Summary: Miss B complains the Council has not dealt with her application to join the Council’s housing register properly. There was fault in the Council’s consideration of whether Mr C was part of Miss B’s household, fault in how it considered her review, delay in issuing the review decision and fault in ending the prevention duty. The Council will apologise to Miss B, carry out a fresh review and make a payment to her.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains the Council has not dealt with her application to join the Council’s housing register properly. Miss B lives with Mr C. They are friends. They have lived together for 15 years and live as a family. Mr C received a terminal diagnosis over two years ago, with a life expectancy of 1 year to 18 months. Miss B says the Council wrongly focused on the health needs of Mr C when deciding her application had no housing need. She says the owner of the privately rented property where they live has served notice on them to leave. It was for that reason that she wanted to join the housing register.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)

We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

3. 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

4. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Miss B and spoke to her. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Miss B and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of what happened

5. Miss B applied to join the Council’s housing register in June 2018 because the owner of the flat where she lives with Mr C had said she intended to sell the property and served notice them on to leave. The Council’s initial assessment was that they would have no priority for allocation of social housing.
6. In September the Council made a formal decision and said Miss B was adequately housed so did not qualify to join the housing register. It said Mr C had been removed from the application as he was Miss B’s friend so, in accordance with the Council’s allocation policy, he could not be considered as part of Miss B’s household.
7. Miss B appealed. The Council made a decision on her appeal six months later. It confirmed its position that they had no housing need. At the same time the Council had accepted that Miss B and Mr C were threatened with homelessness and that it had a duty to them to help prevent them becoming homeless. The Council ended that duty in January 2019.
8. Miss B and Mr C have remained in the property and the landlord has not taken action to enforce the notice requiring them to leave the property.

Analysis

Joining the housing register

9. Miss B first approached the Council as she wanted to join the housing register as the owner wanted to sell the property. The Council initially assessed the application as falling into band D of its priority scheme. This is the lowest priority. In its formal decision it said it would not include Mr C as part of the household because Miss B and Mr C were friends and not a couple.
10. The Council’s allocations scheme has a section entitled who can be included on the application. This says that normally it will be members of the applicant’s immediate family. It goes on that any other person will only be accepted as part of the applicant’s household in circumstances in which it is reasonable for the person to live with the applicant. The policy says that people flat sharing (joint tenants) will not be included.
11. Miss B has explained that she and Mr C have lived together as a family for 15 years. They have a pet dog together. This was a permanent and long-term relationship and arrangement. She is the main carer for Mr C. The Council’s view is that this falls into the category of people sharing who cannot be included on an application to the housing register. But the Council’s policy states that where it would be reasonable for the person to live with the applicant then they will be considered as part of the household. The Council has provided no explanation of why, in the particular and unusual circumstances pertaining here, it would not be reasonable for Mr C to live with Miss B. That is fault.
12. The Council said that Miss B had no housing need as she was occupying a two bedroom property so her application was removed from the housing register. That is in accordance with the Council’s policy which states there where an applicant has no housing need they will not be able to join the register.
13. Miss B had also approached social services. They had nominated them for a band A priority. This was under the provisions of the Council’s housing allocation policy whereby social services has a quota for making such nominations. It is called Council interest. Applications are placed in one of four queues, homeseeker, transfer, homelessness and Council interest. The Council agrees the number of allocations that should be made to each queue. The Council would not accept the nomination as it said that before it could do so the applicants still needed to qualify under the allocation policy and be in housing need.
14. I consider the Council’s reasoning about not accepting Mr C as part of Miss B’s household is flawed but the Council’s policy does provide that where people are adequately housed they are not eligible to join the housing register. Even if the Council had accepted Mr C as part of the household the Council would still, I consider, have concluded they were adequately housed. But the Council’s policy does say the Council can make an exception to that requirement. Miss B asked for a review of the decision.
15. The Council’s policy requires that any review will be carried out by an officer who is senior to the person who made the original decision by at least one grade. It will not be carried out by the person who made the original decision or involved in the decision that is subject to the review. The Council has said that the officer who made the decision may not have gathered the information or written the decision letter.
16. The Council’s review response reiterates that Mr C cannot be considered as part Miss B’s household. It goes on to refer to the care that Miss B provides and Mr C’s diagnosis and medical condition. It concludes “as your accommodation is adequate to meet your needs and there is no immediate reason for you to move, regretfully I am unable to agree that there are exceptional circumstances that would qualify you to move under the Allocations Policy”.
17. I consider the review was flawed. It was not a genuine review by someone new to the matter as required by the Council’s policy and the Council maintained the unsound view that Mr C could not be considered part of Miss B’s household. The Council has agreed to carry out a fresh review. This should be done by an officer who has not had any previous involvement in the matter.
18. There was also delay of 16 weeks in the Council giving its review decision – it should have been completed in eight weeks but took almost 21. The Council has referred to the complexity of the case but that is not an adequate explanation for the delay.

Homelessness

19. I do not know the exact date the landlord served notice on Miss B and Mr C. The Council accepted it had a duty to help prevent them becoming homeless at the end of September 2018. The personal housing plan dated 2 October referred to the notice having expired and referred to the steps Miss B and the Council needed to take. In summary the main element of this was looking at private sector rented accommodation. On 23 January 2019 the Council wrote to Miss B explaining that the prevention duty had ended because the statutory 56 day period had passed.
20. Where a landlord has served a notice under Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 the prevention duty does not end after 56 days as would otherwise be the case. While the tenants stay in the property the prevention duty remains in place. It was, therefore, wrong for the Council to end the prevention duty to them.
21. But I do not consider this incorrect decision to end the prevention duty has significantly altered the position. The Council has provided information to Miss B about privately rented properties. And, even if the Council had maintained the prevention duty, I do not consider that it would have done anything more to help Miss B and Mr C.

Remedy

22. Where there have been faults I must consider whether they have caused injustice to the complainant and whether any remedy is necessary. The key points here in terms of an assessment of injustice are the failure to properly consider whether Mr C should be included as part of Miss B’s household, the consideration of the review and the delay in doing so. This is, in part remedied, by the Council’s agreement to carry out a fresh review but I consider there faults will have increased the stress for Miss B and Mr C and the Council should pay £150 in recognition of that.

Agreed action

23. The Council will apologise to Miss B for the faults, carry out a fresh review and pay her £150. This review should be completed within a month of Miss B submitting all the information for the review and the other actions within a month of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

24. There was fault in the Council’s consideration of whether Mr C was part of Miss B’s household, fault in how it considered her review, delay in issuing the review decision and fault in ending the prevention duty. The Council should apologise to Miss B, carry out a fresh review and make a payment to her.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman