Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing register application. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing register application. She said the Council told her she could not join the housing register because she had not provided documents to show how capital (from an award of damages in a court case) had been disposed of. She says the Council could have obtained this information from its Housing Benefits team and should have done so as a reasonable adjustment in light of her disabilities.
2. The Council accepted an application in December 2018 and back-dated this to March 2019, which is when its allocations policy made an exception to the normal rule about capital for those with a reasonable preference.
3. Ms X said if the Council had made a reasonable adjustment it would have had evidence that her capital had fallen below £16,000 by December 2014, which would have meant she could have been accepted onto the housing register at that point. The later date means she will have to wait longer for suitable housing.
4. Ms X also complained the Council delayed in carrying out a review of her housing register application between July and December 2019.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
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. 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)
8. Ms X has complained about events from July 2014 when she first asked the Council for assistance with housing. I am aware Ms X was assisted by her MP and legal representatives, and she pursued a complaint in 2017-18. In such circumstances we would usually have expected her to complain to us sooner. Her current legal representative, however, has argued that she has significant disabilities and the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for her. Therefore, in view of Ms X’s apparent vulnerability, I have exercised discretion to consider the complaint.
9. 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

10. I have considered:
• the information provided by the Council and Ms X’s legal representative;
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below.
11. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered all comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Housing allocations

12. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme.  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
13. 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))

14. Most councils maintain a housing register containing details of those applicants waiting for housing to be allocated.

This Council’s allocations scheme

15. The Council’s allocations policy from June 2013 stated that households with capital over £30,000 could not join its housing register. It also stated that applicants must have been living continuously in its area for 10 years to qualify.
16. In December 2016, the allocations policy was amended to exempt applicants with a reasonable preference from the 10 years continuous residence requirement. Applicants with a reasonable preference include those who are homeless.
17. In March 2019, the allocations policy was amended to make an exception to the capital requirement for applicants with a reasonable preference.
18. The allocations policy was further amended in November 2019 but the changes made do not affect the application I am considering.

Reasonable adjustments

19. The Equality Act 2010 says that anyone who provides services to the public or a section of the public, who finds there are barriers to disabled people using a service must consider making adjustments to their process. If those adjustments are reasonable they must be made.

What happened

20. Ms X asked the Council for assistance when she became homeless in July 2014. The Council accepted a housing duty and provided temporary accommodation for her.
21. The Council considered an application to its housing register. I understand it asked Ms X for evidence that she had been resident in its area for 10 years but Ms X did not provide that information. In November 2014 it became aware she had received a damages payment and asked her to provide information about that, which Ms X failed to do. Without the information it had requested, the Council was not able to confirm Ms X met the criteria for inclusion on the housing register.
22. In July 2019, Ms X, through a new legal representative, Mr R, asked the Council to review the housing register application. Mr R said:
• Ms X had a reasonable preference and therefore the residence and capital requirements did not apply to her;
• Ms X had provided the Housing Benefit team with evidence about her capital and the damages award she had received; and
• the Benefit Tribunal had decided in February 2017 that Ms X did not have any capital by October 2014 and the Council’s housing benefit team had not appealed that decision.
23. The Council reviewed the case in early October 2019 and, after receiving further information and documents, accepted the housing register application in December 2019. It back-dated the priority date to 27 March 2019, which is when the policy change about not applying the capital requirement for applicants with a reasonable preference came into effect.
24. Mr R says the Council had all the documents it needed to consider the application so it should not have taken until December 2019 to make its decision.
25. Mr R also says the Council should have back-dated Ms X’s priority further because its Housing Benefits team had evidence to show her capital had fallen below £16,000 by December 2012. He also argued that in light of Ms X’s significant disabilities, the Council should have asked for the information from its Housing Benefit team as a reasonable adjustment.
26. In response to a complaint from Mr R, the Council said it had written to explain the position to:
• Ms X’s legal representative in April 2017; and
• Ms X’s MP in October 2017, June 2018 and October 2018.
27. In response to my enquiries, the Council said:
• the onus is on the applicant to provide the information requested for the housing register application;
• even with the information from the Housing Benefit team there was money not accounted for;
• during an interview, under caution, with its fraud department Ms X answered all questions with “no comment”, therefore it was up to her to provide information to show how large cash withdrawals were used;
• the Housing Benefit team has a different criteria for considering proof of disposal of capital to that which applies to housing register applications, and this was explained to Ms X’s legal advisers in 2017; and
• the position has been explained to Ms X’s various legal representatives from July 2014 to date.

My findings

28. Ms X applied to the housing register in July 2014. At that point the Council’s allocation policy required her to show she had been living in its area consistency for 10 years. Ms X did not provide that information. Its allocation policy excluded applicants with capital of more than £30,000. Since Ms X had received a large sum in damages following a court case, the Council asked for information and evidence about her capital before it could decide whether she was eligible for the housing register. Ms X did not provide that information.
29. It is generally the responsibility of the applicant to provide the information requested for the housing register application.
30. Mr R says the Council’s Housing Benefit team had the information needed about Ms X’s capital. He says the Council should have made a reasonable adjustment to obtain the information from the Housing Benefit team because Ms X was not able to provide it due to her considerable disabilities.
31. I have seen no evidence to show Ms X asked the Council to make a reasonable adjustment, nor that she authorised the officers considering the housing register application to seek the information needed from the Housing Benefit team. I have also seen no evidence that Ms X’s need for reasonable adjustment regarding this matter should have been anticipated by the Council. I also note she had legal representatives at various points and the assistance of her local MP, who could either have made a request for a reasonable adjustment or assisted her to provide the information requested.
32. In the circumstances, I do not consider the Council was at fault for not making a reasonable adjustment to obtain the information it needed from the Housing Benefit team.
33. The Council says the information held by the Housing Benefit team was not sufficient for it to decide the housing register application. I cannot confirm this on the basis of the information I have seen. However, this suggests that even if it had made the reasonable adjustment it would not have been able to make a different decision about Ms X’s eligibility for its housing register. I have not seen evidence that the Council’s decision was made with fault. I can only comment on the Council’s decision where it was made with fault.
34. Mr R asked the Council to review the housing register application in July 2019. Mr R sent further documents in early August. The case was reviewed in early October 2019 and the Council wrote to request further documents. Ms X did provide some of the documents requested in mid October and the Council sent a reminder for the outstanding documents needed in mid December 2019. It made its final decision soon afterwards. It appears there was some initial delay in identifying the documents needed and requesting them but this is not sufficient to warrant a finding of fault. In any event, any injustice caused by the delay was remedied by backdating Ms X’s priority to March 2019.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation. I have not found evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman