Summary: Miss X complains the Council overlooked her application for a house she was eligible to apply for because it wrongly believed it needed to verify her status. Also, because it later told her she would never have got it anyway because it had given preference to homeless applicants. The Ombudsman found the Council was at fault in its actions around Miss X’s status on its housing waiting list. It was not at fault in how it gave reasonable preference to homeless applicants. The Council had already proposed a remedy for the injustice caused and the Ombudsman concluded this was appropriate. We have also asked the Council to correct the records of two other applicants it says are in the same situation as Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council overlooked her application for a house she was eligible to apply for through its ‘homesearch’ scheme because it wrongly believed it needed to verify her status. She is also unhappy the Council allowed her to apply for a house which it later told her she would never have got because it had chosen to give preference to homeless applicants.
2. Miss X believes she missed out on a suitable house having been on the housing register for over four years and has had to remain in her current overcrowded property instead.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated this complaint as it relates to the Council’s management of the housing register. I will explain at the end of this statement what I am unable to investigate.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
6. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as housing associations. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)
7. 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 Miss X and considered what she had to say. I wrote to the Council and asked questions to assist my investigation. I have reviewed the material it sent in response.
9. I have seen the Council’s complaint correspondence with Miss X. This includes Stage 3 of its process, when an independent complaint adjudicator it appointed considered the complaint.
10. I shared a copy of my draft decision with Miss X and the Council and I invited them to comment on it.

Back to top

What I found

Background

11. Miss X joined the Council’s housing waiting list in September 2014 by means of her landlord, a housing association. She had a reasonable preference because her current house is considered overcrowded. The Council has a system where applicants bid directly for properties of interest online. People can only make one bid per week.
12. At the point Miss X went on the list, the Council says should would have had to undergo a ‘second stage verification check’ around her eligibility. It says it told Miss X about this, but she denies knowing about it.
13. In 2016, Miss X’s housing association merged with another. Her new housing association was on the Council’s list of ‘registered providers’. Applicants from registered providers did not need to undergo the second stage verification check. The Council says once Miss X’s new housing association had completed some basic checks it should have changed her status to show she was exempt from the check. However, this never happened.
14. The Council insists it told housing associations about the need to do this and how to update the status of their clients. It says for applicants from 2015 onwards it has been carrying out the verification checks itself once people appear within the top 10 for a property.
15. The Council says Miss X has made 167 bids for properties since September 2014.

Miss X’s bid

16. In August 2018, Miss X bid for a larger house close to where she currently lives. She believed it was ideal for her family. The system accepted her bid but, when she checked later, she found its status online showed it had been ‘skipped’.
17. Miss X asked the Council what this meant. It told her housing association had not changed her application verification status. The failure to do this meant, when her bid appeared with others, an officer manually skipped it because it could not go any further.
18. Miss X complained about this. The Council’s independent complaints adjudicator found it had failed to properly inform applicants and landlords about the changes to its process. However, she concluded Miss X had not missed out on the property because it was “advertised with a preference for homeless clients”. Miss X complains the Council never made this clear.
19. The Council says it advertised the property Miss X bid for as one where it would give preference to homeless applicants and ‘women only’ applicants. It says her bid would not have been successful as she is not homeless. Even if it had not skipped her bid, it says she would only have been 13th on the list for the property.
20. The Council has shown the Ombudsman evidence about the circumstances of the other bidders. This shows the successful bid for the property Miss X bid for was a ‘management bid’ made by the Council on behalf of a homeless applicant. It says no other suitable homeless applicants came forward.
21. Miss X says she only noticed the Council had skipped her bid on this occasion by chance, when she logged in to check. She told me of her worry past bids would also have been skipped without her knowledge. The Council says none of Miss X’s previous 167 bids have been skipped.

Council’s approach to homeless applicants

22. The law says a housing 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))

23. The Council says it makes it clear when it prefers homeless applicants for certain properties. It has shown the Ombudsman a banner that appears on the website listing. It also points out its ‘six stage guide to bidding’, which it publishes on its website, says, “We will also say if the property is being advertised with a preference of a certain type of applicant…who will be considered first.”
24. The Council says people can maximise their chances by avoiding bidding for properties marked as preferred for homeless applicants. Miss X is unhappy the system accepted her bid given the preference the Council was giving to others.

Back to top

Analysis

25. I have investigated this complaint in the context of the result of the Council’s own complaints process. It has already identified fault and accepted it had caused her an injustice in the form of “raised expectations, disappointed, confusion and uncertainty”. It offered Miss X £300 for the injustice caused by the issue with her bidding status.
26. First, I have checked whether the Council was right in its conclusion about fault. I concluded it was. The Council should clearly accept some of the blame for the way applicants in Miss X’s circumstances still do not have the right status on its housing list. It has had a long time to fix the issue.
27. I then considered whether the Council’s conclusion Miss X would never have been the successful applicant for the property she bid for was correct. If that conclusion is incorrect, the injustice caused to her would be much more significant. However, having seen the records of the other applicants, I am satisfied the Council reached the correct conclusion.
28. There were 19 bidders in total for that property. If the officer had not skipped Miss X’s bid, she would have been 13th on the list. The Council’s records show even if it had not skipped Miss X, or applied its preference criteria, there was at least one other applicant who had been on the waiting list longer. On that basis, I conclude Miss X would never have been successful her bid. Nor is there any evidence she has had a bid skipped previously, so there is no further injustice to remedy there either.
29. That being the case, the injustice caused is frustration and uncertainty only. I have applied our own guidance and am satisfied the Council’s offer of £300 for this is appropriate. I will not recommend a further remedy. If the Council has not already paid this to Miss X, it should ensure it does so now.
30. I do not find fault with the Council giving reasonable preference to homeless applicants. It is clear the basis for this is the law itself. The Council chooses to highlight particular properties it would prefer homeless applicants apply for. It can do this, and it has shown me how it clearly marks them on its website. It also explains more in its online guide to bidding, which is available on its website.
31. I recognise Miss X does not think it is fair she can still bid on properties when she is unlikely to ever be successful. However, this is a matter of judgement for the Council. I would only ever find fault if it could be proven the Council had not highlighted the preference it was giving before people bid. There is no proof of that in this case.
32. Finally, I asked the Council to tell me if it knew of others on its housing waiting list affected by the same fault identified for Miss X. It said it had checked its records and identified two other applications affected.
33. The Ombudsman has the power to recommend remedies for injustice caused to people who have not complained to us, where it becomes apparent during an investigation they are also affected. Although the Council says it has informed housing associations what they need to do to fix this, it seems to me it could specifically deal with these two applications. It can either inform the applicants of the issue or resolve it directly itself.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. By 1 August 2019, the Council has agreed to decide how it intends to resolve the issue for the two other applicants it has identified as having the wrong status on its housing waiting list. It should then write to the Ombudsman to confirm the action it has taken.

Back to top

Final decision

35. The conclusions the Council’s own complaint investigation reached about fault and injustice were correct. The remedy it proposed was also appropriate and I have not recommended any changes.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

36. I cannot investigate the actions of Miss X’s housing association as it is not a body within our jurisdiction. Although I note the Council’s own investigation suggested the housing association was also to blame, it would be for the Housing Ombudsman to investigate a complaint about that.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman