Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202305551)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305551

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

12 July 2024

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’s complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s decision not to reclassify her property as having two bedrooms rather than three;
   2. The landlord’s associated response to her request that it increase the priority banding it had awarded her application for rehousing.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

2. 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.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
4. In accordance with paragraph 42 (j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s decision not to reclassify her home as having two bedrooms, and its associated response to her request for it to increase the priority banding of her application for rehousing, fall outside our jurisdiction

Summary of events

5. The landlord is a local authority. Some of its functions fall under its statutory duties as a local authority rather than its role as a landlord.
6. The resident and landlord have both identified that the “crux” of her complaint is her wish to move to a larger property. The resident has complained about the classification of one room in her house as a bedroom, but this was linked to her underlying dissatisfaction with the landlord’s assessment that her family were adequately housed, and therefore did not qualify for “reasonable preference” under the local authority’s responsibilities as set out in Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996).
7. The landlord assessed the resident’s family as being short of one bedroom under its overcrowding assessment. If the bedroom was reclassified this could have changed to being short of two bedrooms, increasing the banding priority the landlord had applied to the resident’s transfer application.
8. The landlord has also assessed the resident’s application for medical priority. Both of these categories were assessed under its allocations policy. Because this process was in relation to its responsibilities as a local authority (and under Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996)), it is our opinion that the resident’s complaint could be more appropriately considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

Reasons

9. Under paragraph 42 (j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
10. The resident’s complaint concerns the way the landlord applied its policy to give her reasonable preference under its allocations scheme. She asserted that the property did not have enough space for her family (was overcrowded) and also that her daughter’s and her own health conditions meant that the particular property they live in is not suitable for them.
11. These particular matters fall under the landlord’s responsibilities as a local authority, rather than matters between tenant and landlord. We therefore think that they would be more appropriately considered by the LGSCO.