The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs B complains that the Council incorrectly removed her from its housing list, which meant she missed out on properties she would otherwise have secured had it not been for the Council’s mistake. We have discontinued our investigation. It is unlikely we could add anything to what the Council has already said, as it has already accepted its mistake and offered a suitable remedy.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs B, complains that the Council incorrectly cancelled her housing application and then, when it restarted the application in 2020, failed to backdate it to 2010 (when she first applied for housing).
Mrs B says the Council’s failure to backdate the application meant she lost priority she had gained from how long she had been waiting. She says this meant she missed out on properties she would otherwise have secured.
The Council eventually acknowledged its mistake and backdated Mrs B’s application. Consequently, she has now secured a move to a new home. However, she also wants the Council to compensate her for its failings.
Mrs B also complains that the Council: told her it would give her four weeks of accommodation rent-free, but did not do so; and refused to provide her with financial support to move house, despite this being a service it offers on its website.
She says its reason for not doing either of these things was that she was not a Council tenant.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or if we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered: information from Mrs B and the Council; and the Ombudsman’s publication Guidance on good practice: remedies.
Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
What should have happened?
The Devon home choice policy This policy sets out how authorities within the county of Devon – including the Council – manage housing allocations.
It says the Council will review applicants on its housing register at least every three years, and will write to applicants twice to ask them for information for the review. If an applicant does not respond to either letter (or email) then their application will be cancelled.
The Council’s downsizing scheme This scheme, which is described on the Council’s website, helps people with the cost of moving home if they are downsizing (up to £500).
The financial support is only available to Council tenants.
What happened?
The Council contacted Mrs B in August 2017, asking for information for its review of her housing application. Mrs B did not respond (she says she did not receive the email). The Council did not write to her again before cancelling her application.
Mrs B realised her application had been cancelled in late 2020 when she decided she wanted to move. She contacted the Council and it restarted her application; however, the start date of her application was now December 2020, not May 2010 (when Mrs B had first applied for housing).
Mrs B complained to the Council, saying she had lost priority she would have gained from being on the housing list for over ten years. The Council agreed it had made a mistake in 2017, and said it should have written to her a second time before cancelling her application. It backdated her application to 2010.
In the period between December 2020 (when she started bidding for properties) and July 2021 (when the Council backdated her application), Mrs B placed unsuccessful bids on 19 properties. The Council accepted that, had it never cancelled her application, she could have been successful with nine of those properties (provided any prospective landlord would allow pets, as Mrs B has a dog).
The Council apologised for the impact of its failings, and, in August 2021, offered Mrs B a payment of £250 to recognise her injustice. It also offered her four weeks rent-free if she were to secure a move to a Council property. It noted that it was not in a position to do this with any other type of property.
Mrs B also asked the Council to pay towards her moving costs as part of its downsizing scheme. It refused, saying the scheme was only for council tenants (which Mrs B was not).
Later in 2021, Mrs B successfully secured a move to a new (non-Council) home.
My findings
The Council has already accepted its mistake in 2017, it has backdated Mrs B’s application to the correct date, and she has secured a move to a new property. The Council has also offered a satisfactory payment of £250 to recognise the injustice Mrs B suffered from its failings.
Because of this, it is unlikely that I could add anything further to the Council’s investigation.
Although Miss B also complains about the Council’s refusal to either give her four weeks rent-free accommodation or pay towards her moving costs, it is unlikely I would find fault with the Council if I investigated further. This is because she was not, and is still not, a Council tenant.
For these reasons, there would be no worthwhile outcome to further investigation.
Final decision
I have discontinued my investigation. It is unlikely I could add anything to what the Council has already said, as it has already accepted its mistake and offered a suitable remedy.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman