The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council is not at fault for not allowing Miss X to bid on non adapted properties. It is at fault for removing Miss X’s priority for a level access shower when she asked for a bath with bath chair to be included with her housing application and for failing to tell her about the effect changes would have on her application. Miss X did not miss out on successfully bidding for a property but she was caused some distress which the Council has agreed to remedy by apologising to her and making a payment of £100.
The complaint
Miss X complains that the Council has not done enough to re-house her to more suitable accommodation in the light of her medical conditions. In particular Miss X complains the Council is being too inflexible and unfairly refusing to consider her for properties which are not already adapted to meet her needs. As a result she has lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary.
What I have investigated I have investigated matters from July 2020.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) 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 have: Considered the complaint and the information provided by Miss X; Discussed the issues with Miss X; Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided; Invited Miss X and the Council to comment on the draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
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 operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.
In April 2021 four councils came together to become North Northamptonshire Council. Prior to this there were two separate allocations schemes in operation for the area: Homes Direct and Keyways. The two schemes were brought together in April 2021 as North Northants Keyways.
The North Northants keyways scheme says that an effective date is used to decide between people within the same band. The effective date is normally the date a complete application is accepted onto the register. But the application may be re-assessed if there is a change in circumstances. If the person is placed in a higher priority then their effective date is the date when they were placed in the higher band.
What happened Miss X lives in a private rented property and until recently lived with her daughter, Miss Y and granddaughter. The property is not suitable for Miss X as she had mobility problems and cannot use the stairs. She has been unable to use the bathroom. Miss Y also has health problems.
The Council considers Miss X needs a ground floor property or property with lift or stairlift to access upper floors. She also needs a wet room or level access shower. In accordance with its allocations policy, Miss X can only bid on properties which meet her needs.
Prior to April 2021 Miss X had applications with both homes direct and keyways which at times included Miss Y. In July 2020, Miss X’s priority was increased from band 4 to band 2 on homes direct by East Northamptonshire Council. This was to reflect Miss X had moderate medical housing needs. East Northamptonshire Council reviewed Miss X’s priority in November 2020 as Miss Y was no longer on her housing application. It kept Miss X in band 2.
In early 2021 Miss X moved into her current property and made a new housing application. Miss X could bid on one or two bedroom flats or bungalows. Miss X made a number of bids on properties but was unsuccessful.
In June 2021 Miss X added Miss Y and her granddaughter to her application which meant Miss X could bid on three bedroom properties. Miss X made a number of bids but was not successful. This was because other applicants had greater priority or the properties were not adapted to meet Miss X’s needs.
In September 2021 Miss X removed Miss Y and her granddaughter from her application She then added them again in October 2021. Miss X removed Miss Y and her granddaughter from her application again in February 2022 as they had not made a successful bid on a three bedroom property.
Miss X made a complaint to the Council including that the Council would not allow her to bid on properties which are not adapted and pay for the necessary adaptations herself. Miss X considered this was unfair as it limited the properties she could bid on and there were not many three bedroom properties. The Council explained that under its housing allocations scheme people could only bid on properties that improved their housing situation. So Miss X could not bid on properties that were not adapted and would not meet her needs.
Miss X considers she had been waiting too long to successfully bid and is struggling to live at her property as she cannot use the stairs and use the bathroom. She considers the Council should be more flexible and allow her to bid on properties which have not been adapted and then allow her to adapt them. Miss X also considers her effective date is incorrect as she has been on homes direct/keyways for a number of years.
In response to my enquiries, the Council has said: The housing allocation scheme is designed to keep adapted properties for people needing adaptations and non adapted properties to meet the needs of other people.
It will receive applications from people whose needs the social housing stock can’t quickly meet. For this reason it holds monthly multi disciplinary meetings with the community occupational therapy team to identify solutions for these people.
There is a regular supply of one and two bedroom adapted properties which can meet Miss X’s needs. If Miss X still needed a three bedroom adapted property then it would consider her case at the monthly meetings as the supply of these properties is low.
One of the difficulties is Miss X has frequently changed her housing requirements by adding and removing Miss Y and her granddaughter which in turn has changed the type of accommodation she could bid on. This is why some bids were not successful.
Miss X said she could manage with a bath and bath chair. The Council recognises Miss X said she could manage with a bath and bath chair to increase the chances of getting a property. But the Council’s IT system only allows a level access shower or not so she no longer had priority for properties with a level access shower. The Council recognises the limitations of its IT system which does not reflect the diversity of applicants needs and will review cases at its multi disciplinary team meetings.
Miss X’s priority was increased to band B in July 2020 so this is her effective date.
It accepts it should have better explained the impact of Miss X’s frequently changing her application. It has offered a payment of £100 to her to acknowledge this.
Analysis Flexibility The Council’s allocations scheme says people cannot be offered properties which do not make their housing situation better. So, the Council’s refusal to allow Miss X to bid on properties which do not have the adaptations she needs is in line with its allocations scheme. I have considered if the Council should have been more flexible and allowed Miss X to bid on properties that are not adapted. On balance, I do not consider the Council to be at fault. There is a shortage of adapted three bedroom properties. But Miss X has often changed her housing application to include or remove Miss Y which has changed the size of property she can bid on. This means she has not been waiting for a long and continued period of time to successfully bid on a three bedroom property. So, the Council is not at fault for not reviewing Miss X’s application and considering if it can allow her to bid on non adapted properties.
Effective date Miss X considers the Council has incorrectly recorded her effective date as July 2020 as she has been on homes direct and keyways for a number of years. She has also provided emails with homes direct to show she was on it in 2018. The Council’s allocations scheme says the effective date is the date a person was moved into a higher priority band. The Council moved Miss X into band B in July 2020 so the Council is not at fault in considering Miss X’s effective date to be July 2020.
Miss X also considers homes direct should have referred her application to its medical panel in 2019 and awarded her priority band B. She therefore considers her effective date to be incorrect. I have not investigated this matter as it is late and it was open to Miss X to have made a complaint about this matter sooner. I also do not consider I could now carry out an effective investigation and establish what happened including whether Miss X missed an offer. This is because the events are now three years old, the previous council has been replaced and there is a new allocations scheme.
Changes to Miss X’s application The Council has acknowledged that it should have explained to Miss X that she would not be allowed to bid on three bedroom properties if she changed her application by adding and removing her daughter and granddaughter. The Council also did not explain to Miss X that its system would not allow her priority for a level access shower if she included a bath in her application. This is fault. I also consider it is fault that the Council’s system cannot take account of a basic number of needs such as level access shower and bath with bath chair. I note the Council is aware of the limitations and is taking action to deal with it.
Miss X’s request for a bath was to increase the number of properties she could bid on. So, it is unlikely she would have changed her application to include a bath if she had known it would remove her priority for a level access shower. The Council has reviewed Miss X’s bids for the period she did not have priority for a level access shower to see if she would have successfully bid for a property with a level access shower. The breakdown of Miss X’s bids show she did not miss out on making a successful bid as she was not the highest bidder for any of these properties. But the faults have caused some distress to Miss X. The Council’s offered payment of £100 is an appropriate and proportionate remedy for this injustice.
Agreed action
That the Council sends a written apology and makes a payment of £100 to Miss X to acknowledge the distress caused to her by its system removing her priority for a property with a level access shower when she asked to include a bath on her application and for failing to explain the impact of Miss X’s changes to her application. The Council should take this action within one month of my final decision.
Final decision
The Council is not at fault for not allowing Miss X to bid on non adapted properties. It is at fault for removing Miss X’s priority for a level access shower when she asked for a bath with bath chair to be included with her housing application and for failing to tell her about the effect changes would have on her application. The Council has agreed to remedy the distress caused to Miss X in a proportionate way so I have completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman