Summary: Mr X complains about Council’s actions in relation to a property he was a joint tenant for, an offer of accommodation when he was homeless in 2017 and says it has refused to put him on its waiting list for housing because of a longstanding housing benefit debt. The Ombudsman concluded we can only investigate the last part of Mr X’s complaint. On that matter, it was not fault for the Council to take into account Mr X’s housing benefit debt before deciding whether it should allocate him social housing.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council unreasonably made him homeless by accepting his ex-partner’s notice to end their joint tenancy of a Council property. He says the Council offered him unsuitable accommodation when he applied as homeless in 2017 after his eviction from that property. Mr X also complains the Council is refusing to properly consider his ongoing housing needs via its waiting list for housing, despite his exceptional circumstances, because of a longstanding housing benefit debt.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the part of Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has managed his place on its waiting list for housing. Although this means looking back further than 12 months, I have concluded if there is fault it will still be causing an ongoing injustice now as the Council has still not found housing for Mr X. I am satisfied there is enough evidence available for me to reach a conclusion about what happened.
3. I will explain why I cannot investigate the other parts of Mr X's complaint at the end of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I spoke with Mr X and considered the information he sent the Ombudsman. I wrote to the Council to request evidence and then reviewed the material it sent in response.
9. I have seen the Council’s ‘Lettings Policy’ and its ‘Exceptions, Reviews and Appeals Procedure’. It says it has applied these to Mr X’s case.
10. I shared a copy of my draft decision with Mr X and the Council and I invited them to comment on it.

Back to top

What I found

11. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants and its procedures for allocating housing.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme.  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
12. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;

(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

13. The Localism Act 2011 introduced new freedoms to allow councils to better manage their waiting list and to tailor their allocation priorities to meet local needs.
14. Mr X applied to go on the Council’s housing list in 2017. He says the Council has refused to rehouse him because of a housing benefit debt he built up with his ex-partner several years ago. He stresses it is a joint debt.
15. Mr X says the Council has given different reasons for its decision. He says sometimes it tells him it will not rehouse him until the debt is below £250, while on other occasions it says he has a lower priority instead.
16. Mr X says at one point the Council told him it could consider if he had any exceptional circumstances that would justify giving him higher priority. However, when he explained he had medical needs and had childcare responsibilities the Council decided he was not eligible. Mr X says this left him confused about what exceptional circumstances would be.
17. The Council says it initially ‘deferred’ Mr X’s application while he followed a payment plan to repay the housing benefit debt. It says the debt was initially over £1600 but is now just over £800. It accepts it was a joint debt but says both him and his ex-partner are responsible for it. Under its letting policy, it said it would give higher priority to Mr X because he had left the matrimonial home. However, that priority only applies for six months and so has probably now expired.
18. The Council provided the Ombudsman an internal guidance note it gives to officers showing how they should deal with applicants who owe it money. This states when the debt is between £1 and £249, the Council will allow an application to go live but will give less preference. Any debt of £250 or over will see an application deferred until a payment plan is in place.
19. The Council now says it has reason to believe Mr X no longer lives at the address he first applied from. It says he needs to reapply from his new address so it can check his eligibility. Even if this is successful, the Council says it can only consider him for a flat or maisonette, in line with its lettings policy. It says it has explained this to Mr X, although there have been occasions when he has asked it not to write to him.

Back to top

Analysis

20. The Ombudsman is not an appeals body and it not our role to reconsider the facts of a case and reach our own decision on the right course of action. Where the Council makes a decision by applying national and local policies, or using professional judgement, we cannot intervene.
21. The Ombudsman is unlikely to find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We may not find fault with a council for failing to rehouse someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.
22. The evidence I have seen shows the Council has applied its Lettings Policy to Mr X’s case. This states the Council, “…will take into account any history of housing related debt…”, as well as any mitigating circumstances. It accepted Mr X had a housing need but deferred his application until the debt reduced below £250. This is in line with the internal guidance it gives to its officers.
23. There is evidence the Council explained this in writing at least twice. In November 2017 it wrote to Mr X’s MP and then in July 2018 it sent Mr X an email explaining its position.
24. I can see Mr X asked the Council to consider whether he had exceptional circumstances in an email he sent to complain on 20 July 2018. He said he had two children to look after and was living in unsuitable circumstances with another family member. In response, the Council repeated its position the debt was substantial and Mr X should settle it before it would progress his application. Although the Council might have considered being more explicit in refusing Mr X’s claim of exceptional circumstances, it is clear that is what it did in practice.
25. Although Mr X disagrees with the Council’s approach, I have concluded it is not fault.

Back to top

Final decision

26. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s approach and so I am ending my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

27. I cannot investigate two parts of Mr X’s complaint.
28. The Council took a decision in 2017 to accept notice on a joint tenancy from Mr X’s ex-partner. This meant he had to leave the property they shared. As I explained in paragraph six, we cannot investigate complaints where the Council acts as a registered social housing provider. The Housing Ombudsman may be able to investigate this instead.
29. Mr X also complained about the Council’s offer of what he considers to be an unsuitable property when he was homeless in 2017. Mr X could have approached the Ombudsman sooner if he wanted to complain about that offer. I have concluded it is too late for us to consider it now.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman