The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Lambeth Council (202007851)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007851

Lambeth Council

27 June 2022


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 resident complains about the handling of their application for re-housing.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all of the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, the complaint as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, in line with paragraph 39 (m) of the Scheme.

Summary of events

  1. In March 2019 the resident submitted an application to join the Local Authority’s (Lambeth Council) choice-based lettings transfer list. Initially they were awarded band D, but the resident then submitted a request for a medical assessment. In this they stated, ‘I have forwarded the emails from 2009 which demonstrate that my need for an assistance dog and his need for a garden must be factored into the bidding profile. This was done, but has not been duplicated now that I need to move.’ They also referred to medical issues they said had been caused by damp at the property.
  2. Following this they were awarded band C (medium) priority in August 2019. The landlord explained that it used Choice Based Lettings which meant that advertised details of houses and flats that were available for letting every week, which could be either Local Authority or Housing Association properties, on which the resident could bid.
  3. On 12 March 2021 the resident made a formal complaint about a data breach. The Local Authority sent a stage one response on 12 April 2021 responding to this, and also a complaint that the resident had added about their re-housing application and bedroom requirement.
  4. Regarding the re-housing application, the Local Authority explained that the resident had been awarded medium priority and was eligible for a two-bedroom property. It stated, ‘Please be advised that for calculation purposes, in terms of statutory overcrowding, children under ten count as 0.5 (half) a person, whilst children under 1 year old are not included. Your pregnancy does not affect your bedroom entitlement…’ It also explained that it did not ‘award’ gardens; applicants needed to bid for all suitable properties. It said that it may take a considerable amount of time before the resident’s bids were successfully shortlisted for properties, and there was very little social housing available. Therefore, the resident may want to consider mutual exchange, and the Local Authority provided details on this. The email ended by advising the resident of their right to have the complaint reviewed.
  5. In response the resident commented on the data issues, and stated ‘Please note that a mutual exchange is impossible with so many outstanding repairs’. They did not request escalation.
  6. On 27 April 2021 the resident requested escalation to stage two. They said they felt that the Local Authority was acting unlawfully by ignoring their need for a garden for a medical alert dog they had due to disability. They noted that while it could not prioritise them for a garden, they believed that it could prioritise them for a ground floor property, as it had done so previously in 2009. They also commented ‘It is clear that Lambeth’s advice that I pursue a mutual exchange with a property in severe disrepair is issued either in woeful ignorance or absolute disregard.’
  7. On 2 June 2021 the Local Authority sent a stage two response relating to a SAR request and housing transfer. In relation to the latter, it said that dogs were allowed in its own tenancies regardless of whether the property had a garden, so the resident was able have an assistance dog without a garden. It said that it had noted the comments about being unable to pursue a mutual exchange due to repair issues, and said that if there were any new repairs the resident could report them. It referred the resident to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman should they wish to pursue the matter.
  8. That same day the resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage three, stating this was because of, ‘The unreasonableness of restricting us to only bidding for or getting a mutual exchange only to Council properties, especially given the impact of overcrowding on the children of disabled parents, and the low supply of council properties.’ They said that they were pregnant and needed a three-bedroom home, especially as they may become ‘Special Guardians’ for a relative. The Local Authority again referred the resident to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
  9. An internal email from September 2021 noted that the resident had stated that they no longer wished to bid as the Local Authority would not offer a garden property. The Local Authority had explained to the resident that they could bid on choice based lettings when a garden property was available but the resident had said that they had already waited too long and a family member would be buying them a property.

Reasons

  1. The resident complains that the Local Authority should have ensured that they and their family were appropriately and safely housed by paying due regard to their needs as a disabled person. They believe that the Local Authority should have made them a direct offer of a property rather than them needing to use the choice based lettings bidding system.
  2. They say that the advice to find a mutual exchange was ‘risible’ given that there were disrepair issues at the property, and question whether it was reasonable to suggest this. They ask, ‘If the disrepair was a barrier to a mutual exchange, could Lambeth have done anything differently?’
  3. The Ombudsman can consider complaints about a Local Authority in its capacity as a landlord. This means that any functions that Local Authorities have simply because they are Local Authorities (i.e. irrespective of whether they are also landlords) are not matters that the Ombudsman can investigate. This includes issues that relate to allocations under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996, such as applications for re-housing and complaints about the assessment of such applications; the award of points, banding or a decision that the application does not qualify; operation of choice based lettings schemes, and; the suitability of accommodation offered under those schemes.
  4. Essentially, the resident’s complaint is about the Local Authority’s handling and assessment of their application for re-housing and the priority that their application was given. These are matters that fall outside of a Local Authority’s landlord function, and therefore under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, rather than the Housing Ombudsman.

Paragraph 39 (m) of the Scheme sets out 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. As such, this complaint falls outside of the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.