Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to reject her housing register application which she said had left her living in overcrowded conditions. We have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action of an apology, symbolic payment and new decision provides a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains about the Council’s decision to reject her housing register application. In particular, Miss X says the Council has not properly considered her medical evidence or overcrowding and failed to provide proper reasons for its decision that her medical evidence was insufficient. The Council also referred to the wrong member of Miss X’s family throughout its review decision.
2. Miss X says because of the Council’s fault, she is living in overcrowded conditions with her daughter which is causing issues of black mould and affecting her health.

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 the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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

6. I read the papers provided by Miss X and discussed the complaint with her. I have also considered information from the Council. I have explained my draft decision to Miss X and the Council and provided an opportunity for comment.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

7. 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)).
8. 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 allocation scheme

9. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties. The scheme uses Priority Groups to give reasonable preference to those as set out above. Applicants are placed into a Priority Group and given points according to their priority need.

Key events

10. The following is a summary of key events. It does not include everything that happened.
11. Miss X lives in the family home which is owned by the Council. Miss X’s mother is the sole tenant of the property.
12. Miss X applied to join the Council’s housing register on 17 August 2023 on medical and overcrowding grounds. Miss X included her mother and stepfather, her siblings and her daughter in the application.
13. The Council’s decision dated 21 August 2023 says she cannot register as she already lives in a Council property with her parents as tenants.
14. In its response to the Ombudsman, the Council has acknowledged the reasons given for declining Miss X’s application were not fully explained in the above decision letter. The fact that Miss X lives with her parents in a Council property does not disqualify her from making a housing application. Her application was declined because she did not apply for housing solely for herself and her daughter, and instead included all of her family members. The Council has accepted Miss X should been informed in the decision that she could re-apply including only herself and her daughter on the application.
15. The Council has explained it does not have a specific policy for adult sons and daughters of Council tenants, and they do not automatically fall into a priority category. They are assessed in line with the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme. To qualify for a place on the Council's housing register they must be awarded medical priority or assessed as being severely overcrowded in their own right.
16. The Council rejected this application as Miss X was not the tenant of the property. This is because the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme provides only the tenant (sole or joint) is eligible to apply for a transfer. This means only Miss X’s mother was able to apply for a transfer.
17. The medical information provided by Miss X was not considered because she was not eligible to make an application to the Housing Register for the whole household to be transferred on medical grounds as she is not the tenant for the property.
18. Miss X’s mother had previously done so in October 2022. As part of the Council’s assessment of this application it conducted a HHSRS assessment. As a result, the family is registered on the overcrowded tenants list for a five-bedroomed property and are in position 1 on the list with 400 points, which is made up of 300 severe overcrowding points, 50 residency points, and 50 workers points. Miss X and her daughter are included on the application.
19. Miss X was informed of the decision to decline her application in writing on 21 August 2023 and she was advised of her right to request a review of the decision. Miss X sought a review of the decision on 12 September.
20. The Council provided the review outcome to Miss X on 4 January 2024. This upheld the decision to decline her application.
21. The review was due to be completed on 7 November 2023 but there was a delay in doing so. The Council says this was because the reviewing officer required clarification on a policy issue. In the review request Miss X had referred to Section 7.3 of the allocation scheme. This states:

7.3. Adult Children of Overcrowded Council Tenants

7.3.1. A case management approach will be taken for households who are overcrowded by two or more rooms. For the most severely overcrowded households this may include the option of offering one direct offer of separate housing in studio or one-bedroom flats when this will resolve their overcrowding and the remaining family agree to close their transfer application.

22. As a result of this, the reviewing officer sought clarification on the policy and was advised that whilst the Council’s most severely overcrowded households may be offered a studio or one-bedroomed property to part of the household, the policy did not state that they were guaranteed to be offered a social housing tenancy.
23. The Council accepts that an error was made in the review decision letter as it incorrectly referred throughout to Ms X sharing a bedroom with her two children rather than one, and that her son had a neurological condition when Ms X has a daughter, and it is one of her brothers that has the neurological condition.
24. The Council has confirmed it has referred the issue of mould within the property to its Housing Management Service to carry out an inspection.

My consideration

25. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
26. I should also explain the Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. She may 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.
27. However, the Council has accepted it did not properly explain the reasons for the decision set out in its original decision letter of 21 August 2023 to Miss X and that it should have informed her she could re-apply including only herself and her daughter on the application. This is fault.
28. It is reasonable to consider Miss X would have made such an application if she had been advised of the situation at the time.
29. It is regrettable the above fault was not identified as part of the Council’s delayed review decision of 4 January 2024. Instead, this decision letter contains incorrect information which only adds to the impression the matter was not properly considered.
30. I am satisfied Miss X has been caused avoidable uncertainty about how her application and subsequent review were considered and unnecessary inconvenience.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. The Council will take the following action within one month of my final decision to provide a suitable remedy to Ms X:
1. write to Miss X to apologise for her avoidable uncertainty and inconvenience caused by the fault in the way it dealt with her housing register application;
2. make a symbolic payment of £150 to Miss X to recognise her avoidable uncertainty and inconvenience; and
3. contact Miss X to invite a new application for herself and her daughter only and ensure any such application received is considered in a timely manner.
32. Although the Ombudsman cannot say what the outcome of any such application by Miss X would be, in the event the application (or any subsequent appeal) is successful the Council should backdate the date of joining the housing register to September 2023.
33. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation as I have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action provides a suitable remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman