Summary: Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision she is not homeless. Miss X can appeal this decision in the County Court so the Ombudsman will not investigate. The Council is not at fault for refusing Miss X’s application to join its housing allocations scheme.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has not taken a homeless application from her and will not let her join its allocation scheme.

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’. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. 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)
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 considered the information provided by Miss X and the notes made by a colleague who spoke to her. I asked the Council for information and considered what it provided.
9. Miss X and the Council can comment on this draft version of my decision. I will consider what they say before I make a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

10. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council:

• he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5))

11. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure accommodation is available for their occupation.
12. Examples of applicants in priority need include people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age.
13. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of the council notifying them of the decision on their application. The applicant can appeal to court if the council does not change its mind.
14. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review.  Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household.  (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5))

Allocations

15. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme setting out how it prioritises applicants, and how it allocates housing.  It must make allocations in strict accordance with its published scheme.  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
16. Councils must notify an applicant in writing if it decides the applicant does not qualify for its scheme. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of this decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
17. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
18. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

The Council’s allocation scheme

19. The scheme says applicants need to have lived in Tower Hamlets for three years before they can join the scheme. It does have exceptions to this for armed forces applications, domestic violence or applicants who have moved for care needs. The scheme says having employment or relatives in the Borough does not count as a local connection.
20. The scheme says the Council aims to reply to reviews within 56 days, and if it needs more time it will tell the applicant.

What happened

Background

21. The Council accepted a homeless application from Miss X in 2012 and gave her temporary accommodation. In 2014 it evicted her through the courts for rent arrears. It then found Miss X intentionally homeless.
22. Miss X has not lived in Tower Hamlets since November 2014. In 2015 she made a homeless application to another London Borough. The other Borough provided Miss X with accommodation from May 2015 to November 2016. Miss X says the other Council evicted her. Miss X says after this she slept in her car.
23. In December 2017 Miss X made a homeless application to the Council. The Council did some checks and found addresses Miss X had links with not mentioned on her application. It wanted to talk to Miss X about this but as it had no address for her, decided to wait until she contacted it. Miss X did not contact it. Late in December 2017 a third London Borough (Borough C) found Miss X a room in a shared house.

The current complaint

24. In January 2019 Miss X asked the Council if she could go on its housing allocations scheme. Miss X also asked the Council what was happening with her homeless application. The Council told he she could make a new homeless application.
25. In February 2019 Miss X made a housing application. She said she wanted a property for herself and her adult children aged 28 and 26. She did not give her children’s current addresses. Miss X said she had lived at an address in Borough C from December 2017. Miss X gave the Council a letter from her GP saying she would benefit from housing in Tower Hamlets.
26. The Council decided Miss X could not join its allocations scheme as she had not lived in the Borough for the last three years so did not have a local connection. The letter said Miss X could ask for a review of the decision.
27. On 1 March 2019 Miss X asked the Council to review its decision as she said it had not considered her mental health. Miss X chased the Council for a response three times in April 2019.
28. On 28 May the Council sent Miss X its review decision. It did not uphold it. It gave reasons it did not accept Miss X had a medical need to live in Tower Hamlets.
29. On 24 June Miss X made a complaint. She said the Council should have treated her application as a homeless application. She said she did have a local connection as her children lived in Tower Hamlets and her GP was there. She wanted suitable accommodation for herself and her children.
30. The Council replied on 7 July. It said Miss X was not homeless or threatened with homelessness as she had a home in Borough C. It said it she wanted a homeless assessment she could come to the office. It said it evicted Miss X for arrears in 2014 and she did not have a local connection now. In August the Council sent a further letter. It said Miss X was not homeless, did not have a local connection and no exceptional circumstances. Miss X asked to go to the next stage of the complaints procedure. The Council replied but did not change its mind.
31. From August to October 2019 Miss X was held under section in a psychiatric hospital. She received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.
32. In November Miss X made a homeless application to the Council. The Council decided she was not homeless. It said it would work with her to find private rented accommodation in Tower Hamlets.
33. Miss X asked for a review of the Council’s decision and accommodation during the review. Miss X said it was not reasonable to live where she did because of her mental health. She said her children could not live with her and she was too far from her health and support network. The Council refused Miss X’s request for accommodation. It said although her landlord had now served notice, he had not started possession proceedings. It said Miss X could access health care in Borough C and had done this since 2017. It said Miss X’s children had their own properties and had not said they wanted to live with her.
34. The Council said she had recently made a homeless application to Borough C and it had accepted her. It said she had refused the offer of emergency accommodation from Borough C.
35. Miss X says in February 2020 the Council upheld its decision she is not homeless.

Findings

36. Miss X would like us to investigate her eviction from temporary accommodation in 2014. We cannot do this as the decision was made by a court and it is too long ago.
37. We also will not look at what happened to the homeless application Miss X made in 2017. It is too long ago and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion. Miss X did not go back to the Council for over a year and found accommodation soon after she made the application to Tower Hamlets.

The 2019 homeless application

38. Between February and June 2019 Miss X did not say she was homeless. She gave an address she lived at and no evidence of possession proceedings. The Council is not at fault for failing to take a homeless application.
39. In June 2019 Miss X asked the Council to treat her housing application as a homeless application. The Council said Miss X was not homeless but invited her to make an application and it would assess this. As Miss X did not say why she was threatened with homelessness, I am not critical of the Council’s approach.
40. When Miss X applied, the Council found her not homeless. A decision it upheld at review. Miss X can appeal to the County Court. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to do this.
41. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We cannot make decisions on behalf of the Council. The Ombudsman looks at how the Council has administered a homeless application. If there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision, we cannot criticise the decision it made. Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision, but I have seen no evidence of fault in how it made its decision, so cannot criticise it. Miss X can appeal to Court to ask it to reconsider the decision.
42. Miss X does not have a right to appeal against the Council’s decision not to provide her with accommodation during its review. The Council can provide accommodation during a review but does not have to. The Ombudsman cannot tell the Council to provide accommodation to Miss X. Again, I can only look at the Council’s administration. If there is no fault in this, I cannot ask the Council to take the decision again. The Council replied in good time to Miss X and gave its reasons. As there is no fault in the Council’s process, I cannot tell it to reconsider.

The housing application

43. The Ombudsman cannot find fault with a council if it follows its allocation scheme. The Council’s allocation scheme says applicants must have lived in the Borough for the last three years. Miss X has not lived in Tower Hamlets since 2014. I appreciate Miss X desperately wants to move back to Tower Hamlets. However, the Council considered her application in line its allocation scheme. It gave reasons why it did not consider Miss X’s mental health meant she had to live in Tower Hamlets. I cannot find it at fault.
44. The Council did delay in giving Miss X a decision on her review request. I do not find this caused Miss X significant injustice as the Council did not change its mind.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have not found fault by the Council causing injustice to Ms X. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman