Summary: The Council failed to properly check Ms B’s application before it allowed her to join the Council’s housing register. It decided almost two years later that Ms B was not eligible to join the register and then failed to properly review its decision. The Council also failed to properly respond to Ms B’s formal complaint, or to her numerous telephone calls and emails and her initial requests for a review. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms B, review its decision and take action to prevent similar failings in future.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains that the Council unreasonably decided to remove her housing application from the Council’s housing register because it did not consider she met the requirement to have lived in the borough continuously for the last five years. Ms B says she has lived in the borough for the last 16 years, apart from some nights when she stayed with different friends when she was homeless for three months. Ms B also complains that the Council failed to properly respond to her telephone calls, emails, review requests and complaints.

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 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

Overview

5. The Council’s Housing Allocations Policy says that households that have not been resident in the borough for the last five years are not eligible for entry onto the housing register.
6. Ms B was accepted on to the Council’s housing register in November 2016. A Council officer contacted Ms B in August 2018 to check her application details because she had been shortlisted for a property.
7. The Council says that Ms B told its officer that she had been living out of the borough between August and November 2016, and so she was not eligible to join its housing register.
8. Ms B says she was homeless and ‘sofa surfing’ but stayed in the borough for most of the three-month period. She says she has lived in the borough since November 2016 and for around 12 years before she became homeless in August 2016. She considers the Council was wrong to remove her application from the housing register.

The Council’s decision that Ms B was not eligible to join the register

9. Ms B stated on the application form she completed in November 2016 that she was living in the borough and had done so for the last ten years. She stated that she was of no fixed abode, had moved out of her last address three months earlier and was staying with friends or family.
10. The Council issues guidance to its officers on assessing applications from applicants who are of no fixed abode. It says the officer should email the applicant and request a full address history for the previous five years, including any addresses they are currently moving between. The Council did not do this when Ms B submitted her application. This was fault.
11. The guidance says that where the applicant has been continuously living in the borough for at least five years prior to losing their settled accommodation, and is spending at least five nights a week in the borough, they will be eligible to join the housing register.
12. The Council says that it decided that Ms B was not eligible to join the housing register because she told an officer during a telephone call in August 2018 that she had been living with a relative in another borough between August and November 2016. Ms B says this is not the case. She says she told the officer that she had stayed at several addresses, including one which was outside of the borough.
13. Ms B asked the Council to review its decision that she was not eligible to join the housing register. The Council upheld its previous decision. Its decision was based on the officer’s notes of the telephone conversation with Ms B, and a letter in which Ms B confirmed that one of the addresses she stayed at was outside of the borough.
14. I consider there was fault in the way the review decision was made. Ms B’s confirmation that she stayed outside of the borough for some of the period did not mean that she was not eligible to join the register. She would only have been ineligible if she had stayed outside of the borough for two or more nights each week. The Council failed to establish if this was the case.
15. If the Council had properly followed its guidance and emailed Ms B to check her address history when she first applied in November 2016, there would be no dispute about where she was living between August and November 2016. Depending on the information Ms B provided, she would either have known from the outset that she was not eligible to join the register, or she would have been accepted on to the register and may have been offered the tenancy of a property by now.
16. In around 12 months, Ms B will have lived within the borough continuously for five years and will therefore be eligible to join the Council’s housing register. Given the uncertainty as to whether Ms B would have been eligible since November 2016 if there had been no fault by the Council, I consider the Council should review its decision that she is ineligible on residency grounds.

Ms B’s correspondence

17. The Council failed to respond to numerous emails and telephone calls that Ms B made between August 2018 and January 2019. It also failed to respond to a request Ms B made in October 2018 for it to review its decision that she was not eligible to join the housing register. This was fault.
18. Ms B made a formal complaint in January 2019 and received the Council’s response the following month. It apologised for its failure to respond to her emails and calls, or to process her request for a review. It said that it would carry out a review of its decision and it explained how Ms B could escalate her complaint. It asked her not to escalate her complaint until she had received the review decision.
19. Ms B then made a further complaint to the Council in July 2019 after the review had been completed. The Council told Ms B that she could challenge the review decision by applying to court for a judicial review, but it did not respond to her complaint.
20. The Council says Ms B’s letter was a request for a review of the housing register eligibility decision, and therefore it was not appropriate to consider it under the complaints process. However, much of Ms B’s letter was clearly a complaint, and the Council had asked Ms B to wait until she had received the review decision before escalating her complaint. The Council should have responded to Ms B’s complaint and told her how to escalate it to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied. It did not do so; this was fault.
21. The Council accepts that its failure to respond to Ms B’s correspondence was extremely poor customer service.

Agreed action

22. Within four weeks, the Council will:
• Make a payment of £500 to Ms B to acknowledge the distress and frustration she suffered as a result of the failings identified, and the avoidable time and trouble she was put to pursuing matters with the Council and the Ombudsman.
23. Within eight weeks, the Council will:
• Review its decision that Ms B is ineligible to join the housing register on residency grounds. The onus will be on the Council to seek to establish where Ms B was resident during the period in question. If it cannot evidence that Ms B was residing out of the borough for a period or periods which would make her ineligible, then by default she will be deemed to meet the residence requirement and be reinstated on the housing register retrospectively.
• Ensure relevant officers are familiar with the Council’s guidance on assessing housing applications from applicants who have no fixed abode.
• Remind it officers that applicants who are unhappy with the way the Council has made a decision or dealt with a review can make a complaint and should be signposted to the Ombudsman.
• Carry out a full review of the way it deals with telephone calls and correspondence to ensure it always responds appropriately.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation and uphold Ms B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Ms B. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman