The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council’s delay re-assessing Mr X’s application to the housing register was fault. Mr X was in the wrong priority band for almost a year and missed offers of accommodation as a result. The Council has agreed to apologise, backdate Mr X’s application in the correct priority band, pay him £500, and act to improve its services.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of a request for a reassessment of his priority band on the housing register. In particular, that the Council: delayed responding to his request for over a year failed to consider if he met the criteria for Band 2 under the ‘good tenant’ part of its policy As a result, Mr X says he may have missed offers of accommodation by not being able to bid for properties with the correct priority.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Mr X’s representative about the complaint.
I made written enquiries of the Council.
I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which is available on our website.
Mr X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Housing allocations 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)) The Council places applicants who qualify to join the housing register in a priority band from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 4 (lowest priority). This priority is the first factor the Council uses to allocate a property.
The date on which the Council first placed an application into a priority band is called the registration date.
The date on which the Council placed an application into a priority band is called the priority band date. This can be different from the registration date if an applicant’s circumstances change, and they attract a higher priority band after registration. This date is important because the Council uses it to decide priority within a band. For example, if there are three bids for a property from applicants with Band 1 priority, the applicant with the oldest priority band date will be highest on the list.
So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band 3 to applicants who are: homeless and to whom the Council owes a statutory duty to accommodate under homelessness law.
overcrowded, but not statutorily so.
So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band 2 to applicants who are secure or assured tenants who have: held the tenancy for five years or more, have no housing related debt, and have not breached their tenancy agreement.
This is often called a “good tenant” award.
The scheme defines an assured tenancy as including “a person with an assured shorthold tenancy”.
The Council recently consulted on proposed changes to its allocations scheme. This included removing the ‘good tenant’ Band 2 award. However, the new scheme is not yet in place.
What happened In 2020, Mr X was at risk of becoming homeless from his private rented tenancy. He applied to the Council for help with his homelessness and to its housing register.
The Council assessed his application and awarded Band 3. The Council decided it did not have a statutory duty to accommodate Mr X under homelessness law.
Mr X’s representative, whom I shall call Ms Z, asked for a review of this decision in November. In December, she asked the Council to re-assess Mr X’s application to the housing register. She said that he met the ‘good tenant’ criteria and should therefore be in Band 2.
The Council says it has no record of Ms Z’s contact in December. Ms Z wrote to the Council in April 2021 to complain since there had been no response to her request in December.
In response to her complaint, the Council said Ms Z should provide the contact details for Mr X’s landlord and it would check whether he met the criteria. The letter says it would tell Mr X the decision in writing. The Council said the delay responding was “mainly due to severe backlog and staff shortages”.
Ms Z provided Mr X’s landlord details to the Council that same day. In June, she asked the Council to consider the complaint at stage 2 since there had been no response.
In November, the Council asked again for details of Mr X’s landlord, which Ms Z provided.
In its stage 2 response, the Council said Mr X did not qualify for the ‘good tenant’ Band 2 award because it only applied to tenants of the Council or other social landlords.
In December, the Council completed its review of its decision about Mr X’s homelessness. It decided that it did have a statutory duty to accommodate him. It provided him with temporary accommodation. He is in Band 3 on the housing register.
My findings
There was fault in the Council’s delay dealing with Ms Z’s request and resulting complaints.
In response to my enquiries, the Council said that “[i]f they say they wrote to the housing list in December 2020, we cannot see this on our files.” This statement is contradicted by the Council’s stage one complaint response. The letter explains the reasons for the delay in responding, which would indicate an acceptance that it had received a communication before April.
On balance, I think it more likely than not that Ms Z did ask the Council to re-assess Mr X’s banding in December 2020. The Council’s failure to respond to this request is fault.
In any event, the Council knew about the request when Ms Z complained in April 2021. The Council told her it would complete the assessment if she provided the details of Mr X’s landlord, which she did. Despite this, the Council failed to complete the re-assessment. This is fault.
Ms Z had to complain to the Council again in June. The Council still had not re-assessed the application by November, when it asked for the landlord details Ms Z had provided in April to be sent again. This is a further delay of five months and is further fault.
In total, I find the Council delayed dealing with Mr X’s request for re-assessment for 11 months.
Injustice Where we find fault, we then must consider whether that fault caused an injustice to the complainant.
In this case, the extent of the injustice depends on whether Mr X would have qualified for the ‘good tenant’ award.
The Council said ‘good tenant’ status only applies to tenants of social landlords in response to Ms Z’s complaint.
However, the Council’s published scheme does not limit the ‘good tenant’ status to social tenants. It says it applies to “secure or assured tenants”. Elsewhere in the scheme, an assured tenant is explicitly defined as including those with an Assured Shorthold Tenancy. This is the type of tenancy Mr X had.
In response to my enquiries, the Council accepted that “it would be hard to exclude a private sector tenant, if they could meet the full criteria as set out in the policy”. I consider this statement accurately reflects the Council’s published scheme.
In December 2020, Mr X had been a tenant for over five years. There is no evidence he had any rent arrears or housing related debt. The landlord issued a notice asking Mr X to leave, but this was not because of any breach of the tenancy.
I therefore find that had the Council made the enquiries of Mr X’s landlord it should have in December 2020, it would have awarded the ‘good tenant’ status to Mr X. This means that from January 2021 until the Council made its review decision on his homeless application in December, Mr X should have been bidding in Band 2.
In that time, the Council let six properties he bid on to applicants in Band 2 with a priority band date later than December 2020. This means that if Mr X had been bidding in Band 2, as I have found he should have been, he would have been the successful applicant for those properties.
Therefore, because of fault by the Council, Mr X missed offers of accommodation. This is a significant injustice to Mr X.
The Council’s delays in communicating with Ms Z, as Mr X’s representative, and failure to follow through on the actions it committed to in response to the stage one complaint caused avoidable time and trouble. This is an injustice.
Agreed action
To remedy the injustice to Mr X from the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to: apologise to Mr X in writing award Mr X Band 2, with a priority band date in December 2020, enabling Mr X to secure an offer quickly without restricting his choice pay Mr X £500 in recognition of his avoidable time and trouble and missed opportunity.
The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
The Council should also take the following action to improve its services: Share a copy of this decision with staff in relevant departments.
Identify and implement a process to ensure that commitments and actions the Council agrees in complaint responses are followed through.
The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within three months of my final decision.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. There is fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman