Summary: The Council advised Mr X to come off his mother’s housing application and make his own. It told him he would keep a registration date of December 2014. Mr X made a successful bid for housing. The Council then changed his registration date to May 2019 and withdrew the offer. The Council is at fault as it did this without proper consideration of the circumstances. It also wrongly said backdating applications was not allowed under its policy. The Council caused injustice as Mr X lost the offer of accommodation and remains homeless. The Council also failed to provide services to Mr X as a homeless person. The Council will apologise to Mr X and backdate his housing application to December 2014. It will also pay a financial remedy to him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly reduced his housing registration waiting time and wrongly withdrew an offer of housing.

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)
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 Mr X made and asked the Council for information.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft version of my decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

6. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5) 
7. 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)]

8. If someone is threatened with homelessness, the council has a duty to help the applicant keep their accommodation. This is called the Prevention Duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
9. In cases where the applicant is not being evicted from private rented property, the Prevention Duty ends 56 days after the council became subject to it.
10. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household and follow from the findings of the assessment. A council must give the applicant a written personalised housing plan (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
11. A council must keep the PHP under review and notify the applicant of any changes. Some applicants need more intensive council involvement to achieve a successful outcome, and a council’s timescales for regular contact and reviews should reflect this. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 11.32)
12. If the council agrees the applicant is homeless, it must help the applicant secure accommodation available for at least six months. This is the Relief Duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The Council’s allocation policy

13. Every local housing authority must publish an allocation scheme setting out how it prioritises applications and how it allocates housing. The scheme must give “reasonable preference” to certain applicants, including homeless people.
14. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

15. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme where applicants bid for properties it has advertised. The Council will then shortlist up to ten bids based on their priority and waiting time and invite them to a multiple viewing.
16. The Council’s allocation policy does not say what the registration date is for an application. It does say the Head of Housing can agree rehousing outside the policy in exceptional circumstances.
17. If the Council makes an offer of housing it can only withdraw this if the applicant has given wrong information; the information about the property is wrong; or if there is incorrect information on the computer records which affects the applicant’s eligibility.
18. An applicant can ask for a review of a decision affecting their housing priority. If an applicant requests a review the Council will acknowledge this and say when it will conduct the review. The review will be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker and not involved in the original decision.

Background

19. In 2008 Mr X, his mother (Mrs Y) and two older siblings became homeless. Mrs Y made a housing application. Mr Y’s older siblings found their own accommodation. His brother found a one bedroom flat and his sister a room in a shared house. Mr X stayed on Mrs Y’s housing application. Mrs Y and Mr X did not find anywhere to live. They spent four days a week with Mr X’s brother and three days with Mr X’s sister. In 2018 the Council decided Mrs Y had given some incorrect information in her housing application. It penalised Mrs Y by taking five years off her waiting time. It did this by changing her registration date from December 2008 to December 2014.
20. Mr X is now an adult. He has a child of his own who cannot stay with him because of his lack of accommodation.

What happened

21. Mrs Y has mental health problems. In 2019 she asked the Council to give medical priority to her application.
22. Officer 1 assessed the application. He did not award medical priority. In April 2019 he wrote to Mrs Y suggesting she and Mr X should make separate housing applications as the demand for properties suitable for one person was much less. He said if Mr X made his own application, he would keep his priority and waiting time from December 2014.
23. On 23 April Mrs Y wrote to Officer 1, to make sure the Council would not go back on its word. She told Officer 1 the relationship between Mr X and his brother had completely broken down. She said his brother told Mr X to leave on 30 March and he was now living in his van.
24. Mr X and Mrs Y made separate housing applications, clearly stating this was on advice from Officer 1 and on the understanding Mr X would keep a registration date of December 2014.
25. Mrs Y told the Council she now lived with her daughter in her room in the shared house. At the end of April Mrs Y’s daughter also let Mr X sleep in the room.
26. In May the Council told Mr X it had registered his application as a priority homeseeker with extra priority as he was employed. It gave his application a registration date of December 2014.
27. Mrs Y made a successful bid for a social housing home.
28. On 3 June 2019 the Council invited Mr X to view a flat he had bid for. He was the only viewer and the Council offered him the flat. Officer 2 conducted the viewing and told Mr X he would be in touch to arrange signing up for the flat.
29. Mr X heard nothing. He checked his housing application online and found his registration date had changed to 22 May 2019.
30. Mrs Y spoke to Officer 1 who told her his manager (Officer 3) had overturned his decision.
31. On 19 June Officer 1 wrote to Mr X. He said the backdate to December 2014 was an error and his registration date was in fact May 2019. He did not tell Mr X he could ask for a review of this new decision. He said Mr X could make a complaint.
32. Mr X made a complaint to Officer 3. He explained he had been homeless since 2008. He said he acted on advice from the Council and he would not have acted on that advice if he knew what would happen. He described the effect long term homelessness had on him, including the detriment to his education and his mental health. He described how the offer of a flat and then its removal had plunged him into despair and hopelessness.
33. Officer 3 replied to Mr X. He said Officer 1 had made a mistake. Officer 3 said to resolve Mr X’s complaint he could close Mr X’s housing application and put him back on his mother’s application. Officer 3 said if Mr X was not satisfied, he could ask for a review of his decision.
34. Mr X asked for a review of the decision. He said he could not go back on his mother’s application as she had made a successful bid. He said taking into account his mother’s mental health it would be unfair to her to not take the accommodation. He told the Council his sister had asked him to leave.
35. A Resolutions Officer in the Complaints Department replied to Mr X. The Officer said Officer 3 had investigated his original complaint. The Officer apologised for the mistake but said it was against its policy to backdate applications. The Officer said it would be unfair to other applicants who had waited longer than Mr X to backdate his application. The Officer said if his mother gave up the property she had been offered, it would not penalise her and he could go back on her application.

The Council’s response to us

36. The Council accepts its policy contains nothing specific about the registration date. It says it confirms the registration date in its registration letter. It says

“Furthermore, ‘registration’ is universally accepted as the action of registering for something. Therefore, naturally, the registration date would be the date on which one submits an application to join our register.”

37. It says Mr X did not say anything which it considered exceptional enough to make a decision outside its policy. It says Mr X was not a joint applicant on his mother’s application but a family member. It says it assessed Mrs Y’s application on her circumstances when she joined the housing register. It says if Mr X wanted to come off his mother’s application, he had to submit his own application. It would assess this and give the registration date as the date he applied on his own. It says it would be unfair on others to give Mr X an earlier registration date.
38. The Council says it withdrew the offer it made to Mr X because the information in his computer records was incorrect.
39. The Council says Officer 1 made the decision to change the registration date to May 2019. It says Officer 3’s letter was both a complaint and review response.
40. The Council says it did not assist Mr X as a homeless person as he made no contact with its Homelessness Prevention Team. It says Mr X was aware of the team as his mother had contacted it in 2008.

Findings

41. Mr X acted on the Council’s advice. Advice given in writing and on which Mr X and Mrs Y sought confirmation before acting.
42. The issue is not the advice to make separate applications, as this was the right advice. The issue is the Council should have given this advice when Mr X was no longer a dependant of Mrs Y. That the Council did not do this has created the current problem. By the time the Council gave the advice several years had passed.
43. The Council says the advice was wrong as its policy does not allow backdating. This is incorrect; its policy is silent on backdating.
44. The Council says backdating Mr X’s application would be unfair to other applicants. I do not agree. Mr X has been homeless since 2008. He was on his mother’s application with a registration date of December 2014. He has been continually homeless from December 2014. It cannot disadvantage an applicant who has become homeless after December 2014 if Mr X keeps a registration date of December 2014. He has been homeless longer and part of a housing application. His circumstances have not changed, they are the same as when the Council assessed his mother’s application.
45. The Council says the registration date is the date an applicant applies. This is far too rigid an interpretation, a council has discretion. It is also not the definition the Council itself uses. It has given Mr X a registration date of 22 May 2019, which is the date it assessed the application not the date Mr X submitted it. It used its discretion to change Mrs Y’s registration date from when she applied in 2008 to 2012. I am aware of other councils who backdate applications to recognise additional priory such as employment.
46. The Council has fettered its discretion. This is fault.
47. The Council did not deal properly with Mr X’s review. Officer 3 overturned Officer 1’s decision. Officer 1 did not tell Mr X he could ask for a review of this new decision, he said he could complain. Mr X complained to officer 3 and he treated it as a complaint. When Mr X asked for a review the Council treated this as a complaint.
48. The Council says Officer 3’s letter is a review decision and complaint response. It cannot be. It clearly says it is a complaint response. Officer 3 could not review the decision, as he had made it.
49. The Council did not carry out a review of its decision to remove the backdating. This is fault.
50. The Council says Mr X has no exceptional circumstances. However, I have seen no evidence it has considered:-

• Its role in the situation. It gave clear and unqualified advice to Mr X, including it would backdate his application to December 2014. It caused Mr X to act to his own detriment.
• Mr X has been homeless since 2008 and part of an application since 2014.
• The effect Mr X describes of his years without a settled home.

51. The failure to fully consider all the circumstances is fault. The Council should have considered Mr X’s situation before withdrawing the backdating and the offer of accommodation. It has caused distress to Mr X. It has also possibly denied Mr X an offer he should have had.
52. The Council’s suggested resolution of Mrs Y giving up her offer of accommodation and putting Mr X back on her application is understandably not acceptable to Mr X. His mother has severe mental health problems and has been homeless for 12 years. He could not ask her to give up a settled home of her own and remain homeless.
53. Mrs Y told the Council Mr X was living in his van in March 2019. In June Mr X told the Council his sister had asked him to leave. The Council should have assessed Mr X’s homelessness and helped him under either the prevention or relief duty. That it did not is fault. The Council’s explanation that Mr X did not approach its Homeless Prevention Team does not mitigate the fault. A homeless application does not have to be made to a particular department. That Mrs Y made a homeless application in 2008, when Mr X was still a child, does not mean Mr X should know better than the Council what the current homelessness law is and who in the Council investigates and assesses homeless applications.
54. The Council’s failure to deal with Mr X as a homeless application caused him injustice as it denied him services and help in finding his own settled home.

Agreed action

55. To put matters right for Mr X within one month of my final decision the Council will:-

• Apologise to Mr X;
• Backdate his housing application to December 2014;
• Pay him £1,000 for withdrawing the offer of accommodation without proper consideration; and
• Pay him £500 for not providing services to him as a homeless person.

Back to top

Final decision

56. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to provide a remedy for this. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman