The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council handled her housing application. She said she missed out on a suitable property. We did not find fault with the Council.
The complaint
Miss X complained about the way the Council handled her housing application. She complained the Council: Delayed deciding her housing application.
Failed to properly consider the risk and impact of domestic abuse.
Failed to properly consider her medical evidence.
Failed to allow her to bid on suitable properties.
Missed information off her application.
Discriminated against her based on her race.
Wrongly told her there were no suitable properties available.
Miss X said the Councils failures made her miss out on a suitable property and caused her distress.
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 Miss X and considered the information she provided with her complaint. I made enquiries with the Council and considered its response a long with relevant law and guidance.
Miss X 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
Law and guidance 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 Localism Act 2011 introduced new freedoms to allow councils to better manage their waiting list and to tailor their allocation priorities to meet local needs.
An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories: homeless people; people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing; people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds; people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others; (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3)) Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons: that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation; that the applicant is not a qualifying person; a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9)) Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
The Council’s housing allocation scheme The allocations scheme sets out how the Council allocates its social housing. Solihull Council’s housing allocation scheme is called ‘Solihull Home Options’ (SHO). Solihull Community Housing (SCH) manages SHO on behalf of Solihull Council.
The Council has restricted those who can qualify to join its housing register Appendix B sets out the Council’s qualification criteria.
Appendix C sets out the Banding and Housing circumstances. This explains the priority given to those with an exceptional medical need and those who may be at risk of violence (including domestic abuse).
The guidance note says additional (Band A) priority will be awarded at the discretion of Head of Housing Options or Housing Options Manager where: there is an immediate threat to life or of very significant harm; and it is not safe for the applicant / household to remain in their present housing situation.
What happened What follows is a brief chronology of key events it does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
Miss X and her three children lived in another Council area. In January 2021 Miss X made a housing application to the Council. The Council assessed her application and decided she did not have a housing need because she was adequately housed.
In April Miss X completed a medical questionnaire to support her application. She also told the Council she was on a low income, overcrowded in her current property and a victim of domestic abuse. She wanted to move to the Council area away from the perpetrator.
The Council told Miss X to make a homeless application. Miss X completed a homeless assessment in June and the Council decided it owed her the relief duty.
In May Miss X’s social worker wrote to the Council in support of Miss X’s housing application. They told the Council Miss X was a victim of domestic abuse and she needed to move for the family’s safety.
The Council decided Miss X was eligible to join the register in Band D and needed a three-bedroom property.
In August the Council decided it owed Miss X the full housing duty. This also meant Miss X was awarded a Band B housing priority.
Between September and November the Council corresponded with Miss X about her medical evidence and completed its assessment. It decided she did have a medical need and awarded her Band B. The cumulative effect of two band B decisions meant Miss X was placed in Band A, which was the highest priority.
In February 2022 Miss X was matched to a three-bedroom property. The Council established it did not have the correct number of bedrooms allocated to Miss X. Miss X was entitled to a four-bedroom property, so the offer was withdrawn.
In June Miss X was matched with a four-bedroom property.
Miss X complained to the Council about the delay allowing her to join the housing register. She also complained she missed out on a suitable four-bedroom property because the Council failed to place a bid on her behalf.
In its final response the Council explained how it applied its allocation policy to Miss X’s application. It acknowledged that there had been ‘administrative error’ which meant it did not place a bid on a four-bedroom property in April 2022. It said Miss X did not miss out because the property went to an applicant with a higher priority.
Miss X remained unhappy with the Councils response. She complained to the Ombudsman.
My findings
I have summarised my findings under the main parts of Miss X’s complaint.
Housing application process I did not find fault with the way the Council considered Miss X’s housing application.
There was no evidence of unnecessary delays. The Council was entitled to ask for more information to make its decision and it explained to Miss X what medical evidence it could accept.
When Miss X told the Council she was a victim of domestic abuse the Council advised her to make a homeless application if she was not safe to stay in her property. The Council explained how it considered the domestic abuse aspect of Miss X’s case and why it decided not to award Band A priority because of domestic abuse. It was entitled to make that decision and I did not find fault with the way the decision was made. However, Miss X did move into Band A when she accumulated two Band B priority decisions. This is in line with the Council’s allocation scheme.
The Council considered the additional information from the social worker, the medical information and the homeless decision. It decided Miss X did qualify to join the register and it amended the banding based on the additional information it reviewed.
Miss X complained the Council discriminated on her based on her race. I did not find fault with the way the Council assessed Miss X’s housing application. This supports the Council’s position that it did not discriminate against Miss X.
We would not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We would not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme.
The bidding process The Council failed to bid on a suitable four-bedroom property in April 2022 because of an ‘administrative error’. It told Miss X she did not miss out on the property because another applicant had a higher priority.
There was no evidence the administrative fault caused Miss X to miss out on a suitable property in her preferred area. Therefore, it did not cause her a significant injustice. The Council has apologised and that is a suitable outcome for this part of the complaint.
Final decision
I did not find fault with the Council. I completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman