Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to update Mrs B’s housing application in 2019 to reflect an increase in her bedroom requirements. However, this mistake would not have led to her securing a four-bedroom property earlier, and the Council has already taken suitable action to remedy her injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs B, complains that she lives in an overcrowded three-bedroom property with her four children, but cannot secure a move to a bigger property.
2. Mrs B complains that the Council has told her that she can only bid on four-bedroom properties; however, she wants to be able to bid on larger three-bedroom ones. She also wants to be able to secure a property in an area to which she has no ‘local connection’.

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. 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

4. I considered information from Mrs B and the Council. Both 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

5. In response to Mrs B’s complaint, the Council noted that she had become eligible for four-bedroom properties when her daughter turned 10 in 2019. However, it accepted that had not updated her application at that time, which meant she had not been able to bid on them.
6. The Council apologised for its mistake. As a remedy, it said Mrs B would now be given a ‘direct let’ – meaning that the first suitable four-bedroom property which becomes available in her preferred area will be allocated to her (disregarding her lack of a local connection). This means she will not have to bid and will not lose out to anyone with higher priority.
7. I asked the Council to find out when Mrs B would have been able to secure a four-bedroom property before now if her application had been properly updated in 2019. It confirmed that she would not have been successful had she bid for any four-bedroom properties which were advertised between 2019 and now. Every successful bidder had higher priority than Mrs B.
8. This means that, although the Council was at fault, Mrs B’s injustice is not significant enough to justify a financial remedy (as we frequently recommend when someone has been in unsuitable housing). The Council’s offer of a direct let gives her a significant advantage in future, and will alleviate stress associated with the bidding process. This is a suitable outcome, and no further action is necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Council was at fault for failing to update Mrs B’s housing application in 2019 to reflect an increase in her bedroom requirements. However, it has already remedied her injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman