Summary: A representative complains for Ms C that the Council failed to deal correctly with her application for housing. The Ombudsman finds there were several faults by the Council in this matter leading to injustice for Ms C, for which a remedy has been agreed.

The complaint

1. A representative complains on behalf of the complainant, whom I shall call Ms C, that the Council failed to deal correctly with her application for housing. She complains there were unacceptable delays in processing her application and review request and that the Council lost highly sensitive and personal data, which had been sent by recorded delivery. She also complains that the Council applies a blanket five-year local connection rule. Ms C considers the Council’s actions meant that she was wrongly refused access to the housing register. She was caused stress.

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 all the information provided by Ms C’s representative about her complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and took account of all information it provided in response.
5. Ms C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision, and I considered all comments received in response before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative information

6. 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))
7. The Council’s housing allocations policy sets out that, with an exception in respect of Armed Forces personnel, any applicant will be required to meet the local connection criterion to qualify to join the housing register. The local connection criterion is met where for example an applicant has lived in the borough for the last five years. However, the policy also sets out that any provision in the allocations scheme may be waived in exceptional and limited circumstances.
8. The Council’s housing allocations policy operates a needs-based banding system, and the order of the bands reflect housing priority under the scheme.
9. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:
   • that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
   • that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
   • a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
10. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
11. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
12. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline: eight weeks is suggested as reasonable.

What happened in this case

13. Ms C applied to join the Council’s housing register on 30 April 2019. She is a single parent, and at this time had two daughters, aged 17 years and five years respectively. Their accommodation is a two-bedroom flat. Since making the application Ms C has had another child.
14. Having received no response to her application by 6 June 2019, Ms C made a complaint. She contacted the Council on 20 June and on that date it sent her an email informing her that her application had been rejected on the basis that she did not meet the five-year local connection criteria. The Council says she was also informed that a notification letter had been sent to her on 5 June 2019. Ms C reports she did not receive this letter, and that is supported by the fact that she chased the Council for response on 20 June.
15. The Council is unable to provide any evidence that the letter was issued or of its content. The Council outsources this part of its work to a third-party company. Nevertheless, the Council remains responsible for it. The lack of evidence that the letter was sent and that it contained relevant information about review rights is fault.
16. Having been advised on 20 June of the Council’s decision on her housing application, Ms C submitted a request for a review of that decision on 25 June 2019. She sent her representations by recorded delivery. In her request she noted her view that she should be afforded reasonable preference on grounds of overcrowding and should be in Band 3. She also referred to the family having moved to the borough, having been advised by police to leave the area they had been living in following violence perpetrated against the eldest daughter. She considered that these circumstances should lead the Council to dis-apply the five-year local connection requirement, which would not be satisfied until February 2020.
17. By mid-September 2019 Ms C had received no response to her review request or complaint and so asked the Council to escalate the matter to the second stage of its complaints procedure. On 18 October, the Council issued its response. It said the application had been refused on grounds that Ms C had not been resident in the borough for five years continuously or in paid employment in the borough for nine of the last 12 months. The Council said Ms C’s review request posted on 26 June had never been received. That was incorrect and was fault. The review request had been received and signed for at the Council on 27 June.
18. Responding to my enquiries the Council has accepted that it failed to carry out the review due to administrative errors which meant that it was not allocated to an officer as it should have been. The failure to carry out the review was fault.
19. Ms C provided her review request letter again with a covering letter providing more information about the family’s move to the borough and reporting that the new baby had now been born, increasing the level of overcrowding of the home. Receipt of this request by the Council was confirmed on 29 October. By 26 November, 28 days later, Ms C had not received any response. A further administrative error by the Council meant that once again the review request was not actioned. That was fault.
20. Ms C’s application was not further processed until 12 March 2020. The Council then wrote to Ms C, referring to her housing application (not mentioning the review request) and saying it needed documents from her to complete the housing registration process, and within 14 days. The letter did not explain how the request for documents might relate to the review request or that this was no longer being treated as a review request but ‘an application’. The lack of clarity was fault.
21. Ms C has been accepted onto the housing register now with an effective date of 30 April 2019 but she was not deemed to satisfy the local connection criteria until 12 March 2020 when the five-year residency criterion was met: priority in respect of overcrowding has been awarded from that date.

Injustice to Ms C

22. There were, as noted above, several administrative faults by the Council in its handling of this application, review requests and complaint. As a result of these faults Ms C has suffered some distress and inconvenience and has been put to some time and trouble seeking to get the matter appropriately resolved.
23. I turn now specifically to the Council’s failure to conduct a review. Ms C provided information to support her request, including detail of personal circumstances that led to her family’s move to the borough. The Council has said that by the time it became aware of the review request and complaint Ms C had already satisfied the local connection criterion, and so there was nothing to be gained by completing the review at this point. However, if a timely review had been undertaken as it should have been, the information Ms C had submitted when she made her review request should have been fully considered and that consideration documented. That might have resulted in a decision that exceptionally, the requirement for the five-year local connection should be waived, using the discretion necessarily allowed by the allocations policy. If so, Ms C would have been awarded her current priority for re-housing sooner. Alternatively, even if the outcome remained unchanged after the review, the Council would be able to evidence that the grounds for review had been properly taken into account and the allocations policy correctly applied. Without review there is uncertainty about the consideration given to the matter and the possible outcomes.

Agreed action

24. In recognition of the injustice caused to Ms C by the faults identified in the statement, I recommended that within four weeks of the date of the decision on this complaint the Council:

• Issues Ms C with a formal written apology;
• Pays her £250; and
• Undertakes a review of all the information she submitted with her review request, documents its consideration of her submission, and notifies her in writing of the outcome and the reasons for it.

25. In addition, within three months of the date of the decision on this complaint I recommended the Council should review lessons learned from it and identify any measures to be taken, with a timescale, to avoid so far as possible a recurrence of the faults identified. This should include consideration of the arrangements with the third-party contractor which issues decision letters on its behalf, since the Council should be able to evidence what has been issued and at present it is unable to do so.
26. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation on the basis set out above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman