London Borough of Tower Hamlets (20 007 009)

Category : Housing > Allocations

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 21 May 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to correspondence about his housing application. It delayed acting when told of his change of address. It also failed to respond promptly to his review request and failed to explain it was for the complaints process, not the review process. There was no fault in its housing banding decision. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

  1. Mr Q complains about the way the Council dealt with his housing application and its failure to:
      1. Respond promptly, or at all, to his correspondence;
      2. Promptly act on his request for a review of its decision about banding; and
      3. Place him in the correct housing band.
  2. As a result, he remains living in a shared twin room and could have bid for properties using a higher priority banding.

What I have investigated

  1. I have not investigated any complaint Mr Q might have about the Council’s actions that took place before October 2019. The paragraph at the end of this draft decision explains why.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  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. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered all the information Mr Q provided, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent him. I sent Mr Q and the Council a copy of my draft decision. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr Q believes the Council placed him in the wrong housing band under its allocation scheme when he applied to go on the register more than a year ago. Mr Q says he moved between several properties within 9 months.
  2. Due to Covid-19 restrictions, Mr Q was moved from the shared room he had in a hostel, to his current accommodation, which he does not have to share. This is only a temporary arrangement because when restrictions are lifted, he will need to share this accommodation. His current flat is mainly for those who need short term accommodation.
  3. The Council placed him in Band 3 under its housing allocation scheme. Band 3 is for applicants who have no defined housing need, such as those who are not overcrowded. It is the lowest band under the scheme. Mr Q believes it should place him in a higher band because he is sharing a room. He complains he asked the Council to review its decision but, it failed to do so.
  4. Mr Q is also unhappy with the time it took the Council to change his address on his application which he believes lost him the chance to bid on properties. The Council kept asking him for additional information, some of which he had previously sent.
  5. I now consider Mr Q’s complaints:

Complaint a): Responding to correspondence

  1. Mr Q is unhappy with the Council’s delay responding to correspondence, acting on information sent, and requesting documents and information already sent.

Analysis

  1. I make the following findings on this complaint:
      1. The Council received the change of address form from Mr Q in September 2019. While it entered it on to its system, it failed to pass it to the relevant officer to action until January 2020. There is no explanation for this 4-month delay. The delay is fault.
      2. A month later, the Council asked him for proof of his address which it received the following month.
      3. In April, the Council asked him for further documents and information which it received shortly afterwards. An email sent to him shows the reason for making this request was because of contradictory information on the change of address form he sent. The Council wanted evidence with his name, address, and date on which would not include information about booking his accommodation that he had sent, for example. The Council also wanted a recent bank statement and details of his employment. Evidence needed to cover 2018 and 2017.
      4. Mr Q replied explaining his background and why he could have become confused with some of the addresses and dates. He also explained it was difficult for him to provide documents showing his name, address, and date because he had to move from place to place because of the risk to his life. This risk was why he had not updated his address with the bank, for example.
      5. As Mr Q had not sent all the documents requested, the Council asked for them again. Some of these were provided. The Council decided to show some flexibility due to his background circumstances but, needed to see a bank statement which Mr Q provided.
      6. As Mr Q moved again in May, the Council asked him for a copy of the tenancy agreement which he provided. The same month, the Council told him it had updated his address in its records and confirmed he was still in Band 3. I found no fault in the way it dealt with this change.
      7. The Council received the next change of address form in June when Mr Q moved. It told him it had updated his application in July. I found no fault with the way it dealt with this change.
      8. The Council was not at fault for asking Mr Q for the evidence it wanted. Councils must get evidence to verify an application and the information stated within it. Mr Q’s circumstances were unusual as he felt he had to keep moving address and was wary of updating his details with the bank, for example. The Council acted flexibly when Mr Q explained why he could not provide all the information it wanted.
      9. I am satisfied the initial delay identified caused Mr Q an injustice, even though it did not change the overall banding decision. The delays caused him avoidable distress including: inconvenience, frustration, and loss of confidence in the Council, for example. Had the delay not happened, the Council could have asked him for the evidence and information it needed sooner but, the overall banding decision would have been no different.

Complaint b): Review request

  1. The Council confirmed it told Mr Q of its Band 3 decision in May 2020. Mr Q says he wrote to the Council wanting it reviewed about a week later. He heard nothing further.
  2. The Council explained the officer he wrote to went on long term leave and the emails were not monitored. This was why it failed to respond to his request and accepted it had not acted on his request for a review. The Council apologised for this failure and said it acted to ensure an ‘out of office’ response was set on the officer’s email account.
  3. In response to my enquiries, the Council also explained when asked for advice during the complaints procedure in November 2020, the review team noted his request was not reviewable. This was because his unhappiness with the time taken to update his application with his new address was an issue for the complaint process instead. The review team also considered the decision to place him in Band 3, which it found correct.

Analysis

  1. I make the following findings on this complaint:
      1. When Mr Q wrote to the Council in May, saying he wanted to appeal the decision, an officer responded asking him to explain why he thought the priority banding decision was wrong. The officer explained when he had done so, his appeal would then be sent to the reviews team.
      2. While it was correct for the officer to invite Mr Q to set out the grounds for arguing the banding given to him was wrong, the officer failed to signpost him to the complaints process for the second part of his email. This part of his email was about him missing out on a year of bidding. This omission is fault.
      3. In response, Mr Q said his ground of appeal was the time taken for the Council to amend the application with his new address and the impact this had on his ability to bid for properties. He went on to say whether he was in the correct band was not the issue he raised but, said he was already in phase 2 of his appeal. He asked for his case to go to a senior officer, as set out in the complaints and appeals procedure, or for the Council to reverse its decision.
      4. The response the officer sent confirmed his appeal, or more accurately, his review request, was sent to the review team. There is no evidence of the officer explaining to Mr Q what part was sent, what would happen, and when he might get a response. The officer also failed to explain what the review team could look at and what the complaints team could look at. Another opportunity to signpost him to the complaints process was lost. It was unclear what Mr Q meant when he referred to phase 2, and this could also have been clarified with him. These failings are fault.
      5. In response to my enquiries, the Council said no review was done because the ground Mr Q gave was not reviewable. It said the request was sent to the review team in June. There is no evidence the Council explained this to Mr Q earlier than November, 6 months after his contact about it. This is fault.
      6. The Council accepted there was a failure to make proper arrangements to deal with the officer’s email inbox while there was uncertainty about the duration of her absence. This is fault.
      7. I consider the identified fault caused Mr Q avoidable injustice. This caused distress including: frustration; lack of clarity about what was happening, or not happening, with his review request; uncertainty.

Complaint c): Housing band

  1. The Council confirmed while Mr Q currently lives in shared accommodation, he is not sharing the room because of Covid-19 restrictions. This was why it placed him in Band 3. The Council decided he was adequately housed and not overcrowded. For it to consider him for a higher band, the Council needs confirmation from his landlord stating the room is rented to Mr Q and another person.
  2. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed the delay assessing his application did not affect his chance of successfully bidding for a property. It confirmed should Mr Q have to share a room with someone not part of his household, it would move his application to Band 2A because of overcrowding. This is because banding is decided by an applicant’s current circumstances.
  3. In April 2021, his landlord wrote to Mr Q saying it intended to reintroduce shared accommodation.

Analysis

  1. I found no fault on this complaint. This is because Mr Q is not currently sharing a room with someone who is not a member of his household. This means he is not overcrowded. When that changes, he can tell the Council who can re-assess his banding.
  2. The licence agreement Mr Q provided for the accommodation he lived in before his current accommodation, does not say he had to share a room with someone else who is not a member of his household.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. I considered our guidance on remedies.
  2. I also took account of the apologies the Council already gave Mr Q about the delays with amending his application and the action it took as a result.
  3. The Council agreed to carry out the following action within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
      1. Apologise for its failure to: explain what was reviewable and what was for the complaints procedure; explain properly what was done, what would happen next, and timescales for a review response; explain, for 6 months, that his request was not reviewable;
      2. Pay Mr Q £100 for the avoidable injustice caused by the faults identified;
      3. Review its processes to ensure the reason for the delay in dealing with the change of address form is identified and steps are taken to avoid any future possible repetition;
      4. Review its processes to ensure applicants are clearly told what is and what is not reviewable and what may come within the complaints procedure instead; and
      5. Review why Mr Q was not told about the non-reviewability of his request for 6 months and make sure it cannot be repeated in the future.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Ombudsman reached the following decision on the complaint by Mr Q against the Council:
  • Complaint a): Fault causing injustice;
  • Complaint b): Fault causing injustice; and
  • Complaint c): No fault.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

  1. I did not investigate any complaint Mr Q had about the Council’s actions taking place before October 2019. This is because he complained to the Ombudsman in October 2020. The law says 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 did. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate any earlier complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings