Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with the annual review of her housing register application and the way it advertised a property on the Date of Registration Quota on the choice-based lettings register. We found no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with Ms X’s annual reviews of her housing register application. We found fault in the way the Council advertised the property, but this fault did not cause Ms X an injustice. So, we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her housing register applications. In particular Ms X complains;
• The Council failed to send her a housing register renewal form in 2018 so it cancelled her membership meaning she could not bid for properties. Ms X says the Council has also failed to send her forms in previous years.
• The Council cancelled her annual membership before the 12-month renewal term, so the annual membership is not for 12 months. Ms X says the Council advised it was a one-off event, but Ms X says it happens each year;
• The Council failed to consider her request to reinstate her housing application back to her original date of 2010.
• The Council incorrectly applied the Date of Registration Quota (DORQ) allocations by advertising adapted properties as part of the DORQ allocations. Ms X says this means the properties are allocated to applicant with a need for such properties rather than to applicants with the ‘earliest registration date’. Ms X says by doing so the Council is discriminating against applicants like her with no disabilities. Ms X says because of this she misses being offered housing causing distress due to increased waiting times for a property.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. The final part of this statement explains my reason for not investigating Ms X’s complaints about the Council’s decision to cancel her housing register membership in 2010 and its decision not to reinstate her application back to her original membership date.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. 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)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have read the papers submitted by Ms X. I considered the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting documents it provided. I have explained my draft decision to Ms X and the Council and considered the comments received.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s Lettings Policy 31 July 2013

7. Under the Council’s Lettings Policy in place during most of Ms X’s complaints, applicants need to be registered on the Leeds Home Register before being considered for a Council property or nominated to a Registered Provider. Applicants need to complete a membership form to join the housing register. The Council uses the information to decide the type and size of property required and whether the applicant has any additional health or support needs.
8. The Council updates the register yearly to keep it up to date by sending an annual application review form to the last known address of the applicant. It will cancel an application if the applicant does not respond to the annual application review form.
9. When a person has an application cancelled the Council will reassess its decision if they submit a new application because of the person’s current circumstances. If the person’s membership was cancelled within the last three months the Council will backdate the application date to the original application. When the membership was cancelled over three months ago the Council will not backdate the membership unless there are exceptional circumstances.
10. The lettings policy expects applicants to notify the Council of any changes in their circumstances which may affect their housing application.
11. The Council advertises properties through its choice-based lettings:
• According to the priority band of the customer.
• Under a quota system according to the length of time the customer’s application has been registered and having a local connection to the area. This is known as the DORQ.
12. Under this quota up to 25% of council properties are advertised to give preference to customers with a connection to the ward area regardless of their priority band. The Council gives preference to applicants:
• With the longest date of registration on the register.
• With a connection to the council Ward area where the property is located.
• Can demonstrate a history of good behaviour, and
• Who meet the lettings criteria.
13. The policy says, “The date of registration quota will apply to properties advertised across all geographical areas and property types, other than adapted properties, bungalows and sheltered accommodation.”
14. In February 2019 the Council issued a new Lettings Policy and the number of properties advertised as DORQ changed from 25 % to 15 %.

Events leading to the complaint

15. Ms X’s first housing application was registered by the Council from 2008 to 2010. The Council cancelled the application in June 2010 as Ms X failed to complete and return a housing application annual review form. The Council says it posted the form to Ms X’s registered address on the application form. The Council later found Ms X had moved address without completing a change of address form and so it was unaware she no longer lived there.
16. Ms X submitted a second housing application in 2013. So, her current housing application is registered from then. The Council assessed Ms X as category 2 general needs priority banding with a current entitlement for a three bedroomed property. The Council considers Ms X would have been aware there was an issue with her housing application if she wanted to bid for a property during 2010 and 2013.
17. Ms X asked the Council to reinstate her housing application back to 2010 when she became aware of its cancellation. The Council considered Ms X’s request but said she did not provide any evidence to show exceptional circumstances for not telling the Council her new address in 2010. As Ms X’s request was over three months from the cancellation the Council did not reinstate her application back to her original application date.
18. The Council sent Ms X an annual review reminder form in November 2014 and a reminder in December 2014. Ms X responded to the reminder in January 2015. The Council issued an annual review form to Ms X in November 2015 and she responded in December 2015. The Council sent Ms X an annual review form in November 2016. Ms X did not respond so the Council cancelled the application in January 2017. Ms X sent a change of circumstance form for a new property in February 2017 and the Council reinstated her application.
19. The Council sent Ms X an annual review reminder in July 2018. The Council cancelled Ms X’s application in September 2018 as she did not complete the review form. Ms X emailed the Council in September 2018 and it reinstated her housing application.

Council’s response to Ms X’s complaints

20. In 2017 the Council changed its review timescales from 12 to 10 months due to changing to a new Housing registration/choice-based lettings system. This enabled users to self-serve and needed an email address to set up an account. The Council identified the annual review procedure as an effective way for applicants to provide an email address. The Council decide to have a 10-month annual review for one cycle to enable it to collect email addresses as part of the procedure. So, it issued the annual review letters in September 2017. The Council confirms it can alter the review timescales according to its lettings policy. This allows the Council to increase the frequency of reviews to ensure the housing register is kept up to date.
21. The Council says records showed it printed a letter to Ms X on 23 July 2018 for the annual review. The Council says it does not know why Ms X did not receive it. The Council confirmed officers manually sent out the letters and this would change to emails under the new system. The Council apologised Ms X did not receive the letter.
22. The Council says Ms X placed a bid on a property registered as a DORQ property. This meant it would be allocated to a person with the earliest dated housing application and local connection to the ward area. But the Council made an error as the property should have been advertised first in the adapted properties section for an applicant who needed such adaptations.
23. The Council accepted it had advertised the property incorrectly and apologised for the error. However, the property was allocated under DORQ to a customer with a longer date of registration and a higher assessed housing need than Ms X. So, Ms X did not lose out in this instance. The Council carried out staff training to ensure the error does not happen again.
24. The Council says Ms X was unable to bid for one property while her housing application was cancelled in 2018. The Council confirmed the property was allocated to an applicant with an earlier date of registration to Ms X’s with a verified local connection to the ward as required under the Council’s lettings policy.

My assessment

25. The documents provided by the Council show it issued the annual reminder letters to Ms X in November 2014 to 2016. In 2017 the Council issued the letter in September 2017 due to the change in cycle caused by introducing the new Housing system. The Council issued the annual reminder letter in July 2018. This is earlier than the 12 months as Ms X alleges. There is no indication from the Council when it is currently running the 12-month period from. But as it has explained it can change the date of the annual review to keep the register up to date under its lettings policy.
26. Ms X says she did not receive the annual letter issued in July 2018 and could not bid for a property while her application was cancelled. The Council considers it issued the letter to Ms X. It is unfortunate if it was not received by Ms X. But the Council reinstated Ms X’s housing register application in September 2018 once it was aware of Ms X’s complaints. Although Ms X missed out on bidding for a property the Council confirms it would not have been allocated to Ms X anyway as it went to an applicant with a higher date of registration.
27. So, because of this I do not consider Ms X has suffered any injustice due to the Council issuing the review letters earlier in 2018 than she expected. Or in her failing to receive an annual review letter and being unable to bid for a property. Due to the lack of injustice caused to Ms X I do not consider there are grounds for me to investigate Ms X’s complaints any further. In addition, the issue should not arise again due to the new Housing system where Ms X can self-serve her account. The documents show Ms X has already done so by updating her new address in February 2019.
28. There is no evidence from the papers I have seen so far to support Ms X’s allegation the Council has failed to send her an annual review form in previous years.
29. The Council explained Ms X placed a bid on a property it had wrongly advertised on the DORQ. The property should have been advertised first in the adapted properties for an applicant who needed those facilities. However, the Council kept it as a DORQ property and accepted this was an error. I consider this was fault by the Council. But the property was allocated to a person with a higher date of housing registration than Ms X and with a higher housing need. So, Ms X has not been caused an injustice due to the error as she did not have a high enough date of registration anyway to be awarded the property.
30. The Council has carried out staff training to ensure this error does not happen again. I consider this is suitable action for the Council to take.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I am completing my investigation. The Council was at fault in the way it advertised one property under it DORQ. But this fault did not cause Ms X any injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

32. I have not investigated Ms X’s concerns about her removal from the Housing Register in 2010 and the Council’s decision not to reinstate her application back to 2010. The documents show Ms X submitted another housing application to the Council in 2013 indicating she was aware she had been removed from the housing register. As paragraph five explains we will not investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. I do not consider there are good reason to investigate now in this case. This is because if Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s decision and action to remove her from the housing register in 2010, I would have expected Ms X to pursue a complaint about her removal in 2013 when she submitted a new application.
33. So, I consider Ms X is out of time to pursue a complaint about the cancelling of her housing register application in 2010 now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman