Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council allocated a property to another applicant after Mrs X successfully bid for the vacant property which the Council invited her to view. There were faults by the Council which caused injustice to Mrs X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about how the Council allocated a property to another applicant after Mrs X successfully bid for the vacant property which the Council invited her to view.
2. Mrs X also complained the Council provided her with contradictory reasons for allocating the property to another applicant.
3. As a result, Mrs X said she and her family lost out on suitable accommodation and that they continue to live in overcrowded accommodation. Mrs X said her family was unfairly treated and that the matter left her devastated and disappointed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated how the Council allocated the property Mrs X viewed in July 2023 to another applicant. This investigation covers the period from June 2023 to March 2024 (when Mrs X bid for the property to when the Council issued its final response to Mrs X’s complaint).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered the information she provided. I also considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
9. I sent Mrs X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and considered the comments received before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

10. Every local housing authority must publish an allocation 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))
11. The Ombudsman normally will not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
12. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We normally will not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme

13. The Council operates a ‘property pool’ and assisted choice lettings system where it maintains a list of properties that are available to let to housing applicants who fall into one of its housing priority bands. Band 1 (the highest band) to Band 4 (the lowest band).
14. To allocate the properties, the Council takes account of the applicant’s preferences, the suitability of the accommodation against applicants’ needs and the supply of available accommodation.
15. Priority for accommodation will be determined by housing band, with those applicants in Band 1 having a greater priority. Within bands, priority will be determined by date order when placed in the appropriate band.
16. Once applicants have placed a bid, they can check their bid position during the bidding cycle. Applicants can also see their final queue position after the cycle has closed.
17. Once the bidding cycle has ended, up to five households may be invited to view the property. The property will be offered in strict order of priority Band and time spent in the Band.
18. If an applicant’s bid was successful, they will receive an offer to view the property, normally within 10 working days of the bidding closing date.
19. If an applicant has bid for a property, and been made an offer of that property, the Council will expect the applicant to accept the tenancy. If the applicant does not, they will have the opportunity to provide reasons why the property is not suitable for them. The Council will consider the applicant’s refusal reasons and tell the applicant whether it accepts their reasons or if the offer will count. If the Council decides the offer is suitable, this will count as a formal offer.

Council’s complaint policy

20. The Council has a two-stage complaint procedure.
21. At Stage one, the Council will investigate and respond within 15 working days, and it will respond within 20 working days at Stage two.

Key events

22. Mrs X lives with her family in a two-bedroom property.
23. Mrs X has been on the Council’s housing register since 2017 with a Priority Band 2 and she is eligible to bid for a three-bedroom property.
24. Mrs X bid for a three-bedroom property which the Council advertised in June 2023.
25. On 4 July 2023, the Council contacted Mrs X and verbally invited her to view the property. Mrs X said during the telephone conversation, the officer (Officer 1) assured her she was first in priority for the property bid. After their telephone conversation, Officer 1 sent Mrs X a written invitation to view the property the following day.
26. The next day Mrs X and her family went to view the property. Mrs X said while the viewing was ongoing, the officer present (Officer 2) told her the property had been accepted by another applicant who could not attend the viewing but had viewed the property on video.
27. Mrs X immediately contacted Officer 1 to raise her concerns about how the Council offered the property to another applicant who was not present at the viewing. She also expressed her disappointment about not getting the property offer, despite being told by Officer 1 that she was in first position on the shortlist. Mrs X said Officer 1 explained that after their telephone conversation on 4 July 2023, another applicant who had previously viewed the property had changed their mind and accepted the property. Mrs X questioned why Officer 1 did not call her back the same day with the update and to inform her not to go to the scheduled viewing. Mrs X said it was a waste of her family’s time and she escalated the matter to Officer 1’s manager.
28. The Council explained that Mrs X’s final position at the end of the bidding cycle was number 14. It said the top 10 shortlisted applicants were invited to view the property on 4 July 2023 and the property was offered to one of the applicants during the viewing. It said the applicant originally refused the offer and the Council gave the applicant 24 hours to make their final decision. The Council said because there was no confirmed acceptance of the property at the time, it continued to shortlist other suitable applicants for the property to minimise its rental loss.
29. The Council said that was the reason it contacted Mrs X on 4 July 2023 to schedule a viewing for the next day and at the time it contacted her she was ranked first position on the shortlist. The Council said the other applicant who it had initially offered the property to, subsequently accepted the property within the 24-hour timeframe before Mrs X viewed the property. The Council apologised for the misunderstanding and the inconvenience caused to Mrs X and her family. The Council said the situation was unusual but explained it had a duty to consider all applicants’ information and circumstances before it allocated properties.
30. On 20 July 2023, Mrs X made a formal complaint to the Council. Mrs X complained about the Council’s poor communication with her and its failure to provide her with an update before she went for the property viewing. Mrs X said the Council provided her with conflicting explanations why it offered the property to another applicant. Mrs X alleged the Council did not follow its housing allocation policy by allocating the property to someone who had initially rejected the property offer. She said her family’s expectation was raised and the matter caused them significant disappointment. Mrs X asked the Council to offer her family a three-bedroom property which was like the property her family viewed and in a similar location.
31. On 12 September 2023, the Council issued its stage 1 response to Mrs X’s complaint. The Council said Mrs X’s position was not high enough to have been shortlisted and invited for viewing. The Council said there were 18 other applicants with higher priority than Mrs X for the property she bid for in June 2023. It said there was a high demand for social housing in its borough and apologised to Mrs X and her family for continuing to remain in an overcrowded accommodation over a considerable period.
32. When Mrs X did not receive the Council’s response to her complaint, she complained to the Ombudsman in December 2023. The Council confirmed it had sent its response to Mrs X in September 2023 via the email she provided with her complaint. But that it appeared to have been an incorrect email address.
33. The Council obtained the correct email for Mrs X, and it re-sent its stage 1 response to her. Mrs X disagreed with the Council’s response that she was not shortlisted or invited to view the property in July 2023. Mrs X asked the Council to escalate her complaint at the end of December 2023.
34. In March 2024, the Council issued its stage 2 response. It apologised to Mrs X for its delays and how it had handled her complaint. The Council offered £100 to Mrs X to acknowledge its failure to provide her with its stage 1 and 2 responses. The Council did not address the property offer it made to the other applicant which was Mrs X’s main complaint.
35. In the Council’s follow-up correspondence to Mrs X, it said it was unable to provide further details to Mrs X on the matter other than its previous explanation to her. Mrs X maintained it was not the Council’s normal procedure to give applicants 24 hours to accept a property offer. Mrs X said if that was the Council’s procedure, she questioned why the Council had invited her to view the property during the 24-hour timeframe.
36. In its response to our enquiries, the Council said it did not provide Mrs X with contradictory reasons as to why it offered the property to another applicant. The Council said Mrs X was in position 6 when the original shortlist was done, and she was not invited to view the property. The Council said Mrs X’s position changed to number 1 when the applicant it initially offered the property rejected the offer which was when she was then invited for viewing. But when the other applicant later accepted the offer, the Council offered the property to the applicant because they ranked higher on the shortlist and with an older housing registration date. The Council also confirmed Mrs X did not accept the £100 payment it offered to her in recognition of how it dealt with her complaint.

Analysis

37. The crux of Mrs X’s complaint is the process the Council used when it allocated a property to another applicant after she had successfully bid for the vacant property with first priority placement and which the Council invited her to view.
38. I note the Council’s explanation that it initially offered the property to an applicant who was on its first shortlist with an older housing registration date to Mrs X and who had viewed the property before Mrs X. However, I find the scheme does not make robust provisions about how the viewing procedure works after a bidding cycle ends. In particular, procedures about how viewings are conducted (virtual or physical), how the Council deals with property offer refusals, the timeframes provided to such applicants to make their final decision on an offer before it proceeds to making further shortlists and how all the relevant applicants are kept informed of the selection process.
39. For instance, in this case, the Council said it provided the other applicant with a 24-hour timeframe to make their final decision after they initially refused the property offer. There was no evidence in the Council’s housing scheme where the 24‑hour timeframe was specified. I therefore find fault by the Council for its unclear policy and for its poor communication with Mrs X about its shortlist process and the process of allocation where there had been an initial refusal of a property offer. The Council’s failings caused injustice to Mrs X. It raised Mrs X’s expectations and caused her confusion, uncertainty, distress, and disappointment.
40. Furthermore, I find the Council provided conflicting explanations to Mrs X about its shortlist process for the property in question. In its stage 1 response, the Council said Mrs X’s position was not high enough to have been shortlisted and invited for viewing. But evidence shows the Council contacted Mrs X in July 2023 and invited her to view the property after she was ranked number one on the shortlist. This was fault. It caused uncertainty to Mrs X in not knowing whether the Council properly conducted its selection process for the property allocation.
41. I note in Mrs X’s complaint to the Council, she asked it to make her an offer of a three-bedroom property like the one she viewed in July 2023 and located in a similar area. I have no ground to direct the Council to make such an offer to Mrs X. This is because evidence shows the Council only invited Mrs X to view the property, but it did not offer her the property. Also, the applicant who the Council offered the property to, had an older registration date to Mrs X. Therefore, I find Mrs X did not miss out on the property offer.
42. The Council was at fault for its delays in responding to Mrs X’s complaint. There was approximately a 5-week delay each with issuing its stage 1 and 2 responses to Mrs X. These delays were faults and not in line with the Council’s complaint policy. It caused Mrs X distress and time and trouble chasing the Council’s responses.
43. I also find the Council’s stage 2 response failed to address Mrs X’s complaint about its selection and property allocation process. This was fault. It caused Mrs X further distress and the uncertainty in not knowing if the Council properly investigated her complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following within one month of the final decision:

• apologise in writing to Mrs X and make her a symbolic payment of £250 for the injustice caused to her by the Council’s failings as identified above. The apology should be in accordance with our guidance, Making an effective apology
• by training or other means remind staff of the importance of record keeping and providing applicants who bid for properties with clear and updated information about the Council’s bidding and selection processes. This must also be done in a timely manner
• remind relevant staff of the importance of adhering to the Council’s complaint policy timescales and to ensure the Council’s responses address applicants’ complaints.

45. Within two months of the final decision:

• produce a factsheet which explains the Council’s process from shortlist to property offer, this should also include viewings and timescales in which applicants must accept offers. The Council should then ensure it provides all shortlisted housing applicants with the factsheet which gives them a clear understanding of the process.

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

Back to top

Final decision

47. I find evidence of faults by the Council leading to injustice. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman