Haringey Council (202101101)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101101

Haringey Council

26 October 2021


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the Council’s handling of the resident’s request for re–housing.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 2 bedroom terraced house, owned by the Council. At the time the complaint matter arose, the resident lived in the property with her three children.
  2. On 15 August 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord with concerns that the property was overcrowded. She explained that her daughter’s health and wellbeing, were being impacted as a result of the overcrowding. She asked for a transfer to larger property.
  3. Following this, the Council submitted a request for a transfer to its decisions panel, on behalf of the resident. The decisions panel reviewed the case on 27 November 2019 and declined the request. The panel decided that the household was not overcrowded and explained it considered that it was reasonable for the resident to use the living room as a room to live.
  4. On 7 February 2020, the resident submitted a formal complaint about the decision panel’s decision. The Council responded at stage one and upheld the panel’s decision.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint and in this, explained that she believed that errors had been made in how her case was presented. Particularly, she stated that she had asked to be considered for a transfer on welfare grounds however, believed that the Council had incorrectly, put her forward to be assessed for a management transfer.  
  6. The Council provided its final response to the resident on 29 July 2020. It concluded that the resident’s case was considered on welfare grounds and found no fault in how the resident’s request for a transfer had been handled.
  7. On 14 April 2021, the resident referred her case for consideration to this Service. She explained that since the final complaint response was issued, she had given birth to twins and as a result, overcrowding in the property had increased. She said that they were seeking a move to a bigger property as a matter of urgency.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39m of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
  2. Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 includes transfers requested by local authority residents. It also sets out the circumstances which applications to whom reasonable preference must be given, when making decisions about offers of property. The reasonable preference criteria includes applicants who are occupying overcrowded housing and, applicants who require a move on medical or welfare grounds.
  3. The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. As the resident’s case falls within Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. It cannot be reviewed by the Housing Ombudsman.
  4. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. This includes complaints concerning applications for re housing that meet the reasonable preference criteria and the assessment of such applications.
  5. In this case, the resident is a resident of the local authority, who requested a transfer on welfare grounds, due to overcrowding, both of which are reasonable preference criteria. The complaint concerns the assessment of their application. Therefore, is better suited for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.