The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council removed her from its direct offers list, causing her to lose the chance to be considered for properties before they are advertised. The Council was not at fault for removing her from its direct offers list however, it was at fault for how it responded to Mrs X’s appeal. This did not cause Mrs X any injustice.
The complaint
Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to remove her from its direct offers list.
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) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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
As part of this investigation, I considered the information provided by Mrs X and the Council. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X over the telephone. I sent a draft of this decision to the Council and Mrs X and considered comments received in response.
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’s allocations policy The Council operates a choice-based letting scheme with a banding system for applicants on the housing register. Applicants are placed in a band based on their housing circumstances and need. Band 1 is the highest priority and Band 5 the lowest.
The Council also has discretion to make direct offers to applicants in certain circumstances. Should the Council make a direct offer of a property to an applicant, the property will not be advertised through the choice based letting scheme. Applicants have the right to appeal against a decision to remove or suspend priority or make a direct offer.
The Council can remove applicants from its direct offer list should they refused a direct offer of a suitable property.
What happened Mrs X lives in a two-bedroom property with her husband and two children.
In September 2020, the Council assessed Mrs X’s housing register application to see if her household could have medical priority. The Council decided medical priority Band 3 applied and that her household needed an additional bedroom as her two children could not share a room due to the medical needs of one of the children. The Council decided Mrs X needed a three-bedroom property, with a garden or near a park and the property was to be no higher than the first floor.
In July 2021, the Council placed Mrs X onto its direct offers list. This was following a previous complaint by Mrs X where the Council delayed in updating her medical priority to Band 3. As a result of this Mrs X missed out on successfully bidding for a property in January 2021. The Council said in its complaint response: “I am pleased to advise that due to this error, the Allocations Team have added you to their direct offer list, to be put forward for the next available 3-bedroom property in the XXXXX area. Although the service has advised that they cannot guarantee when a property in this area will become available, they have confirmed that it will be offered directly to you, rather than advertised on the choice-based lettings system for bidding.”
On 28 June 2022, the Council offered Mrs X a three-bedroom terrace house with a private garden in her area of choice. In the offer letter the Council told Mrs X this was a direct offer, and she would receive no further offers.
On 29 June 2022, the Council send an email to Mrs X which stated it had previously advised her it would endeavour to meet her request of an equivalent property to the January 2021 property she missed out on, but the Council said it could not guarantee being able to offer her an identical property.
On 30 June 2022, the Council’s tenancy management team contact Mrs X to arrange a viewing. Mrs X did not agree to view the property. Mrs X said her reasoning for this was she did not want her husband or daughter to see the property as it would have a negative impact on their mental health. Mrs X signed a refusal form and appealed the offer. Mrs X said: The property was too small.
The Council had told her she would get a property which was equivalent to the previous property she missed out on in January 2021.
Her husband and daughter are disabled and have blue badges.
After completing the refusal form Mrs X sent an email to the Council which said the property was too small as she could not supervise her husband in the kitchen. Mrs X said he needed to cook as part of therapy for a brain injury.
After refusing the property, the Council removed Mrs X from its direct offer list.
In August 2022, the Council gave Mrs X its appeal decision. The Council decided the offer was suitable and did not uphold Mrs X’s appeal. The Council said: It did not tell Mrs X she would be offered a property equivalent to the January 2021 property she missed out on. The Council said it told Mrs X she would be offered the next three-bedroom property available in the specific area she requested.
As Mrs X refused the property and did not view it the Council could not determine whether the property was unsuitable due to its size. However, the Council said the property met Mrs X’s requirements as it was a three-bedroom property in the area she requested.
Mrs X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman. Mrs X said the property offered was too small and only had space for one person in the kitchen which was not suitable for her husband’s needs. Mrs X also said the Council had promised to offer her a property the same as the January 2021 property she missed out on.
Analysis Mrs X complains the Council unfairly removed her from the direct offer list by offering her an unsuitable property.
In response to Mrs X’s appeal the Council said it could not assess the size of the property as Mrs X did not view it. This was fault. The Council should have responded to Mrs X’s concerns about the size of the kitchen in the appeal response.
While this was fault, I do not consider this caused Mrs X any injustice. Firstly, Mrs X did not view the property. While I acknowledge Mrs X’s points about not wanting her husband and daughter to see the property, I am satisfied Mrs X could have viewed the property, particularly as she was able to visit a neighbouring property. The Council also told Mrs X in the offer letter that she would only receive one direct offer of accommodation.
Secondly, the information on Mrs X’s housing register application said her household needed a three-bedroom property, with a garden or near to a park. The property which the Council offered to Mrs X met these requirements, as it had three bedrooms and a private garden. While I acknowledge Mrs X’s concerns about her husband’s health and how the kitchen was too small, there are no requirements in her housing application which specified she needed a larger kitchen, or a kitchen of a particular size based on her husband’s health. I am satisfied the property met the required property type for Mrs X’s household.
Mrs X also said the Council had promised to offer her a property equivalent to the property she missed out on in January 2021. From the information I have, the Council told Mrs X in its July 2021 complaint response that she would be offered the first available three bedroomed property in her area of choice. In an email at the end of June 2022 the Council said it had previously told her it would try to offer her a property the same as the one she missed out on in January 2021, but could not guarantee this. I am therefore satisfied the Council did not agree to offer Mrs X a property identical to the January 2021 offer. Instead, the Council told her it would try to do this but could not guarantee an identical property would be available as it would offer her the first property which was available and met her requirements.
Overall, while the Council was at fault for the way it responded to Mrs X’s appeal I am satisfied it offered Mrs X a property which met the criteria in her housing register application. It also told her she would only receive one direct offer. As Mrs X refused this offer the Council was entitled to remove her from its direct offer list. I therefore find no fault with the Council for removing Mrs X from its direct offer list.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation and found the Council was not at fault for removing Mrs X from its direct offer list. The OCuncil was at fault for the way it responded to Mrs X’s appeal, however this did not cause her injustice so no remedy is recommended.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman