision-making process. This change seems to provide welcome simplification and I am not, therefore, going to make any other service improvement recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

17. The Council will apologise to Ms B, pay her £500 and ensure she is able to bid on two bedroom properties while remaining as Band B priority.
18. It should do this within a month of the final decision and should provide us with evidence it has done so.

Back to top

Final decision

19. There was fault which caused injustice to Ms B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman