Castle Point Borough Council (18 016 955)

Category : Housing > Allocations

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 15 Jul 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Council delayed responding to Mrs B’s emails about her father’s eligibility to be on the Council’s housing register. The Council has apologised to Mrs B and made a decision on her father’s application. It has also agreed to take action to prevent similar failings in future.

The complaint

  1. Mrs B complained that the Council had not decided whether her father, Mr X, was eligible to be on the Council’s housing register and had not responded to her emails about it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have:
    • considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mrs B;
    • discussed the issues with Mrs B;
    • considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
    • given the Council and Mrs B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr X is 89 years old. In 2016, Mr X returned to his bungalow after a stay in hospital. He found it difficult to manage at home on his own and so he went to stay in a care home.
  2. Mr X wanted to move into sheltered housing and so he applied to join the Council’s housing register. He was accepted in April 2017 and awarded housing priority band D.
  3. In July 2018, Mrs B told the Council that they had sold Mr X’s bungalow. The Council asked Mrs B to provide various documents and said that Mr X’s housing application would be suspended until it had received the documents.
  4. One of the documents which the Council needed was the completion of sale statement. Mrs B sent the Council an excel spreadsheet with the completion details. The Council told Mrs B that an editable excel spreadsheet was not acceptable evidence and it needed the original completion statement from the solicitors.
  5. Mrs B emailed the Council in September 2018 asking why an excel spreadsheet was not acceptable. She stated in the subject field of her email that it was a corporate complaint.
  6. The Council responded to Mrs B’s email but did not deal with it as a complaint.
  7. In November 2018, Mrs B told the Council that her solicitor had sent the completion statement to the Council and she referred to the complaint she had made.
  8. The Council responded to Mrs B around two weeks later. It said that it had not received an official completion statement and it needed to verify the proceeds of sale to determine whether Mr X was eligible to join the housing register. It provided an extract of its Allocations Policy which says:

“Housing applicants who have sold a property within the 5 year period prior to their application will be asked to provide proof of sale and evidence of the proceeds of the sale. In addition, details of the housing applicant’s other financial resources (income, capital and savings) will be requested. Income and capital from all members of the household included on the application will be requested.

Based on the information received, the Council will assess whether a housing applicant can meet their housing needs by purchasing outright or with a mortgage, purchasing with any current home ownership scheme, or privately renting suitable accommodation from their own resources in which case they will be considered ineligible.”

  1. The Council asked Mrs B about the difference between the sale price of the bungalow and the proceeds of sale on the spreadsheet she had provided. It said that it considered the proceeds of sale were around £88,000 more than stated on the spreadsheet and said that it may have to consider Mr X ineligible to join the register.
  2. Mrs B emailed the Council again in December 2018. She explained the reason for the difference between the figures and asked it to confirm that Mr X was ineligible to join the housing register.
  3. Other than an automated response, the Council did not respond to Mrs B’s email, or to a follow up email she sent in January 2019.
  4. Mrs B then approached the Ombudsman. In April 2019, we sent a copy of Mrs B’s complaint to the Council and asked for some information about it. The Council then responded to Mrs B’s complaint. It apologised for not responding to her previous emails and explained that they had automatically diverted to the recipient’s junk folder. It said that it had told all staff to regularly check their junk mail.
  5. The Council told Mrs B that it had decided that Mr X was not eligible to join the housing register because he had sufficient funds to meet his housing needs. It said that there were a number of retirement homes for sale which Mr X could buy outright from the proceeds of sale.
  6. Mrs B considers the Council took too long to reach a decision. She says she did not know it was possible to buy a property in a sheltered housing scheme and Mr X would have done this and saved the expense of care home fees if the Council had responded sooner.

Analysis

  1. Mrs B’s first email of complaint was not clearly a complaint. While the subject field said that it was a complaint, the email contained information and a query, to which the Council promptly responded. It would have been helpful if the Council had checked with Mrs B if she still wanted to make a formal complaint.
  2. The evidence I have seen suggests that the Council did not receive the original completion statement from Mrs B or her solicitors. The Council clearly explained to Mrs B what she needed to provide and, until December 2018, it promptly responded to Mrs B’s emails. I have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with Mrs B’s correspondence before December 2018.
  3. The Council did not respond to the emails Mrs B sent in December 2018 and January 2019 until after we told the Council about Mrs B’s complaint in April 2019. This was fault. I have considered how this has affected Mr X and Mrs B.
  4. I do not consider the Council’s delay in responding resulted in Mr X incurring unnecessary care home fees. The Council told Mrs B about its policy in November 2018 and Mr X could have used the funds from the sale of the bungalow to buy a retirement home.
  5. The Council does not consider its actions have caused any injustice. It says that Mr X’s and Mrs B’s position was not prejudiced by the lack of a formal decision between November 2018 and May 2019.
  6. I consider the Council’s failure to respond to Mrs B’s emails has caused her some frustration and put her to avoidable time and trouble. The Council has already apologised to Mrs B. I consider it should also take action to prevent similar failings in future or provide evidence to show it has already done so.

Agreed action

  1. The Council has agreed to investigate whether there is some means to prevent the automatic diversion of emails to junk email folders. Within six weeks, the Council should provide evidence that it has taken action to ensure emails are not automatically diverted to recipients’ junk folders, or alternatively, it should provide evidence to show that it has reminded all staff to regularly check their junk folders.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. Should the Council take the action I have recommended, it will be sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings