Summary: The Council wrongly reduced Mr X’s housing priority and failed to promptly close his review when it resolved the issue. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X and to make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council was wrong to reduce his housing priority from Band B to Band D and that it then significantly delayed carrying out a review of its decision. He also complains about the Council’s decisions on his homelessness applications.
2. Mr X says that as a result of the Council’s failings, he remains living in unsuitable accommodation which is affecting his 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 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint about his housing priority. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decisions on his homelessness applications. Mr X has not made any homelessness applications since June 2023. As explained in paragraph four of this statement, we will not usually investigate late complaints. I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to complain about the decisions on his homelessness applications within 12 months, and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate them now.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

8. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. If a housing applicant is accepted on to the housing register, they can bid on properties advertised by the Council.
9. The allocations scheme sets out the rules for qualifying to join the housing register, how applicants are prioritised and how the Council manages the allocation of available properties.
10. The scheme introduced in January 2023 places applicants in a priority band from Band A (highest priority) to Band D (lowest priority). It says Band B will be awarded where the applicant needs to move on medical grounds.
11. The previous scheme awarded Band 2 in the same circumstances. It placed applicants in a priority band from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 4 (lowest priority).
12. Band B applicants are entitled to two offers of social housing. If an applicant refuses two offers, they are placed in band D for 12 months.
13. Applicants have the right to request a review of a council’s decision. Government guidance suggests eight weeks as a reasonable timescale for completing reviews.

Background and key events

14. Mr X joined the Council’s housing register in July 2021 and was initially awarded Band 2 medical priority. When the new allocations scheme was introduced in January 2023, his priority band was changed from Band 2 to Band B.
15. In February 2024, Mr X was offered a property he had bid on nearly a year earlier, in March 2023. Mr X decided to refuse the offer.
16. Under the Council's policy, applicants are entitled to two offers of social housing. If an applicant refuses both offers, they are placed in Band D for 12 months. Mr X did not consider the offer made in February 2024 should be treated as one of his two offers because of the lengthy gap between the bid and the offer. He requested a review of the decision to treat it as a refusal.
17. On 30 April, the Council decided to change Mr X’s housing priority to Band D because it considered he had refused two offers of social housing. When Mr X discovered this, he lodged a formal complaint with the Council.
18. In the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint, it said that it recognised that the length of time between the bid and the offer may have impacted his recollection of the property and its suitability and it decided not to treat this as a refusal.
19. The Council also found that a housing association property he had been shortlisted for in April 2023 had been wrongly treated as a refusal. The housing association had withdrawn the offer due to Mr X’s rent arrears.
20. The Council reinstated Mr X’s two offers and changed his housing priority back to Band B on 15 May.
21. On 28 November, the Council considered Mr X’s request for a review, which he had made in February. It decided to close the review because the issue he had raised had already been resolved in May when the Council had reinstated his two offers and corrected his priority banding.

Analysis

22. The Council was wrong to decide on 30 April 2024 that Mr X’s housing priority should be reduced from Band B to Band D because he had not refused two offers of social housing. The Council did not write to Mr X to tell him that it had reduced his housing priority, and when he discovered it had done so, he did not understand why because he had not refused two offers of accommodation. The housing association property had been withdrawn over a year earlier, and when he was offered the property in February 2024, he was told it was his first offer. He did not receive any further offers before the decision was made to reduce his housing priority on 30 April. The Council should not have placed Mr X in Band D. This was fault.
23. The Council corrected this error on 15 May 2024, reinstating Mr X’s two offers and placing him back in Band B. While I do not believe that Mr X missed out on any properties during his time in Band D between 30 April and 15 May, the Council’s error caused Mr X unnecessary distress and frustration.
24. Mr X submitted a request for a review on 14 February 2024. Reviews should be completed within eight weeks. The Council did not acknowledge Mr X’s request until 22 April, and did not consider his review until 28 November, 41 weeks after his request. This delay was fault. Mr X’s review should have been closed in May when the Council reinstated his two offers. I do not consider the delay caused Mr X any significant injustice.
25. When the Council acknowledged Mr X’s review request, it sent him an email with a blank attachment. The Council says this happens when officers use an incorrect process to recreate letters. It says it is working with its system provider to resolve this technical issue and it is also reminding staff of the correct process for recreating letters.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. Within four weeks, the Council will make a symbolic payment of £100 to Mr X to acknowledge the distress and frustration he experienced as a result of the identified failings.
27. Within eight weeks, the Council will take the following actions:
• Take steps to ensure all decisions are properly recorded. The decision to reduce Mr X’s housing priority on 30 April 2024 is not included in the case notes.
• Investigate why Mr X’s housing priority was reduced on 30 April 2024, considering the offer letter dated 6 February 2024 clearly stated it was a first offer, not a final offer. The Council should take action to ensure such errors do not occur in future.
• Review its procedures to ensure that, once a matter under review is resolved, the review is promptly closed.
• Provide evidence of the action it is taking to ensure housing applicants do not receive blank attachments when officers are recreating letters.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman