Section: Allocations & Transfers

Local Government Ombudsman Update

Angus Nurse, who is an Investigator in the Local Government Ombudsman's Coventry Office, has produced the following article for Legal Update. It provides an overview of the Local Government Ombudsman's work as regards complaints about housing allocations and transfers.

The three Local Government Ombudsmen receive around 6,000 housing complaints a year, a sixth of which are about housing allocations and transfers.

Sometimes people have to live in unsuitable properties for a long time and suffer hardship as a result. The Ombudsmen cannot criticise councils that have failed to transfer tenants or allocate accommodation simply because there is a shortage of accommodation and a high demand for it, but where a council's allocations policy either fails to do what the law requires, or is unreasonable or has been wrongly or improperly applied, the Ombudsmen will find maladministration and may recommend a remedy for any injustice caused.

Complaints to the Ombudsman

In 2005/06, the Ombudsmen received 451 complaints about housing registers/allocations and 537 complaints about housing transfers. They reported on, or settled to their satisfaction, about 20 per cent of these complaints because it was clear that something had gone wrong.

Some typical complaints are where the council has failed to follow its policies and procedures, or does not have clear rules for determining allocations objectively, or has excluded applicants who have legitimate expectations of being given a reasonable preference. The Ombudsmen also receive complaints that a council has published insufficient or out of date information about policies and procedures; dealt with too many applicants as special cases or made subjective rather than objective policy based decisions; failed to respond to an applicant's changed circumstances or incorrectly deleted their application from the register; or made mistakes when entering information on computer systems.

Investigating housing allocations complaints

In general the role of the Ombudsmen in allocations complaints is to determine whether an allocations policy is reasonable and appears to do what the law requires. If a council has taken steps to ensure that it complies with the law by, for example, taking external legal advice; or if the courts have not found the policy unlawful; or, if the council can explain why and how it reached its decisions on relative priorities and can demonstrate that it gives priorities to people with specific needs, then the Ombudsmen will not question the policy. They do, however, investigate whether the policy has been properly applied.

In some cases it is clear that a policy does not comply with the law. For example, if length of residence dominates the allocations to the detriment of those with specific needs. In other instances it may be clear that a policy is not working properly because it is impossible to be sure how allocations are made. Responses to the Ombudsmen's enquiries sometimes reveal that officers are unable to explain how decisions have been made and also that applicants are not being given information about how a policy works or have received conflicting information.

Putting things right

In cases where the Ombudsmen find maladministration causing injustice they will recommend a remedy to address the fault and the harm that the complainant has suffered. Where a council has not taken appropriate action, for example, or has failed to allocate housing where it should have done or has made an unsuitable offer, the Ombudsmen may suggest that the council reassesses the application or makes a fresh offer. In other cases the council may be asked to apologise and pay compensation. This may cover, for example, the cost of damaged property, or increased rental costs, or professional fees. Compensation may also be recommended for less tangible matters, such as the time and trouble spent in pursuing a complaint or the distress of having to live in unsuitable accommodation for longer than was necessary. Such payments range between £500 to £2,000 a year depending on housing circumstances, but each recommendation is subject to the merits of the individual case.

Casework examples

Two casework examples illustrate the types of housing allocations complaint dealt with by the Ombudsmen.

Inadequate allocation scheme

Mr Patmore (not his real name for legal reasons) complained about a council's handling of his application for social housing.

Social housing in the district was provided by housing associations. The district council had nomination rights and ran a housing register. The register was compiled on the basis of a points scheme. Applicants received points according to their circumstances. Mr Patmore complained that the council's scheme gave insufficient priority to people whose existing accommodation was unsuitable for them because of a disability. He said that he had not been nominated for the tenancies of suitable properties and continued to live in unsatisfactory accommodation.

The council had a legal obligation to have a scheme for determining priorities in housing allocation. It had to ensure that the scheme gave reasonable preference to five defined categories, which included homeless applicants, people occupying unsanitary or overcrowded housing or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions and people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds.

The scheme could take other factors into account, provided that they were not given undue prominence at the expense of the 'reasonable preference' categories. In this case, the council awarded points for circumstances that were not in the reasonable preference categories, such as length of residence in the district and financial hardship.

Mr and Mrs Patmore both had physical disabilities. They used either crutches or a wheelchair most of the time. The bungalow they were living in was unsuitable for them and, because it was rented privately on a short-term tenancy, it was not feasible to adapt it. The county council's social services department confirmed to the district council that the property was unsuitable for their needs.

The Ombudsman looked into the points allocation of people allocated properties over a period. This showed that the majority of those allocated a property had more points for the secondary criteria than they did for the statutory criteria. In view of this the Ombudsman concluded that the council's scheme gave undue prominence to the secondary criteria and was incompatible with the law.

The Ombudsman considered that Mr and Mrs Patmore had had to wait for a suitable offer from the council for three months longer than they should have done. She recommended that the council should pay Mr and Mrs Patmore compensation of £200 in recognition of the delay in receiving an offer and for their time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. She also recommended that the council should review its allocation scheme to meet the requirements of the law. (Report - 03/C/10128)

Failure to apply policy

Mr Yew (not his real name for legal reasons) was a council tenant who lived in a tower block with his two teenage daughters and then, later, also his teenage son. At that point the flat was overcrowded. Mr Yew complained about the way his housing transfer application had been dealt with.

One offer of a house had been made that Mr Yew refused. The Ombudsman found that this offer should not have been made because an administrative error had given Mr Yew a higher total of points than his circumstances warranted. The Ombudsman also found nothing wrong with allocations to nine other people that Mr Yew had complained about. Nor did she regard as unreasonable a decision not to award him social need priority.

However, the Ombudsman did identify maladministration as a result of the council's failure to:

The Ombudsman was also concerned that the medical officer could be acting unfairly in the way she considered applications for medical priority. She was only prepared to give priority points to people who had physical problems with their property, for example, inability to access bathing facilities. If a property was physically suitable for the needs of an occupant, the medical officer would not give any points for any other medical problems.

Mr Yew's doctor pointed to evidence of depression related to the property (living in overcrowded conditions with three teenage children in a high rise flat), which would likely be alleviated by a move. The Ombudsman said that was a case which merited serious consideration for an award of medical priority.

Mr Yew was given a transfer that satisfied him. The evidence did not suggest that without the maladministration identified he would have received an earlier offer, so the Ombudsman regarded the transfer as a suitable outcome of his complaint. The Ombudsman was also pleased to learn that the council was reviewing its procedures. (Report 03/C/11904)


Further examples of housing transfer and allocation cases dealt with by the Ombudsman can be found at www.lgo.org.uk.

Housing Monthly Diary

Enter your email address to receive email alerts when there are updates to our website.

Issue: January 2007 Reporting on Nov-Dec 2006

Quick Links

Access to current journals

username: password:

Archive Issues Reporting Periods

-->