Summary: Mr B says the Council misled him about whether it had agreed to provide him with a direct offer, failed to respond to his emails and failed to give him sufficient priority on the Council’s housing register. The Council’s communications with Mr B about whether it had included him on the direct offers list were unclear, the Council delayed considering whether Mr B had exceptional circumstances to warrant a direct offer and in awarding him additional priority. That caused Mr B frustration and left him with some uncertainty about whether his situation could have been resolved earlier. An apology, payment to Mr B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained the Council:
• misled him about whether it had included him on the direct offer list;
• failed to respond to emails from his representative and MP; and
• failed to award him sufficient priority on the Council’s housing register.
2. Mr B says the Council’s actions meant he had to live in unsuitable accommodation with his family for longer than he should have.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
7. Mr B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s allocations scheme

8. This says the Council must give the following categories of applicants for social housing ‘reasonable preference:’
• those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness;
• households living in overcrowded or unsanitary conditions;
• those who need to move for health related or welfare reasons, including care leavers;
• people with high level support needs or a disability;
• those who need to move due to hardship.
9. It says the Council will place housing applicants into one of four bands according to their housing need. Applicants with the greatest housing need will be placed in band 1.
10. It says applicants are considered in band order and then in date order within the agreed band. The date of the application is either the date the application was assessed into that band or backdated by six months if the applicant has two composite (housing) needs. If the applicant has three or more composite housing needs, the date of the application will be backdated by 12 months.
11. Band 2 is awarded for a number of circumstances including severely overcrowded households. That is where the household has two bedrooms less than they are entitled to.
12. The Council’s allocations scheme provides for direct offers in certain circumstances. It lists those circumstances as:
• a) offers to homeless households;
• b) referrals from Police, probation Service or Home Office;
• c) council employee occupying tied accommodation;
• d) key ring supported living;
• e) priority Move-On Scheme;
• f) hospital discharge;
• g) other exceptional circumstances (where the applicant does not fall within any of the categories listed but, in the opinion of the Housing Supply Manager, requires a direct offer to resolve an urgent need for rehousing.)

Background

13. Mr B and his partner have three children, one of whom is autistic, and they were living in a one-bedroom flat. Mr B has been registered for social housing on the Council’s housing register since September 2018. Mr B was in band 2 on the Council’s housing register to reflect his overcrowding.
14. In July 2023 Mr B contacted the Council to raise concerns he had not secured a property despite living in overcrowded conditions. The Council encouraged Mr B to bid on suitable properties and said that was a better option for him than pursuing a homeless application as he would lose his priority.
15. Later in July 2023 a representative for Mr B contacted the Council and set out why they believed Mr B qualified for exceptional circumstances. The representative told the Council Mr B would consider a direct offer for various areas within Bristol. The Council asked Mr B’s representative to provide a list of areas Mr B would consider for a direct offer. The Council said it would then look at that and see whether there was a realistic chance of an offer within those areas. Mr B provided the Council with a list of those areas on 3 August and later provided an expanded list.
16. Mr B’s representative chased the Council on 29 August. Mr B’s representative asked whether the Council had an update about a direct offer as Mr B’s landlord had said he would not extend the tenancy any further. The representative also asked the Council to consider various options which included a direct offer and increasing the banding to band 1. In response the Council said it did not have anything to offer Mr B but could negotiate with the landlord.
17. Mr B’s representative told the Council on 4 October that Mr B’s landlord had threatened to evict him. The representative said Mr B would accept a direct offer in any of the areas on his list. The Council said it would contact Mr B’s landlord to see if he would agree a further extension. The Council said if he did not the family would need to make a homeless application.
18. The Council contacted Mr B’s landlord and he agreed a further six month tenancy.
19. In February 2024 Mr B’s representative told the Council the landlord intended to seek possession. The representative asked the Council to consider making the family a direct offer. Both Mr B and his representative then chased the Council later in February. In response the Council said it would contact Mr B’s landlord and encouraged Mr B to bid on more properties.
20. Mr B’s MP wrote to the Council about Mr B’s case. The Council responded on 29 April and apologised for the delay responding. The Council told the MP it had not included Mr B on the direct offer list as he was not eligible. The Council said though it had given Mr B a medical and welfare award which meant he now had composite needs. The Council explained that had increased the backdate on the housing register by an additional six months which should help him secure a property.
21. Mr B’s MP contacted the Council again on 7 May to ask for clarification why the Council had not included the family on the direct offers list as they had been told they were on the list. In response the Council said it could look at direct offers for the family but that could mean an offer of a property in an area they had not chosen. The MP provided the Council with a list of the areas Mr B would consider and asked the Council to consider making a direct offer based on exceptional circumstances.
22. In May 2024 the Council agreed to include Mr B on the direct offers list.
23. The Council made Mr B a direct offer for a property in one of his preferred areas in September 2024. Mr B and his family moved into the property in November 2024.

Analysis

24. Mr B says the Council misled him about whether he was on the direct offers list from July 2023, failed to respond to emails from his representative or MP and failed to consider his request for increased priority.
25. The documentary evidence shows Mr B’s representative asked the Council to consider a direct offer in July 2023. It is clear the Council asked Mr B’s representative to provide a list of areas Mr B was prepared to consider. When asking Mr B for that list the Council said once it had the list it would ‘consider for a direct offer’ and look at whether there was a realistic chance of an offer within Mr B’s preferred areas. While that did not say the Council had agreed to make Mr B a direct offer I am satisfied the Council had agreed to consider whether to do that once it received the list of the areas Mr B would consider. I have seen no evidence though to suggest the Council considered whether to provide Mr B with a direct offer once it received his list. Failure to do that is fault.
26. I am also concerned that between July 2023 and April 2024 Mr B’s representative repeatedly asked the Council to consider making Mr B a direct offer. Mr B’s representative also suggested other options such as increasing Mr B’s banding. Although I am satisfied the Council responded to most of Mr B’s representative’s correspondence promptly there is no evidence the Council addressed the request for a direct offer or increased banding. Failure to do that is fault.
27. I am also concerned there is no evidence the Council considered whether Mr B had exceptional circumstances which would warrant receiving a direct offer or additional priority until after Mr B’s MP contacted the Council in 2024. I am satisfied following that contact the Council agreed to give Mr B a medical and welfare award which meant Mr B had composite needs. That added another six months to the time Mr B had been on the housing register. The Council then agreed to make a direct offer. I consider the Council had sufficient information to enable it to make those decisions in 2023 and failure to do that is fault.
28. I am satisfied Mr B’s circumstances had not changed between 2023 and 2024. I therefore consider it likely, on the balance of probability, if the Council had properly considered the case in 2023 it would have given Mr B a medical and welfare award and agreed to make a direct offer. I could not say Mr B missed out on a property though as it would depend on the Council identifying a suitable property and deciding to offer it as a direct let to Mr B rather than somebody else on the direct offers list.
29. I consider though Mr B is left with some uncertainty about whether his situation could have been resolved earlier if the Council had properly considered his case. I take into account though the fact the Council’s allocations scheme is clear if a direct let is offered it is for a property anywhere in the Council’s area. In Mr B’s case the Council exercised its discretion in allowing Mr B to specify the areas he was willing to consider, which is not normally an option open to somebody for whom the Council has agreed to make a direct offer. I recommended the Council apologise to Mr B and pay him £300. I also recommended the Council remind officers dealing with decisions around direct lets to ensure it properly considers whether an applicant has exceptional circumstances. That reminder should include the need to record a decision about whether a direct let has been agreed and for officers to communicate that decision to the housing applicant. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Action

30. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mr B for the distress, uncertainty and frustration he experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• pay Mr B £300; and
• send a reminder to officers about the need to consider whether a housing applicant has exceptional circumstances which warrant inclusion on the direct offer list and to ensure decisions about that are communicated to the housing applicant.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman