Summary: The Council was at fault for how it dealt with Miss B’s housing application. Its register allows people to move into its area if they have a need to move, such as unsuitable accommodation or the need to receive family support. These were the reasons Miss B gave in her application, but the Council did not properly consider her circumstances. It has agreed to make a new decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Miss B, complains that the Council refused her application to join its housing register. She says she needs to move to the Council’s area because she has mental health issues and needs to be nearer her family so they can support her. She says her current accommodation – in which she is facing harassment from neighbours – is making her condition worse.

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 information from Miss B and the Council. Both parties had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened?

5. Section 166A of the Housing Act 1996 says councils may give priority to people who have a ‘local connection’. Section 199 of the Act says this includes people who have ‘family associations’ with a council’s area.
6. In 2013 the government issued statutory guidance entitled Providing social housing for local people. This guidance says it is appropriate for councils to require successful housing applicants to have lived in the area for a period of time beforehand. It says a period of two years is a reasonable requirement.
7. The Council’s housing register policy sets out its qualification criteria. This includes people who live, or work, in the area and have done so for two continuous years. It also includes:

People who do not live in [the area] but live in accommodation that is not suitable for their housing needs, and have a local connection to [the area] as defined in Section 22 of this Policy, and who have an overriding proven need to move to the … area, and there is accommodation likely to become available in [the area] that is suitable to meet their housing needs.

8. Section 22 of the policy defines what the Council means by ‘local connection’. This includes:

… applicants who have a family member (mother, father, brother, sister or adult children) currently residing in [the area] and have done so for at least the last five continuous years (the residence and family connection must be proven by the applicant and verified by [the Council]).

9. People wanting to move to receive support from family members must demonstrate why they need support and and why they cannot get it in their current accommodation.
10. The Council gives allocation priority to applicants when their current housing conditions are having an adverse effect on their medical condition.

What happened?

11. Miss B submitted a housing application in July 2020. She said she was applying because she needed to be near her family for support.
12. The Council rejected Miss B’s application. It said she had no local connection, as defined by its policy. It also said that – despite having family in the area – she did not qualify because she had not lived or worked in the area for the past two years.
13. Miss B asked the Council to review its decision. She provided her father’s address (which was in the Council’s area). She said she suffered with bipolar disorder and needed to be near her father for support. She said she was suffering from harassment from neighbours, which was making her condition worse. She provided a letter from her social worker and community psychiatric nurse which said moving out of her current accommodation and closer to her family would “be critical in her recovery”.
14. The Council reviewed its decision in October 2020 and said it had considered all the information Miss B had provided before and after the original decision on her application. However, it did not change its mind.
15. The Council said a successful applicant would “first have to meet the qualification criteria, which is to have lived or worked in the area on a continuous basis for the last two years”. It said social problems in Miss B’s current accommodation were a matter for her landlord and the Police, not the housing register.
16. The Council also said the information Miss B provided did “not warrant an overriding reason to move to the … area”.

My findings

17. It is not for me to say whether Miss B should or should not qualify for the housing register. Only the Council can make that decision. However, I have considered whether there was any fault in how the decision was made.
18. In rejecting her application in July 2020, the Council told Miss B that, under the terms of its policy, she had no local connection. However, this was not necessarily the case, as the policy itself says people have a local connection if they have an immediate family member who has lived in the Council’s area for the past five years.
19. I do not know how long Miss B’s father has lived in the Council’s area. However, if it is five years or more, then Miss B does have a local connection under the terms of the policy.
20. The Council did not make enquiries to confirm Miss B’s father’s residence, or to find out how long he had lived in the area. This means it decided she had no local connection without taking proper steps to establish whether this was the case. This was fault by the Council.
21. In reviewing its decision, the Council told Miss B that, to qualify for the register, she must have lived or worked in the area for the past two years. But this was incorrect. The Council’s policy also allows people to qualify if they live outside the area but have a local connection and have a need to move, such as the need to receive family support – which was one of the reasons Miss B had given for applying.
22. Although the Council said, at the end of the review decision letter, that there was no “overriding reason [for Miss B] to move” – which is broadly the wording in the policy – there was no explanation for this. The letter does not set out why the Council felt that Miss B did not need to move closer to her father. This was fault by the Council.
23. The Council’s policy also says people who have a need to move must be living in unsuitable accommodation. Miss B said she was suffering from harassment in her accommodation, and that it was making her condition worse. She provided evidence to support this. But the Council told her this was a matter for her landlord and the Police, not the housing register.
24. Given that Miss B was, in effect, saying her housing was unsuitable – and given that the Council itself gives allocation priority to applicants when their current housing conditions are having an adverse effect on their medical condition – it was further fault for the Council to decide it could not consider Miss B’s circumstances.
25. Because of the above, I have found fault with how the Council made its decision on Miss B’s housing application. It should make a new decision, in line with its policy.

Agreed action

26. The Council has agreed to make a new decision on Miss B’s housing application. It has agreed to consider all available information before doing so, and to ensure its decision is in line with its housing register policy.
27. The Council has agreed to do this within four weeks of the date of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

28. The Council was at fault for how it dealt with Miss B’s housing application. Its register allows people to move into its area if they have a need to move, such as unsuitable accommodation or the need to receive family support. These were the reasons Miss B gave in her application, but the Council did not properly consider her circumstances. The agreed action remedies Miss B’s injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman