Section: Allocations & Transfers

Transfer Incentive Scheme Was Not Clear

In a complaint about the way Oxford City Council dealt with a transfer application, the Ombudsman recommended compensation of £1,250.

The tenant making the complaint was the sole occupier of a three-bedroom council home and wanted to move to a smaller property, to be close to her daughter.

The Council introduced a Removal Expenses Scheme in 1992, as an incentive to encourage those over-occupying larger homes to move to smaller properties in the social housing sector. The publicity for the scheme was not clear that the incentive payment was restricted to rehousing directly by the Council or by a nominated (by the Council) housing association. The complainant felt she was misled into believing she would be entitled to an incentive payment, under the scheme, if she moved out of her council home and into a property provided by a housing association that she herself had made an application to.

The Ombudsman decided that the Council had failed to clarify in its publicity the full conditions of the scheme. The Ombudsman also commented on the vital importance of ensuring staff are clear about the benefits of the scheme and on the circumstances that apply.

Report No. 02/B/15417

Failings in Processing Housing Application

A report published by the Ombudsman deals with a complaint about the way Tower Hamlets LBC dealt with an application for housing. The Ombudsman's report lists a number of specific failings:

The assessment was not completed in a reasonable period of time.
The applicant was not told why his application had been refused.
Whilst the applicant was told he could appeal, he was not given any information to enable him to understand the grounds on which he might base an appeal.
When the applicant did become eligible to be registered for housing, staff did not notice the change in circumstances and therefore no action was taken to further the application.
The applicant should have been interviewed at the end of July 2002, but it was eight months later before this happened, and then only because of his deteriorating health. By then, he had become homeless.

The Ombudsman accepted the Council's offered remedies of an apology, £1,000 compensation, and enhanced priority if the claimant wishes to be rehoused.

Report No. 02/C/11850

Council Not Meeting its Allocation Scheme

A tenant of Stockton-on-Tees BC complained to the Ombudsman that the Council had failed to deal properly with his housing transfer application. The complainant lived in a flat in a tower block with his two teenage daughters. In early Autumn 2003 his 14 year old son moved in, making the flat overcrowded.

One offer of a house had been made, which the complainant refused. The Ombudsman concluded that this offer was made in error, in the complainant's favour, as his points total at that time had been miscalculated.

Additionally, the Ombudsman identified the following:

Failure to provide proper information about how individual allocation decisions are made.
Failure to refer a request for medical priority to the Senior Clinical Medical Officer.
Failure to allocate housing in accordance with its allocation scheme, which demands that 25% of allocations are made to transfer list applicants.

The Council has taken steps to rectify the matters outlined and the complainant has since received a transfer. As the evidence suggested the complainant should not have received a transfer earlier, the Ombudsman regarded this as a suitable settlement of the complaint.

Report No. 03/C/11904

Section: Allocations & Transfers

Transfer Incentive Scheme Was Not Clear

Failings in Processing Housing Application

Council Not Meeting its Allocation Scheme

Housing Monthly Diary

Issue: July 2004 Reporting on April-June 2004

Quick Links

Welcome to the Legal Update

Archive Issues Reporting Periods