Summary: We do not have sufficient grounds to investigate this complaint about the way the Council has dealt with a man’s housing application. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council which has caused the man a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs X, complained on behalf of her son (‘Mr Y’) about the way the Council has dealt with his housing register application. In particular Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to offer Mr Y any housing despite him being on the register since 2007. Mrs X also said Mr Y had priority on the register in the past and was moving up the rankings with his bids for properties. But she said the Council had failed to explain why he subsequently fell in the rankings, and currently has no priority on the register, when his circumstances have not changed.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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. I consider the above restriction regarding late complaints applies in part to Mrs X’s complaint. In particular I do not see we have good reason to investigate any concerns Mrs X has with the Council’s handling of Mr Y’s application which she was aware of before 2017 as she could have complained nearer the time in question.
5. I understand that Mrs X has only become aware in recent years about some issues concerning the way the Council dealt with Mr Y’s application before 2017.
6. However I still do not see we should pursue any issues in Mr Y’s case before 2017. In particular I consider it is very unlikely we could carry out a meaningful investigation now about events which took place more than three years ago, not least because it is doubtful sufficient documentary evidence exists about what happened to enable us to reach sound conclusions.
7. As a result I have focussed my consideration of Mrs X’s complaint on events since Mr Y made enquiries to the Council about his housing application in September 2017. However I will refer to what happened before that insofar as it is relevant to Mrs X’s more recent concerns.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered the information Mrs X provided about her complaint, her comments when we spoke on the telephone and her further comments in response to a draft version of this decision. I also took account of information from the Council concerning Mr Y’s housing register application.

Back to top

What I found

9. Mr Y first applied to join the Council’s housing register in 2007. Mrs X said at that point Y was sharing a bedroom in her home with two of his brothers. But I understand that for most of the time since then Mr Y has had his own bedroom at the property. Mr Y is currently still on the housing register with a registration date of 13 April 2007.
10. The Council’s Housing Allocations Policies in recent years have categorised applicants as either ‘Homeseekers’ or ‘Priority Homeseekers’, depending on whether they have a housing need. Priority Homeseekers are also given additional priority if they are employed. But this does not apply to Homeseekers.
11. In the past Mr Y was considered as a Priority Homeseeker. I did not ask the Council about its assessment of Mr Y’s application before 2014. But its records of Mr Y’s property bids shows that he was bidding on a fairly regular basis from late 2009 onwards indicating he had priority status at that time.
12. The Council cancelled Mr Y’s application for a while in 2014, but reinstated it in August that year. The Council said it awarded Mr Y Priority Homeseeker status at that point because he said on his application form that he was staying with friends in shared accommodation. The Council suggested in its response to my enquiries that it would not have given Mr Y priority at that time if it had known he was staying in the parental home and had his own bedroom.
13. However Mrs X disputes that Y stated he was staying with friends, and she said he continued to live with her at that time.
14. In September 2017 Mr Y wrote to the Council saying that Mrs X had asked him to leave as she was selling her house, and he enquired about his position on the housing register.
15. It seems there was some confusion at that stage as Mr Y had mistakenly ticked a box on his most recent application form indicating he owned a property. As a result the Council cancelled his priority in October. But once this matter was clarified the Council reinstated Mr Y’s Priority Homeseeker status on a provisional basis in February 2018 on the basis Mrs X had given him notice to leave. But the Council also asked Mr Y for evidence Mrs X was selling her house.
16. In September 2018 Mr Y contacted the Council again with a new notice from Mrs X which asked him to leave by November. However the Council said the notice was not acceptable. It said Mr Y needed to provide proof Mrs X was selling the house before it could award Priority Homeseeker status in his case. The Council upheld this decision following a review in October.
17. Mr Y has remained in the Homeseeker category and has been unable to bid for properties since that time.

Analysis

18. Having considered all of the information provided, I consider there are signs of some fault by the Council in Mr Y’s case, and that Mrs X and Mr Y have been caused some unnecessary confusion and inconvenience as a result. However I am not convinced Mrs X and Mr Y have suffered a significant injustice which warrants an investigation. In particular I do not see that Mr Y has been wrongly denied an opportunity to be re-housed as a result of anything the Council has done wrong in his case to date.
19. In particular it seems the Council made an error in giving Mr Y Priority Homeseeker status between February and October 2018. But I do not see Mr Y was disadvantaged as a result because he remained able to bid for properties even though he should have been in the Homeseeker category.
20. It is possible the Council may also have been at fault for not realising sooner that Mr Y was still at Mrs X’s property and, therefore, should not have been in the Priority Homeseeker category between 2014 and 2017. But this would also have worked in Mr Y’s favour if he continued to be able to bid when he should not have been entitled to.
21. Mrs X believed the Council had lost documents about Mr Y’s special needs she provided at an early stage. However the Council said it had no record of these documents or any assessment it made based on them. In the circumstances, and given how long ago Mrs X says she provided this information to the Council, I do not see we are likely to uncover evidence of fault by the Council in this regard.
22. We are not in a position to find fault with the Council for failing to offer accommodation to someone in housing need if it has followed its Allocations Policy correctly in assessing that person’s housing register application.
23. But I note the Council’s current Policy does not provide for any priority to be given on the basis of a person’s learning difficulties, although priority may be awarded on medical grounds.
24. Mrs X also believed the Council did not properly amend Mr Y’s housing register priority when he informed it he had a job. But I am not convinced there was any fault on the Council’s part in this respect which would have made any difference to Mr Y’s chances of being re-housed. In particular the additional priority for employed applicants only applies to Priority Homeseekers, and it seems that for most of the period since late 2014 Mr Y has not, or should not have, been eligible for Priority Homeseeker status.
25. I note the Council’s Policy says applicants only qualify for Priority Homeseeker status if they meet one of the ‘reasonable preference’ criteria in Section 166A of the Housing Act 1996. These criteria include people who are homeless or living in unsatisfactory housing conditions. But the Policy also specifies that “an adult applicant with his or her own room in their parental home will be deemed by the Council to be adequately housed.”
26. The Council has decided Mr Y has not qualified as a Priority Homeseeker since October 2018. But I consider we do not have grounds to fault it for reaching this conclusion given what its Policy says.
27. It appears the Council has, in the past, accepted Mr Y as a Priority Homeseeker on the basis he was threatened with homelessness because Mrs X had given him notice to leave.
28. I am not clear why the Council considered the notice Mrs X gave Mr Y in September 2018 was not acceptable as it seems to have been valid. However it appears the Council was not satisfied Mrs X intended to evict Mr Y when the notice ran out. As I understand it this was because Mrs X had previously given Mr Y notice to leave in 2014 and 2017 on the basis she wanted to sell her house in 2014, but she had not proceeded with a sale or an eviction on those occasions.
29. It is understandable for Mrs X to want to see Mr Y re-housed before she sold her house and moved away. I also see no reason to doubt Mrs X acted in good faith on the occasions she told the Council she had given notice to Mr Y because she intended to sell her house. But in the circumstances I consider it was appropriate for the Council to want to see more evidence that her property was being marketed or sold before it accepted that Mr Y was actually threatened with homelessness and, therefore, eligible for priority on the housing register.
30. I understand Mrs X has now found a buyer for her property. Therefore it is still open to her to inform the Council about this matter so that Mr Y’s housing priority can be reviewed again.
31. Mrs X said Mr Y’s ranking in the bidding for properties had been improving in the past and at one time he was regularly in double figures in the bidding lists. However he has steadily dropped down the rankings in the last few years. Mrs X felt the Council had not adequately explained why this has happened given Mr Y’s circumstances had not changed and his waiting time on the housing register had increased in the meantime.
32. However I am not convinced the deterioration in Mr Y’s rankings in bidding for properties is any indication of fault by the Council.
33. Having considered Mr Y’s bidding history it is evident his highest placements in the bidding occurred mainly between late 2013 and early 2015 when he was regularly in the top 40, although never higher than 16th place. In comparison for most of his bids from late 2015 onwards he has been ranked at well over 100.
34. But it seems to me there are likely explanations for what has happened. In particular the Council suggests there were fewer people on the housing register at Mr Y’s level of priority around 2014. In addition it appears likely the supply of suitable housing has fallen since that time meaning that applicants have needed an increasingly higher level of priority to make a successful bid in recent years.

Back to top

Final decision

35. We do not have grounds to investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the way the Council has dealt with her son’s housing register application. This is because there seems no sign of fault by the Council in this respect which has caused Mrs X’s son an injustice to warrant our further involvement in his case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman