The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complained she had been placed on the incorrect priority band for her housing application which meant she had missed out on properties she should have been able to bid on. We found fault because the Council had placed Miss X on the incorrect band. Miss X suffered avoidable frustration and distress and missed out on the opportunity to bid on several properties. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has already made a payment to Miss X and made several direct offers of suitable housing. We are satisfied these actions have remedied the injustice caused to Miss X.
The complaint
Miss X complains she missed out on the opportunity to bid for suitable properties as the Council changed her housing priority band without reason. She says the Council has corrected the banding but complains it promised her a direct offer of accommodation which it later denied making.
Miss X says she has had to remain in overcrowded accommodation for longer than she should and this situation has caused her distress and frustration.
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. 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) 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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)
What I have and have not investigated Paragraph four (above) applies to this complaint. I have exercised discretion to investigate Miss X’s complaint back to February 2020. This is when the Council should have changed her housing priority band but did not do so. It is therefore reasonable to include this period in my investigation.
My investigation ends in June 2023 which is when Miss X brought her complaint to us.
How I considered this complaint
I have considered all the information Miss X provided and discussed this complaint with her. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
Miss X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.
What I found
Housing Allocation Policy 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 housing allocation policy has priority bands which set out how properties are allocated in its area. Applicants in Band A have the highest priority and those in band D the lowest.
What happened I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.
At the beginning of September 2022, Miss X made a complaint to the Council that she was living in overcrowded accommodation and was unable to bid on some properties she thought she should be able to. She felt she fitted the criteria on the adverts but could not arrange a viewing on them as the website showed her as ‘rejected’.
She complained that other properties she had been able to bid on had been allocated to people with a lower priority banding than her or a priority date which was later than hers. She also complained the Council had not updated its records to show she had a disability. She believed she should be in band A with a priority date of October 2011. Band A is emergency medical priority, granted in exceptional circumstances when a member of the household has a life-threatening condition which is seriously affected by their current housing.
Miss X said she would like a direct move from her current property to a three or four bedroomed house in a specific part of the Council’s area (district A) as she had family connections there.
At the beginning of October 2022, the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint. In this letter, the Council: confirmed that in September 2022, its records showed Miss X was living in two-bedroomed Council accommodation with her four children, ranging from pre-teens to their twenties; confirmed that after considering the medical information Miss X had submitted it was unable to increase her priority to band A; advised she had been assessed as band B on the grounds of overcrowding with a priority date of October 2011 and the need for a four bedroomed property; and confirmed that as its computer system had shown her assessed need as a four-bedroomed property, she had been rejected from bidding for other properties as her application did not meet the criteria for the three-bedroomed properties she had wanted to bid on.
The Council said it would consider her request for a direct move to a three or four-bedroomed property and share its decision with her once made. The Council said that any change in the number of people on Miss X’s housing application would have an impact on the priority band and assessed bedroom need.
After Miss X asked to escalate her complaint to stage two of the Council’s process, she complained she had been unable to bid on the correct properties for a two-year period as she had been incorrectly placed on band D rather than band B.
The Council sent its stage two response to Miss X towards the end of November 2022. In its response, it: confirmed that between late February 2020 and the beginning of February 2021, an error had led to Miss X being placed on band D instead of band B (band D applicants are not eligible to bid at all in line with the Council’s allocations policy); apologised and confirmed that four properties were advertised in November and December 2020 that had the correct number of bedrooms and were allocated to bidders with a lower priority than Miss X; and advised the housing team would contact her within a week to discuss what steps it would take to make up for the bidding opportunities Miss X had missed out on.
The Council ended its letter by offering Miss X £4000 for the injustice and distress caused by the incorrect banding and for the time and trouble taken in order to get a resolution. The Council signposted Miss X to the Ombudsman.
Miss X has confirmed to me that she accepted and has been paid the £4000.
At the end of November 2022, the Council advised Miss X it would make her a direct offer of a three-bedroomed property. The Council noted Miss X’s preference to be housed in district A but advised her this was not a realistic expectation due to demand and supply issues within the borough. It advised her it would make offers of properties within its area.
It confirmed that when it looked at the properties she should have been able to bid on but could not during the time of its error, she missed out on one potential property in district A. It also confirmed that historically only around 20% of her previous bids had been on properties in district A.
The Council also confirmed it had identified a three-bedroomed house in another district within its area and this was still open for Miss X to view and consider accepting, it being under a 30-minute journey from district A. The Council again re-iterated that if Miss X only wanted to be housed in district A her wait may be extended.
From November 2022 to January 2023, Miss X repeatedly stated to the Council that she had not received a direct offer of housing in district A, asked when it would be made and stated only a three-bedroomed house in district A would be suitable to her.
In February 2023, the Council offered Miss X viewings on both a three-bedroomed ground floor flat and a three-bedroomed house. Miss X declined these saying she was only interested in properties in district A.
In June 2023, Miss X was offered a newly built, three-bedroomed, ground floor property in district A. Miss X declined this as it was a flat not a house.
In July 2023 and after the period of investigation ends, the Council advised Miss X that it had now decided she could be considered for both three and four-bedroomed properties.
In November 2023, the Council advised Miss X that there were currently no three or four-bedroomed properties available and encouraged her to consider areas other than district A as it would speed up the rehousing process.
Analysis Incorrect priority banding In response to my enquiries, the Council said its stage one complaint response was not detailed enough and did not consider how Miss X had been affected by the banding error. I agree. This was fault. However, there was no ongoing injustice to Miss X as she escalated her complaint which was then dealt with in appropriate detail and errors on the Council’s part identified in its stage two response.
The Council has explained that it failed to update the makeup of Miss X’s household in February 2020, which should then have triggered a change back from band D to band B. Failing to correctly update its records was fault. As per the Council’s stage two response to Miss X, this meant from February 2020 to February 2021, she lost out on the opportunity to bid for houses she should have been able to. This caused Miss X avoidable frustration and distress.
The Council offered Miss X a remedy payment to reflect the injustice caused by the error. It offered Miss X £300 per month for a period of 12 months totalling £3600, with an additional payment of £400 for Miss X’s time and trouble in getting the error corrected. I am satisfied, that in the circumstances of this complaint, the remedy offered by the Council was sufficient to reflect the injustice caused to Miss X of not being able to bid and also the linked distress this would have caused. The remedy offer accepted by Miss X was in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. With this in mind, I do not intend to make any further recommendation linked to the injustice caused to Miss X.
Miss X has been back on the correct priority banding since February 2021.
The Council’s direct offer to Miss X Miss X complains she was made a direct verbal offer by one of the Council’s officers but that the officer later denied making this. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed it had no knowledge or records of any such conversation with the officer and Miss X. I am therefore unable to come to a decision on any potential fault due to a lack of available evidence.
However, as promised in its stage two response to Miss X, by the end of November 2022 and a week after the stage two response was issued, the Council confirmed in writing to Miss X that it would make her a direct offer of three-bedroomed social housing.
The email sent to Miss X was very clear that whilst it understood her preference was to be housed in district A, the expectation was not realistic and the Council would make an offer to her of suitable housing within Brent’s area.
Whilst I understand Miss X’s preference is important to her, the Council does not have a duty to offer her a property in district A, neither does it have a duty to offer her a house which is all she has said she will accept. Miss X has a right to make her preferences known and to refuse properties presented to her, but this does not mean the Council is at fault for not offering her properties in line with what her preferences are. The Council has explained the imbalance between supply and demand for properties.
The Council has instead offered multiple properties that it considered were suitable and within the borough. I am satisfied, that in the circumstances of this complaint, the Council has carried out its promise to make Miss X a direct offer of suitable accommodation in an attempt to address the issue of her not previously being able to bid and having missed out on the chance to bid on properties during the time her banding was incorrect. On this basis, I do not find fault in the Council’s actions and do not intend to make any further recommendation.
Final decision
I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.
Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman