Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled the complainant’s housing application. This is because the Council has offered a fair remedy and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the way the Council handled his housing application. He wants the Council to make a direct offer for a two bedroom flat. Alternatively, Mr X wants the Council to give him more priority on the housing register.

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 we believe:

• the Council has offered a fair remedy, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered the housing allocation policy and the medical evidence Mr X submitted. I considered comments Mr X’s representative made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing Allocation policy

4. The policy explains who is eligible to join the housing register. If people are allowed to join for exceptional reasons they are restricted to band C. The policy says that a single person is eligible for a bedsit or a one bedroom flat. The Council only allows a second bedroom if there is a medical need for an overnight carer.

What happened

5. Mr X lives in a one bed Housing Association flat in London. His mother lives in the same area. Mr X has mental health needs. Mr X applied to join the housing register in March 2019. Mr X said he needed one bedroom. The Council rejected the application because he did not meet the qualifying rules. For example, he had not lived or worked in the area for two years, and the Council did not accept that moving to its area was the only way Mr X could receive support.
6. Mr X submitted medical evidence which gave information about his health, explained the problems he has living in London, and why moving would be beneficial for his wellbeing and hope for recovery. The Council then exercised discretion and allowed him to join the housing register on the basis that he needed to move to the area to receive support. This is the category that restricts people to band C or D. The Council backdated the application to March. It registered Mr X for a one bedroom home and placed him in band C.
7. The Council made an error and failed to give Mr X a bidding number until June. This meant Mr X could not bid. Mr X complained. He asked for a two bedroom home and for the Council to make a direct offer.
8. In response, the Council said it had correctly rejected the application because Mr X does not qualify for the housing register. But, due to his circumstances, it accepted the application on a discretionary basis. The Council accepted it took too long to activate the registration. As a remedy the Council considered all the one bed properties it had offered between March 2019 and June 2020 and it found out Mr X has not lost out on an offer. It offered £200 for its error and explained it cannot make a direct offer because people who are accepted onto the register to receive support are restricted to band C and cannot be given priority over local residents. In addition, the policy says that direct offers are made to people who are homeless or social tenants who already live in the area. The Council also told Mr X he could explore moving through the mutual exchange system.
9. Mr X is dissatisfied with the reply. He says the Council ignored his application and then failed to register it. He wants the Council to make an immediate direct offer of a two bedroom flat or to place him in band B or A on the housing register.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation because the Council has offered a fair and proportionate remedy. It accepts it should have given Mr X a bidding number in September or October 2019. But, it has established that all the people offered a flat between March and June, had more priority than Mr X. This means Mr X would not have made a successful bid if there had been no delay in activating his account. So, Mr X has not lost out on a home due to the delay and the Council’s explanation and £200 is a fair remedy.
11. I also will not start an investigation because, once this remedy is taken into account, there is insufficient evidence of injustice. This is because Mr X currently lives in a one bedroom flat and there is no evidence he needs an overnight carer. And, he does not meet the criteria for a direct offer. This is because he is not homeless, or a social tenant of the area. In addition, he is restricted to band C because he has been admitted to the register on a discretionary basis. There was no delay between March and September because the Council correctly decided Mr X does not qualify. But, the Council made a discretionary decision and then backdated the application to March. The Council has not ignored the medical evidence, as Mr X has suggested, because it was the evidence that persuaded the Council to let Mr X join the register even though he would normally have been unsuccessful.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation because the Council has provided a fair remedy and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman