Summary: The Council wrongly prevented Miss B from bidding for properties on its housing register and made direct offers of properties which were unsuitable. It also failed to carry out a medical assessment after Miss B said that she was disabled and her accommodation was unsuitable for her needs. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss B, offer Miss B the next available suitable property and take action to prevent similar failings in future.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains that the Council has delayed providing her with suitable accommodation following a court’s decision that her accommodation was unsuitable in 2016.
2. Miss B says the accommodation is not fit for habitation, is not suitable for her physical disability needs and has affected her health.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. As explained in paragraph seven of this statement, we will usually only investigate complaints about matters the complainant has become aware of in the last 12 months. We can exercise discretion to investigate earlier matters where the alleged fault is continuing, as in this case. While I consider we should exercise discretion, I have decided that we should restrict our investigation to matters since November 2019. This is because I consider it would have been reasonable for Miss B to complain to us sooner, and I am not satisfied that it is possible to establish all the facts and reach a sound judgement about earlier events due to the passage of time.
4. I have not investigated Miss B’s complaint about disrepair in the property for the reasons explained in paragraph eight of this statement. Such complaints can be considered by the Housing Ombudsman.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
9. We have limited resources and must investigate complaints in a proportionate manner, focusing on general themes and issues, rather than providing a response to every individual issue raised in a complaint.
10. 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

11. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• considered a colleague’s notes of her discussions with the complainant;
• considered the Council’s responses to our enquiries and the documents it has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

12. 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))
13. The Council’s housing allocations policy has three bands – A, B and C and it places applicants in the bands according to their housing need. Band A is the highest priority.
14. The policy says that a ‘direct let’ may be considered for any applicant whose assessment results in them being placed in Band A of the Housing Register and where, in the judgement of the Council, a ‘direct let’ offers a better prospect of securing a move than may be achieved by bidding for a suitable home. Applicants will not be allowed to participate in the choice-based lettings scheme if it has been agreed that they will only receive a ‘direct offer’ of accommodation.
15. The Council will consider a ‘direct let’ where it is in the overriding interests of the Council to prioritise an allocation of housing to a particular household and/or it is necessary to comply with a Court Order and/or fulfil an urgent statutory or legal duty.
16. When calculating bedroom entitlement, the Council allocates a separate bedroom to each adult over the age of 25.

Background and key events

17. Miss B made a homelessness application to the Council in 2006. It accepted that it had a duty to secure accommodation for Miss B and her household and placed the family in temporary accommodation. Miss B also joined the Council’s housing register.
18. In March 2015, the Council offered Miss B permanent accommodation which she did not consider to be suitable. She accepted the offer but requested a review of the suitability of the accommodation.
19. The Council carried out the review and decided that the accommodation was suitable. Miss B appealed the decision to the county court. In March 2016, the judge ordered that the review decision be quashed. We have not been provided with information to show the reason for this. The Council did not carry out another review of the suitability of the accommodation.
20. In September 2017, the Council placed Miss B’s housing application in Band A as an ‘overriding interest case’, with an effective date of 13 April 2015. Miss B bid on three properties in 2017. The Council’s records show that Miss B has only bid on one property since then. Miss B says that she has bid on several other properties but often she would find her account was suspended and she would have to contact the Council to place the bid on her behalf.
21. In February 2021, the Council wrote to Miss B and advised that she was “in a high position on the direct offer list, awaiting a suitable offer of accommodation. This means you do not need to bid.” Miss B says she did not know previously that she was on the direct offer list.
22. After Miss B complained in December 2021 about the length of time she had been waiting for a property, she discovered that the Council was only searching for properties in the west of the borough, and was only considering three-bedroom properties, when she needed a two-bedroom property. Miss B contacted the Council and it corrected her preferred areas and bedroom need.
23. The Council offered a property to Miss B in February 2022 which it later withdrew. It then offered properties in November and December 2022 but Miss B refused them because she did not consider they were suitable for her medical and physical needs.

Analysis

24. The Council’s records in this case are very poor. It has been unable to provide evidence to show why a court quashed the review decision, why or when it was decided to offer Miss B a direct let, when Miss B was prevented from bidding, or of any action it has taken to move Miss B to suitable accommodation between 2016 and 2022. This is fault.
25. The Council accepts that it has given Miss B inconsistent information; it told Miss B that she could bid for properties but also told Miss B that she did not need to bid because she would be made a direct offer. In the Council’s response to Miss B’s complaint, it said that this inconsistent information had led to her housing transfer being delayed and it offered Miss B £700 compensation.
26. I consider it likely that the Council wrongly prevented Miss B from bidding for properties, and she has been unable to bid since before November 2019. This was fault. In reaching this view, I have taken into consideration Miss B’s bidding history, that she was awarded Band A as an ‘overriding interest case’ in 2017, the Council’s records which refer to Miss B being unable to bid for properties because hers was a ‘direct offer only case’, and that she was in a high position on the direct offer list in February 2021.
27. As explained in paragraph three of this statement, we are only investigating matters since November 2019. In the year 2019/2020, an applicant in Band A would, on average, wait 20 months before they successfully bid on a three-bedroom property. Considering Miss B’s effective date was 13 April 2015, she would have been in a very high position for any properties she bid on. However, the evidence suggests that Miss B did not try to bid on any properties between November 2019 and July 2021. I therefore do not consider Miss B was adversely affected by not being able to bid during this period.
28. Miss B did try to bid on a property in July 2021. If there had been no fault by the Council and Miss B had not been prevented from bidding, I consider it likely that she would have successfully bid on a property by October 2021. I consider Miss B has been living in accommodation unsuitable for her medical and physical needs since then as a direct result of fault by the Council.
29. Miss B considers the Council should have made a direct offer of a suitable property to her sooner, and it would have done so if it had not incorrectly decided she needed a property with three bedrooms. The Council says it is likely that when Miss B’s application was reassessed in November 2019, her bedroom entitlement was increased to three because her eldest son was 25 years old. This accords with the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme.
30. The evidence shows that Miss B confirmed that she needed a three-bedroom property in February 2021, but then advised the Council in July 2021 that her circumstances had changed and she only needed a two-bedroom property. I have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided that Miss B was entitled to three bedrooms between November 2019 and July 2021. But the Council failed to process Miss B's change of bedroom need in July 2021. This was fault. The Council changed Miss B’s bedroom entitlement in January 2022 when Miss B told the Council again that her son had moved out. I consider the Council would have made a direct offer to Miss B sooner if it had properly processed her change of circumstances in July 2021.
31. Miss B considers another reason she was not made a direct offer sooner is because the Council officer who assisted her to complete her housing application made a mistake when recording which areas she wanted to live in. I do not consider it is possible to establish how this error was made due to the passage of time.
32. When the Council made a direct offer of a property in February 2022, it was not ready to be let. In August 2022, the void works had not been completed but the property was still under offer to Miss B. The Council should not have offered Miss B a property which was not ready. This was fault and meant that Miss B was not eligible for any other direct lets between February and August 2022.
33. Miss B turned down two offers in November and December 2022 because she did not consider they were suitable for her medical and physical needs. Miss B had previously written to the Council in December 2021 asking for a medical assessment. She explained that she had a physical disability and she did not consider her accommodation was suitable for her needs. The Council did not carry out an assessment and instead relied on a medical assessment which was carried out several years earlier, in 2017. This was fault.
34. If there had been no fault by the Council here, I consider it likely that a direct offer of a suitable property would have been made by around October 2021. I consider the Council’s failings here contributed to Miss B remaining in unsuitable accommodation and caused Miss B significant frustration and distress.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Confirm with Miss B which areas she wishes to live in and then offer her the next available suitable property, taking into account the outcome of the medical assessment carried out in December 2022.
• Make a payment of £3800 for the 19 months since October 2021 when Miss B would likely have been offered a property if there had been no fault by the Council.
• Apologise for the failings identified in this case and make a payment of £500 to recognise Miss B’s distress and frustration.
36. The Council has also agreed to make a payment of £200 for each full month from May 2023 until Miss B is offered a suitable property. It should make this payment within four weeks of the offer.
37. Within eight weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Review its record-keeping to ensure it keeps complete records of all contact, action and decisions on housing applicant’s files.
• Review its procedures to ensure that tenants waiting for a direct offer are regularly updated, and are not prevented from bidding without good cause.
38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation and uphold Miss B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman