Summary: There was no fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mr B’s housing and homelessness applications.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that there were failings with the way the Council dealt with his housing and homelessness applications. In particular, he complains that the Council:
• failed to properly consider evidence he provided to support his housing application;
• delayed dealing with his housing application;
• refused to provide emergency accommodation when he was homeless; and
• refused to offer him the tenancy of properties when he had bid on them and was in first place on the waiting list.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated Mr B’s complaints about matters he has become aware of since June 2018. The last section of this statement explains why I have not investigated earlier events.

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 further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

4. 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)
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)
6. 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

7. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Delays

8. Mr B joined the Council’s housing register in February 2018. The Council awarded him housing priority band three because he was living in overcrowded accommodation.
9. In August 2018, Mr B asked to add a joint tenant and his sister to his application. The following month, the Council told Mr B that he could not add his sister to his application because the information he had provided showed that she was attending university and would be returning to their parents’ house during the holidays. The Council also asked Mr B if the joint tenant was his partner, so that it could calculate how many bedrooms he needed.
10. Mr B removed his sister from the application and told the Council that the joint tenant was his carer. The Council told Mr B that it would take a minimum of six weeks to assess his change of circumstances.
11. The Council completed its assessment seven weeks later, in November 2018. It decided that Mr B needed accommodation with two bedrooms and it increased his housing priority to band two. I do not consider the Council significantly delayed dealing with Mr B’s housing application.

Supporting evidence

12. The Council’s records show that in August 2018, it received a letter dated 31 October 2017 from Mr B’s Mental Health Practitioner to support his request for housing priority on medical grounds.
13. In November 2018, the Council also received a letter from Mr B’s Consultant Psychiatrist supporting his need for two bedrooms. Both letters were properly considered in November 2018 and resulted in an increase to Mr B’s housing priority and the number of bedrooms he needed. I have found no evidence of fault here.

Emergency accommodation

14. Mr B says that when he approached the Council as homeless in December 2018, the officer said that it was best for him to stay with friends because emergency accommodation was not nice and may affect his mental health. He says that the officer also told him that he wouldn’t be able to afford the emergency accommodation because he was working and would not be eligible for housing benefit.
15. The Council says that Mr B was eligible for emergency accommodation but did not need it because he was staying with a friend. It says that it was agreed that he would request accommodation if he needed it, but that it did not receive such a request.
16. The Council’s records show that Mr B said that he was staying with a friend, but they do not show that Mr B was advised to return if he needed emergency accommodation. However, the Council’s records show that a few months later, Mr B was considering moving into emergency accommodation, but was concerned that it would affect his mental health. This shows that Mr B was aware that emergency accommodation was available if he needed it. On the balance of probabilities, I do not consider the Council refused to provide Mr B with emergency accommodation. I have found no evidence of fault here.

Allocations policy

17. In April 2019, Mr B queried why he had not been shortlisted for a house which he had bid on. The Council explained that for houses with two or more bedrooms, preference is given to families with dependent children. It recommended that Mr B bid on flats and maisonettes.
18. Mr B then made a formal complaint. He said that he needed a ground floor property due to his mental health needs and he considered it was unfair to disregard him for properties because he does not have children.
19. I have considered the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme and its procedural guidance. It says that for houses with two or more bedrooms, preference is given to families with dependent children. Mr B was in band two, so if he and a family with children both bid on a house, Mr B would only be shortlisted if the family was in a lower housing priority band (three or four).
20. In May 2019, Mr B provided a letter from his General Practitioner which said that it would be safer for Mr B to live in a house or ground floor accommodation. The Council carried out a review and decided Mr B should remain in band two. If the Council considered his circumstances were such that he should have more priority than families with dependent children in band two, it would have placed Mr B in band one. After considering the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme and the outcome of the review, I am satisfied that there was no fault in the way the Council decided that Mr B should remain in band two.
21. In June 2019, Mr B was shortlisted for a bungalow. When he viewed the property, the officer told him that it was only suitable for applicants over the age of 50 and it could not accept his bid. This information was not included in the advert for the property. The bungalow was advertised by a Housing Association, not the Council. I have found no evidence of fault by the Council here.
22. Between May 2018 and November 2019, Mr B bid on 76 properties. On six occasions, he was in a higher bidding position than the person offered the tenancy of the property. Four of these were because priority was given to families with dependent children and two were because Mr B had already been shortlisted for another property.
23. When Mr B discovered in April 2019 that preference for houses was given to families with dependent children, the Council advised Mr B to bid on flats and maisonettes. Mr B did not do so. Between April and November 2019, Mr B bid on 31 houses and 7 bungalows. I am satisfied that the Council gave Mr B appropriate advice; I do not consider Mr B did not find suitable accommodation as a result of any fault by the Council.

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr B’s complaint. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

25. Mr B complains that the Council failed to promptly consider the letter dated 31 October 2017 from his Mental Health Practitioner and did not allow him to join the Council’s housing register before February 2018. Mr B says that because of the Council’s failings here, he had to stay in hotels which he could not afford and this contributed to him being made bankrupt in 2019.
26. The evidence I have seen suggests that the Council did not receive the Mental Health Practitioner’s letter until August 2018. I do not consider it likely that investigation of this would find evidence of fault by the Council. But in any event, this complaint is now late.
27. As explained in paragraph five, we will not normally investigate matters that a complainant has been aware of for more than 12 months. I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr B to complain to the Ombudsman sooner about matters he has been aware of since before June 2018. I do not consider there are grounds to exercise discretion to investigate these matters now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman