Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council dealt with her housing priority. We found no evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains the Council has provided her with priority to move from her two-bedroom property as it is overcrowded but will not allow her to bid for three-bedroom properties as it assessed her as needing a four-bedroom property on medical grounds. Miss X says no four-bedroom properties are available and wants to bid for three-bedroom properties without losing her priority to improve her housing situation.
2. Miss X says because of the Council’s fault she is living in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary which is having a harmful impact on both her eldest son’s mental health and her own.

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

Background

The published scheme

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))

Reasonable preference

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))

Choice based lettings

9. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.

The Council’s housing allocation policy

10. The Council has five bands for prioritising applicants on the housing waiting list (bands 1 to 5) with band 1 applicants having the highest priority and band 5 applicants having the lowest priority. Priority bands may have a time limit. The Council may also place a restriction on the type of property that an applicant can bid for with their priority. This may reflect a recommendation for a property type, for example where a medical priority is awarded.
11. Once an application has been made active, the Council will advise an applicant in writing of their bidding reference number, their band and the types and size of properties that they can bid for. An applicant has the right to request a review of their banding at the point of registration, and at any further point where their circumstances have changed.
12. The Council uses the bedroom standard set out in Appendix 1 of the above allocation policy to determine the number of bedrooms required by a household. The standard works out the number of bedrooms required by pairing up members of the household. The allocation policy says that where the number of bedrooms is short by two or more bedrooms the applicant will be placed in band 3 to recognise that they are overcrowded. Where the number of bedrooms provided is short of the standard by one bedroom the applicant will be placed in band 4 on the basis they are not adequately housed.

Key events

13. Miss X currently lives in a two bedroom property with her four children.
14. Under the Council’s bedroom standard Miss X required a bedroom for herself, one bedroom for two of her sons and a third bedroom for her other son and daughter (as children of different genders may share a bedroom until one of them turns 10 years old). This meant Miss X was assessed as needing three bedrooms and as she was short by one bedroom she initially received priority band 4. This is in accordance with the Council’s allocation policy.
15. Miss X subsequently requested priority on medical grounds and completed a Housing Health Questionnaire for Medical Banding. This questionnaire provided details about her eldest son’s disturbed sleep pattern and difficulties the accommodation presented through being on the first floor with no access to outside space. Miss X included letters of support from medical professionals that explained due to her son’s sleep difficulties sharing a bedroom with his two brothers was not ideal and he would benefit from a bedroom of his own.
16. The Council referred Miss X’s application to its independent medical service for review which included her completed questionnaire and supporting letters. The service produced a report for the Council in February. This noted Miss X lived in a two bedroom first floor flat with her four children and her son was currently sharing a bedroom with his two brothers and would benefit from having his own room. The report concluded that medical property band 3 applied with housing needs being identified as: Miss X’s son to have his own room, a first floor maximum property with a garden or access to nearby park or open space.
17. The Council wrote to Miss X in early February 2023 with its decision to award ‘Band 3 for medical priority 2’. This letter set out that Miss X was entitled to bid for four-bedroom properties that met the housing needs of her son having his own room, first floor maximum and with access to a garden or nearby park/open space. The letter also noted Miss X’s choice of properties would be restricted due to the information she had provided to ensure any future property met the stated medical needs. The Council’s letter set out Miss X’s right to appeal the decision. Miss X did not appeal the decision.
18. Miss X complained to the Council towards the end of March 2024. Miss X was unhappy she did not have the option to bid for 3 bedroom properties despite there being no 4 bedroom properties available.
19. The Council responded to Miss X at the first stage of its complaint procedure in early April. The Council explained the bedroom standard it used when assessing overcrowding and that Miss X had required a bedroom for herself, one bedroom for two of her sons and a third bedroom for her other son and daughter (as children of different genders may share a bedroom until one of them turns 10 years old). As Miss X currently occupied a two bedroom property she was assessed as lacking one bedroom. This meant she had been awarded band 4 priority in line with the Council’s allocation policy for those lacking one bedroom. Miss X had subsequently been awarded priority band 3 on medical grounds in February 2023. The Council further explained that after an assessment of the documents she had provided, its independent medical service had recommended her son required his own room and specified this as part of her housing needs. The Council advised a priority band 3 had been recommended to support a move to more suitable accommodation to meet her son’s needs. An additional bedroom was awarded to Miss X’s application so her son was able to have his own bedroom which increased the bedroom need from three to four bedrooms. The Council accepted it had a very low stock of four bedroom properties but explained it was not able to consider her for a three-bedroom property without losing her priority band. This was because the information from medical professionals set out that her son required his own bedroom and the priority band was awarded to support this and allowing Miss X to move to a three bedroom property would not provide her son with the bedroom he required and would go against the recommendations and reasons for awarding a higher priority. The Council explained that if Miss X wished to be considered for a three bedroom property it would reassess the application and she would lose the priority band 3 awarded on medical grounds and return to a band 4 as lacking one bedroom.
20. Miss X asked for her complaint to be considered at the second stage of the Council’s complaint procedure in mid-April. Miss X said she was severely overcrowded and should have a higher priority and still be able to bid for three bedroom properties. The Council provided a response to Miss X’s escalated complaint in mid-May. This largely reiterated the information in the Council’s earlier complaint response.
21. The Council has advised the Ombudsman that it has 269 four bedroom properties. This figure includes properties with three bedroom and a downstairs room (parlour type) where this room had been assessed as safe to use as an additional bedroom. These properties are recatogorised on the system as four-bedroom properties as and when they become available and have been assessed. Miss X is eligible to bid for these properties when they are advertised on her matching list.
22. Miss X had placed three bids since her priority band was awarded at the point of the Council’s response to the Ombudsman. The Council has provided details of these bids and the position of the successful bidder. These show in each case the successful bidder had an effective date between 2019 and 2021. Miss X’s effective date is February 2023.

My consideration

23. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
24. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may 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.
25. Based on the information provided, I am satisfied the Council has assessed Miss X’s priority in line with its allocation policy and considered all the information she provided and her particular circumstances in reaching its decision.
26. I have seen no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision about Miss X’s housing priority and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation as I have found no evidence of fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman