Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council dealt with her housing application. We found no fault in the way the Council made its decision. However, we found fault with the Council’s delay in completing a review. This caused frustration to Miss X and the Council will apologise for this and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the way the Council dealt with her housing application. She says the Council:

• wrongly refused to include her son, Y, in her housing application; and
• wrongly changed her housing register priority date.

2. Miss X says this has caused her avoidable stress which has caused her to have issues during her pregnancy.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Miss X provided. I also considered information the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
5. Miss X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered these comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Guidance and legislation

The published scheme

6. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))

Reasonable preference

7. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

Decisions and review rights

8. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:

• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.

9. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
10. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
11. The statutory guidance suggests councils should complete reviews within eight weeks.

The Council’s scheme

12. The Council’s housing allocation scheme provides details on who can be considered as part of the household and be included on the housing application. It says this includes the applicant’s dependent children, including children born since the housing register application date, and dependent children under the age of 18 in and/or joining the household, where the applicant is the sole legal guardian and there is no other available option for housing.
13. The scheme details an exception to this and says that where an applicant is an existing secured council tenant who requires a transfer, the household includes persons who have continuously been part of the household since the start of the tenancy and are still in occupation.
14. If a change of circumstance becomes apparent during the shortlisting or offer process, the Council may as appropriate, withdraw an applicant from a particular shortlisting process and suspend the application until such a time the Council is satisfied that it has all the relevant information to reassess the application.
15. Applicants will be informed of their right to request a review of any such decisions.
16. The Council’s housing allocation scheme says that Band C is awarded where there is an identified housing need, whereas Band D reflects no identified housing need.
17. When an applicant applies and is accepted onto the housing register, they are informed of their priority band and priority date. The priority date is of particular importance when bidding, as where there are multiple households bidding in the same Band, the applicant with the oldest priority date will be in a higher position.

What happened?

18. Miss X lives in a privately rented property. She applied to go on the Council housing register in February 2003 and the Council awarded her a Band C because of overcrowding.
19. In March 2023, the Council shortlisted Miss X for a property. As part of the verification process for this property, Miss X sent the Council several documents related to her identification and family circumstances.
20. After this, the Council wrote to Miss X to say it had reassessed her housing application based on the information she had provided. It explained that this had resulted in a change to her banding. The Council said she was still in Band C but with a new, later, priority date of 30 June 2022. The Council did not provide a reason for this in the letter.
21. Miss X telephoned the Council about this the same day. The Council said it had decided to change her priority date because the documents she had provided shown that her adult son, Y, had his own tenancy between 2020 and 2022 at university. It said he could not therefore be considered as part of her household and so it had changed her priority date to reflect this.
22. Miss X emailed the Council the following day. She said that Y had signed a tenancy for another property to attend university, however, due to the COVID lockdown he did not attend, as the university was closed and so he remained living with her.
23. Miss X explained that she had been on the housing waiting list for 23 years and this was the first property the Council had offered her. Miss X asked the Council to consider her unusual circumstances and not change her priority date to June 2022.
24. Internal council records from the same time show the Council decided to downgrade Miss X’s Band from a Band C to a Band D for the period of Y’s tenancy at university. The Council then decided to move Miss X back to a Band C on the date Y moved back into her property which was 30 June 2022.
25. In April, Miss X gave birth to her youngest child.
26. In August, Miss X sent a change of circumstances form to the Council to say that her four children, including Y were living with her.
27. The Council wrote to Miss X on 2 September to say it had considered the information she had provided. However, it had not changed its decision and she would remain in Band C with a priority date of 30 June 2022.
28. Miss X complained to the Council in September. She said the Council had wrongly changed her priority date because it believed Y had moved out of her home, when he had not. Miss X also said it was unfair of the Council to change this date as she had wasted the 20 years she had already been waiting for a larger property.
29. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint on 9 October. It said that during the verification process for the shortlisted property, the Council found out that her son, Y, moved out of the home to attend education in another area. The Council said this was confirmed by the tenancy agreement that Miss X sent to the Council. The Council said this showed that Y had privately rented accommodation continuously from 1 July 2020 until 30 June 2022, regardless of whether he returned to Miss X’s accommodation during the holiday periods and/or did not occupy the accommodation as his permanent home.
30. The Council explained that in line with its allocation scheme, once Y moved out, he would not be automatically included as part of her household unless he continued to be a dependant. It explained that this would be because of a medical condition or if he was a carer for someone within the household.
31. The Council therefore decided that since 1 June 2020, Y should not have been considered as part of Miss X’s household and her application should have been Band D until her youngest child was born in April 2023. The Council apologised for originally changing her priority date to 30 June 2022 and said this was an oversight. The Council said it was satisfied the priority date for Band C should be 23 April 2023.
32. The Council informed Miss X of her right to a review of this decision if she disagreed.
33. On 13 October, Miss X requested a review of this decision.
34. The Council responded the same day to say it intended to complete this review on 8 December. It asked Miss X to provide any information she wanted the Council to consider.
35. Miss X provided:

• a summary of events;
• an email from the Council where she said the Council did not change the priority date when she added her youngest child; and
• a letter from the Council changing the priority date again after this.

36. On 1 February 2024, Miss X emailed the Council as she had not had a response to the review request. Miss X told the Council she had complained to the Ombudsman about this matter.
37. On 27 February, the Council contacted the Ombudsman. It said that Miss X had not exhausted the complaints procedure as she had not made a stage two complaint.
38. Miss X made a stage two complaint the following day. However, the Council said it did not receive this.
39. On 23 April, the Council said it logged the stage two complaint and would respond by 20 May. The Council also said the review was still pending and it intended to issue a decision within the next few days.
40. The Council wrote to Miss X on 25 April with the result of the review. It said that it had decided to uphold its decision to award a Band C for overcrowding on the housing register. This was because it was not satisfied Miss X warranted a higher Band on the housing register. The Council again confirmed that as Y had his own accommodation between 2020 and 2022, this meant Miss X was no longer overcrowded and was awarded a Band D on the housing register. In April 2023, when Miss X had a baby, the Council reassessed the application as this meant she was again overcrowded and so she was awarded a Band C.
41. In relation to the removal of Y from the housing application, the Council confirmed that he could not be part of Miss X’s housing application as he did not meet the criteria as he was over 18.
42. On 17 May, the Council responded to Miss X’s stage two complaint. It told Miss X that it upheld the original decisions made about Y being on the housing application and the priority date.

Analysis

The inclusion of Y in the housing application

43. The Ombudsman’s role is to review how councils have made their decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or not properly explained a decision it has made. We call this fault, and, where we find it, we can consider any consequences of the fault and ask the relevant council to address these.
44. However, we do not make operational or policy decisions on councils’ behalf, provide a right of appeal against their decisions, or seek to replace their judgement with our own. If a council has made a decision without fault then we cannot criticise it, no matter how strongly a complainant feels it is wrong. We do not uphold complaints simply because someone feels a council should have done something different.
45. What that means in this particular case is that it is not for me to make my own judgement about whether Y should be included in Miss X’s housing application or on the date of Miss X’s housing priority. However, I can consider whether the Council properly made and explained its decisions about this.
46. Miss X was unhappy the Council decided not to include Y in her housing application. The Council explained in its review decision letter in April 2024 that Y was not eligible to be part of Miss X’s housing application because:

• he had his own tenancy from 2020 to 2022; and
• Y was over 18 anyway, and none of the exceptions for including a child over the age of 18 in the housing allocations scheme were applicable to the family.

47. In the review decision letter, the Council did not specifically refer to Miss X’s point that although Y had a tenancy at another property, he did not actually stay there due to the COVID lockdown. However, the Council did respond to this point previously and concluded that it would still not consider Y as part of the housing application regardless of whether he returned to Miss X’s accommodation during the holiday periods and/or did not occupy his accommodation as his permanent home. Therefore, it is clear that the Council took into account the information Miss X provided when making the original decision that Y should not be included.
48. I am satisfied the Council explained how it interpreted the evidence Miss X provided and awarded priority. The Council awarded priority in a manner consistent with its allocations scheme and this was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
49. I appreciate Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decisions and her frustrations with the property she is in, however, I have not found the Council at fault in the way it made its decision. I therefore cannot question the Council’s decision.

Housing register priority date

50. Miss X was also unhappy the Council decided in March 2023 to change her priority date to 30 June 2022 and so asked the Council to review this decision.
51. This resulted in the Council changing her priority date to the later date of April 2023, which was when Miss X gave birth to her youngest child.
52. The Council made this decision following its allocation scheme that a child over the age of 18 cannot be included in a housing application and so it did not consider her to be overcrowded until the birth of her youngest child. This is a decision the Council was entitled to make and there is no fault here.
53. The Council apologised that it originally wrongly calculated her priority date to June 2022 and confirmed the date should have been April 2023. The Council said this was due to an oversight. The Council wrongly calculating Miss X’s priority date was fault and this caused Miss X frustration. However, this has not resulted in Miss X missing any offers of properties and I consider the Council’s apology to be a suitable remedy.
54. I am however concerned about the time it took the Council to respond to Miss X’s review request. The Council should have responded to this within 8 weeks, but it took almost 28 weeks to reply, and this is fault. This caused Miss X frustration, however this has not resulted in Miss X missing any offers of properties as her banding did not change. The Council has said that the delay was due to work pressures within the team. I will recommend the Council apologise to Miss X for the delay in completing this review.

Back to top

Agreed action

55. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:

• apologise to Miss X for the frustration caused by the Council’s delay in completing the review of her housing application.

Within three months of my final decision the Council will:

• develop an action plan to reduce any delays in completing housing reviews and to ensure these can be completed within the 8 weeks recommended by statutory guidance.

56. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

57. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman