The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms A complains about the way the Council dealt with her housing application. We have not found any fault in the council’s decision making.
The complaint
Ms A complained about the way the Council dealt with her application to move from its band C priority for housing allocation, to band B. She says the Council has not considered her health condition. She would like the Council to reconsider its decision.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) If we are satisfied with a council’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 information provided by Ms A and the Council, the relevant law, guidance and Council policy.
Ms A and the Council have had the opportunity to provide their comments before this final decision was made.
Law, guidance and policy The Localism Act 2011 This legislation introduced new freedoms to allow councils to better manage their waiting list and to tailor their allocation priorities to meet local needs.
The Housing Act 1996 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)) An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to homeless people, people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing, people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds and 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.
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 Councils Allocation Policy 2019 The policy explains that Band A will apply under medical reasons where an applicant’s condition is expected to be terminal within a period of 12 months and re-housing is required to provide a basis for the suitable provision of care. The condition is life threatening and the applicant’s existing accommodation is a major contributory factor.
The policy includes a community contribution criteria, whereby applicants who meet the criteria and are in Band C will be moved to Band B. One way to meet the criteria is by having one adult household member who has been in employment for six out of the past twelve months. The policy sets out a requirement for payslips, a P60, bank statements or a verifying letter on headed paper to evidence this employment.
To qualify for Band B, the only criteria is the applicant is eligible for Band C and meets the Council’s community contribution criteria.
What I found
What happened Ms A lives in a 2-bedroom, fourth floor social housing property with her partner and four children. The Council allocated this property before Ms A had her fourth child.
Ms A informed the Council of her most recent pregnancy, in December 2022. Her health visitor wrote to the Council to say the home was overcrowded after the baby was born, in July 2023.
In October 2023, Ms A requested the Council move her from band C priority for housing to band B. The Council responded to say if she provided evidence that she qualified for its community contribution scheme, it could do this.
The Council included details of the criteria to be moved under the community contribution scheme, and the evidence Ms A would need to provide in support.
In December 2023, Ms A provided one payslip evidencing her partner’s employment for one month, and a letter from her GP confirming she has mechanical back pain.
In February 2024, the Council wrote to Ms A and explained that having considered the evidence provided, the Council had decided not to change her banding. It explained that if she provides evidence her partner had worked for 6 months out of the past 12, she would be moved to band B.
Analysis and findings The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may 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 policy.
The Council has confirmed that although Ms A’s priority band was not changed, she may bid for three-bedroom properties, which would be more suitable for the size of her household. The Council has therefore addressed Ms A’s need for a bigger property after her youngest child was born.
There is a delay in Ms A being able to successfully bid on a suitable property because of the demand for three-bedroom properties. However, this delay is not due to a fault by the Council, it is because of a lack of available properties.
The Council told Ms A of the criteria she has to meet for her band to be changed. The evidence provided to me shows she did not meet the criteria to be moved to band B.
The Council’s response references the evidence Ms A gave to it and explains why this does not qualify her to move bands. It also explains what she can provide to allow this move to happen. If Ms A can show the Council her partner has been employed for 6 out of the past 12 months, the Council has said she will be moved to band B.
The Ombudsman may not find fault with a Council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
I appreciate Ms A’s frustrations with the property she is in, however, the Council’s decision has been made in accordance with its policy. This is because her family’s overcrowding is not significant enough for additional priority under the Council’s allocations scheme, and it has properly considered the medical information she provided to reach its views on medical priority. As I have not found fault in in the process the Council followed, it reached a decision it was entitled to make.
Final decision
We have found no fault in the Council’s decision making.
Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman