Summary: Mr C complained about the Council’s handling of his housing application. The Council failed to consider him for properties and provided incorrect information about another property. The Council’s complaint handling was also inadequate. These faults caused Mr C distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has already apologised and provided a financial remedy, however the Council will make a further payment to recognise the personal injustice to Mr C.

The complaint

1. Mr C complains about the Council’s handling of his housing application. He says the Council failed to award him the correct priority band and overlooked him for properties. Mr C also said the Council wrongly decided he was not eligible for a direct let.
2. Mr C says having to stay in his current property has caused his mental and physical health to decline significantly which has led to suicide attempts.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 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)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated Mr C’s complaint that the Council overlooked him for properties and that it wrongly decided he was not eligible for a direct let.
7. I have not investigated Mr C’s complaint that the Council failed to award him the correct priority band. This is because matters relate to events that took place in 2021 and it would have been reasonable for Mr C to have complained before February 2024. These events are out of time, and I have not seen a good reason to exercise discretion to investigate them.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have discussed the complaint with Mr C and considered the information he provided. I also considered information the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
9. Mr C and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered comments received before making the final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

The published scheme

10. 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

11. 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))

The Council’s scheme

12. The Council’s lettings scheme says a customer will only be considered for an offer of one property at a time, however it states there are some exceptions to this.
13. Where the property offered is not to be available for some time, staff should either:

• not enter the offer formally on the system, in order to enable the customer to continue bidding. However, a note should be put on their application to state the customer will be offered the property. When the property is ready to let, the lettings team should return to the original shortlist to make the offer, or;
• enter the offer, (which will prevent them being offered other properties) and inform the customer of how long it is likely to be before the property is available. If further unexpected delays occur, the customer should be offered the choice of having the offer withdrawn to enable them to carry on bidding, or continuing to wait for the original offer.

14. Offers should initially be made verbally where customers require the property to be inspected by an occupational therapist prior to deciding whether they are able to accept. This is to ensure that they can still be considered for alternative properties while the decision is being made. A formal written offer should be made if the property is then deemed suitable.

Direct lets

15. The Council says the majority of available properties are advertised through the choice-based lettings scheme. However, there are circumstances where a property may be allocated outside of this by direct letting.
16. Direct lettings will only be available to customers assessed as being eligible for a direct let.
17. The Council’s policy says direct lettings will generally be made in the date order customers were assessed as being eligible for a direct letting.

The Council’s pet policy

18. The Council says it would only allow a tenant to have up to two cats or dogs. However, if the customer is a current Council tenant, discretion can be used if there have been no previous identified issues with pets.

The Council’s complaint handling policy

19. The Council’s complaint policy says it will respond to stage one complaints within 15 working days. It states a response can be provided by letter, email, face to face or by telephone. Where a response is given by telephone, the Council will also offer to provide written confirmation of the discussion. The response should also advise a complainant of how they can take the complaint to a further stage if they wish to do so.

Background

20. This is a summary of key events relevant to this complaint, this does not provide a chronology of everything that has happened.
21. Mr C has lived in his property for several years. Mr C asked for a review of his housing needs due to a change in his circumstances and he wanted to be rehoused to a more suitable property.
22. In February 2023, the Council awarded Mr C Band A which was Additional Needs priority because of his physical, emotional and sensitive needs. The Council backdated Mr C’s priority to October 2021.
23. The Council said if it considered Mr C for any properties, it would make a referral to an occupational therapist to ensure the property would be suitable to meet his long-term needs.

What happened?

24. In July 2023, Mr C complained to the Council that it was overlooking him when he was bidding for properties.
25. Mr C also said he thought there had been many properties the Council could have allocated to him as a direct let, however it did not consider him for them. Mr C said because of this, he felt the Council was treating him unfairly.
26. The Council responded to Mr C a few weeks later, partially upholding his complaint, however it did not provide the reason for this. It backdated his direct let award date to October 2021, which was the same date as his Band A priority award. The Council also said it had changed Mr C’s first area choice.
27. In December 2023, a representative of Mr C made a stage two complaint to the Council on his behalf.
28. The complaint said that the Council considered Mr C for a direct let property, Property 1, in July, which the Council were carrying out repairs on. However, when Mr C could visit the property five months later, it was unsuitable because of his physical needs, despite the Council telling him it was a suitable property for him.
29. Mr C said he had tried to contact the council officer dealing with this, however they did not respond.
30. The complaint said the Council was still not supporting Mr C and was still overlooking him for properties.
31. The Council telephoned Mr C to discuss his complaint, and then followed this up with a written response in January 2024. The Council provided a response to each of Mr C’s concerns and gave reasons why he was either not eligible for a particular property, or he had declined the property.
32. The Council did say however that it had identified a service failure, as it had not considered Mr C for a property, Property 2, in August 2023. The Council explained this was because, at that time, it was considering him for Property 1. But as it had not given Mr C a formal offer for Property 1, it should still have considered him for Property 2.
33. The Council also explained that a lettings officer told him that he could not be considered for another property, Property 3, in December 2023, because of the number of pets he had. The Council said it accepted that Mr C was a council tenant and his pets had never been an issue and so it should have used discretion and considered him for this property.
34. The Council apologised for these “service failures” and said that it would offer Mr C the next suitable property in the area of his choice.
35. In relation to Property 1, the Council said an occupational therapy assessment decided that an over bath shower could be installed to make the property medically suitable for Mr C, but an adaptation panel would need to agree this.
36. The Council confirmed that because of this, Mr C declined the property. The Council apologised that it gave Mr C wrong information about Property 1. It said this was due to an error on its computer system.
37. The Council also apologised for not offering a full written response to his stage one complaint.
38. The Council offered Mr C:

• £50 for failing to consider him for Property 2 and 3;
• £50 for the system error which meant Property 1 was not as described when viewed; and
• £50 for the handling of his stage one complaint, where he did not receive a written response.

39. Mr C has received these payments.
40. The Council confirmed that it has now offered Mr C a property in his preferred area. Mr C viewed this and accepted the property in April 2024.

Analysis

Property eligibility

41. The Council accepted and apologised that it wrongly did not consider Mr C for Property 2 in August 2023. This was not in line with the Council’s policy, and this is fault.
42. The Council also accepted and apologised that in December 2023, it wrongly told Mr C that he could not be considered for Property 3 because of the number of pets he had at the time. The Council said it should have used its discretion to consider him for this property, the fact that it did not is fault.
43. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it could not confirm if it would have made Mr C a formal offer on Property 2 or Property 3 if it had considered him. The Council said this is because Mr C has a medical recommendation and so an occupational therapist would have needed to confirm whether the properties were suitable for him.
44. Therefore, I am unable to make a finding on if the Council’s fault led to Mr C being left in unsuitable housing for longer than he should have been. However, these faults have caused uncertainty and distress for Mr C as we cannot say what the outcome would have been if this fault had not happened.

Direct lets

45. Mr C said the Council wrongly decided that he was not eligible for a direct let. However, the Council and Mr C have since provided evidence that he had been offered direct lets and that his direct let priority award was backdated to October 2021. Therefore, I find no fault causing injustice here.
46. However, it is concerning the Council considered Mr C for the direct let, Property 1, in August 2023 but when he viewed the property in November 2023 it was not as the Council had described. Mr C considered this property to be unsuitable on medical grounds. The Council acknowledges the property was not as described but has said that an occupational therapist advised that adaptations could be made to make the property suitable for Mr C’s needs.
47. The Council has already apologised for the property not being as described and said this happened due to an error on its system. This is fault and led to Mr C wrongly not being considered for Property 2 as explained above. Between August and November, Mr C had believed that Property 1 was suitable for him. Mr C says that this caused him distress and impacted negatively on his mental health.

Complaint handling

48. The Council has apologised and accepted poor complaint handling about Mr C’s complaint as it did not offer or provide a written response to his stage one complaint. The Council should have provided a full written response at stage one, the fact it didn’t is fault. This caused Mr C further frustration as the Council failed to fully explain its decision and Mr C was unaware of how to further escalate his complaint.
49. The Council has made a £50 payment to recognise this fault which I consider to be appropriate. I will therefore not recommend anything further here.

Remedy

50. I am satisfied that the Council has apologised to Mr C for the faults identified in this statement and with its action to offer Mr C the next suitable property.
51. The Council also made a payment of £100 for the faults relating to Mr C’s property eligibility and the direct let. I do not consider this offer of £100 to be an appropriate remedy because the faults caused Mr C distress, frustration and uncertainty.
52. Mr C also provided information to the Council about his vulnerabilities which it accepted when he was awarded Band A priority. I will therefore suggest an alternative personal remedy to recognise the injustice caused to Mr C alongside his vulnerability.

Back to top

Agreed action

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

• make a payment of £700 to Mr C in recognition of the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the Council failing to consider him for properties and providing incorrect information about a direct let. The Council has already paid Mr C £100 for this injustice and so the balance to pay is £600.
• remind housing staff of the Council’s policy when a person is suitable for more than one property.

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

Back to top

Final decision

55. 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