Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Mr D’s complaint about the Council’s decisions to close his 2 housing applications. It failed to tell him to provide the information it previously asked for when he sent his second application. This caused no injustice as he has yet to send the information it wants.

The complaint

1. Mr D complains the Council closed 2 housing applications he made in 2018 to join its housing register on the ground he failed to provide information it asked for despite him providing it: as a result, he is prevented from applying for Council accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

Council housing allocation scheme (November 2018)

4. The Council will consider whether an applicant is eligible and qualifies for an allocation of accommodation. All applicants must provide evidence to verify their eligibility and qualification status. (paragraph 4)
5. Applicants can apply for an allocation by completing a housing application form which can be completed online. Once a fully completed form is received, along with the required supporting documentation, the Council assesses the form to decide if the applicant is eligible and qualifies for an allocation. Applicants are required to provide supporting documentation where indicated or requested by the Council. (paragraph 5.1)
6. For the purposes of assessing the size of the property applicants need, the Council will take account of the details of people who normally reside with the applicant or would be reasonably expected to reside with them as a member of their household. (paragraph 5.2)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered all the information Mr D sent and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent him. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr D and the Council. I considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr D, a Council tenant, complains despite applying twice to join the Council’s housing register for a larger property because of overcrowding, the Council refused his applications. This was because he failed to provide information needed.
9. The first application Mr D completed was in March 2018. On his application, he said he had caring responsibilities and gave details of his 16-year-old brother and 13-year-old sister. He declared they both lived with him in his one bedroom flat and were overcrowded.
10. On 15 May, an officer called him about providing evidence. The notes record her asking him to provide proof of identify (ID) and address. The officer sent him an email saying the Council could not verify the identity of his siblings. It said he needed to send proof of ID, as well as proof of receiving child benefit/child tax credit, and proof of his address. The Council gave him 10 days to provide it.
11. Mr D sent an email to the Council the same month. This included a photograph of his brother and sister’s registration cards, as well as a copy of his council tax reminder notice showing his address. It also included a photograph of his residence permit. The Council said it did not receive this email until October when he sent it with a letter of complaint.
12. Even if it had received it, the Council confirmed it would not have met its verification procedure requirements. This is because there was no proof of address for each sibling. If he applied without including his siblings, the Council would have validated his application. As he is in a 1-bedroom property, the Council would have assessed him as adequately housed anyway and so he would not qualify to join the housing register for a larger property.
13. Two months later, when Mr D failed to send this evidence, the Council closed the application.
14. In July, Mr D reapplied to join the housing register. He again said he was a Council tenant and gave his tenancy reference number. He gave the same details as before.
15. The Council closed his application telling him it could not process his application because of his failure to provide evidence previously asked for.
16. In October, Mr D complained to the Council about its decisions. This complaint included a copy of the email he sent in May. He complained again in January 2019 and the Council responded the following month.

Analysis

17. The Council’s website states when an application is complete, or submitted for verification, officers will look and assess it. During the assessment, it is important applicants provide any supporting information requested. Officers then try to verify the information given. It aims to complete this within 6 weeks.
18. It also states documents in support of the application do not need sending when applying. If the Council needs further information, it will send an email asking for it.
19. The government’s good practice guidance (‘Identity proofing and verification of an individual’) is for those who need help deciding how a service will check someone’s identity. Checking identity helps reduce fraud for example. The guide advises about getting evidence of the claimed identity. Evidence includes that showing a person’s name, date of birth, and address for example.

Application 1:

20. To verify the application, the Council contacted Mr D and told him he needed to provide:

• Proof of ID;
• Proof of child benefit/child tax credit; and
• Proof of address (for example, a bank statement or utility bill dated within the last 3 months showing the name and address).

21. The email did not clearly explain whether the proof of ID needed was for Mr D and/or his siblings. It probably could have been inferred from the context of the rest of the email that the Council needed it for his siblings. A note of a telephone call to him the same day recorded telling him about the need to provide proof of ID and address. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed the proof was needed for his siblings.
22. The Council said it did not receive the email and evidence Mr D sent in May. I have seen a copy of his email which he had correctly addressed.
23. In response to my draft decision, the Council again explained it did not receive this email. It could not explain why it failed to receive it but said sometimes this happens due to ‘technical difficulties’. This is the reason why officers could not act on it.
24. On balance, I am satisfied Mr D replied to the email request. He correctly addressed the email. The email also shows the time he sent it.
25. I am unable to say why the Council failed to receive this email. Its reference to ‘technical difficulties’ offers no clear explanation for why it did not receive it. Nor did the Council explain what action it took to investigate what might have gone wrong on this occasion and steps taken to ensure it is not repeated.
26. Even if this amounted to fault, I am not satisfied it caused Mr D an avoidable injustice. This is because even if the Council saw his email, the outcome of the decision on his application would have been the same as:

• it did not provide all the evidence the Council asked for. It failed to provide evidence of child benefit/child tax credit. This was important information as it would support his claim his siblings lived with him and he was indeed their carer. Nor did the copies of his siblings’ registration cards contain their address;
• the Council could not, therefore, have included his siblings on his application. This means the Council would have classed him as a single man in a one bedroom flat. As such, the Council would conclude he was adequately housed and had no assessed housing need; and
• it could have asked him again for the information needed. I am not satisfied this was likely to result in a verified application which included his siblings. This is because almost a year on, Mr D has yet to provide the information the Council needs about them.

Application 2:

27. When the Council considered this application, it failed to tell him it still needed the information it asked for in May. The Council only told him this when it closed his application.
28. When told, he asked for a review of the decision. The Council told him it could not review it as he failed to send the proof it asked for in May. The Council advised him to complete a new application and send the proof requested.
29. As this was a new application, I consider the Council should have again told Mr D of the need to supply the evidence it asked for in May. This failure is fault.
30. I am not satisfied this caused him an avoidable injustice. This is because had it told him, while Mr D could have alerted it sooner to the email and evidence he sent in May, I consider it would not have changed the Council’s decision. As noted, Mr D sent incomplete information in May. I also note the Council invited Mr D to send a fresh application with the evidence it needed but he has yet to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

31. The Ombudsman found fault causing no injustice on Mr D’s complaint against the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman