Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not awarded enough priority to a woman’s Housing Register application. This is because the complaint has been made late, and there are no good reasons for us to pursue the matter now.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Miss B, complained that the Council had wrongly decided she does not qualify for Band 1 priority on its Housing Register as a care leaver.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. In particular the Act says we normally 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

4. I considered the information Miss B provided about her complaint. I also gave Miss B the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision before I reached a final view in her case. In addition I took account of the complaint correspondence between Miss B and the Council, and the Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme.

Back to top

The Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme

5. Under its Housing Allocation Scheme, the Council places applicants to the Housing Register in one of five bands, depending on their level of need.
6. The Scheme says that reasonable preference will be given to certain categories of applicant who the Council owes a duty to. In particular the Scheme says: “Subject to approval from the Housing Needs Team referrals may be received by other sections within the local authority. Consideration will also be given to referrals from other local authorities where evidence is submitted to support a move to our borough.” The Scheme refers to care leavers as an example of a category of applicant this provision could apply to.
7. The Scheme goes on to say that Band 1 priority is given to: “London Borough of Bromley referrals for the following households: supported housing move on, leaving care and learning disability, who have been assessed as ready for independent living.”

Back to top

What I found

8. As a child, Miss B was in care in another London Borough (‘Council X’). When Miss B left care Council X retained certain duties to her as a care leaver.
9. Later on Miss B moved to the Council’s area, and in July 2017 she applied to the Council for housing assistance as she was homeless.
10. The Council subsequently accepted a homelessness duty in Miss B’s case and provided her with temporary accommodation in another area.
11. When she applied as homeless Miss B also completed an application to join the Council’s Housing Register so that she could bid for permanent social housing. The Council decided Miss B was entitled to Band 2 priority on the Register because she was homeless.
12. Miss B said she provided the Council with evidence from Council X about her care leaver status at her initial interview in July 2017. Miss B said the officer she saw also contacted Council X the same day to verify this information.
13. In the circumstances Miss B considers the Council should have placed her in Band 1 from the start under the criterion in its Allocation Scheme applying to those leaving care.
14. Miss B said the Council had reviewed her Housing Register application several times since 2017, most recently in 2020. In its review decision last year the Council confirmed that Miss B was not entitled to Band 1 priority as a care leaver. In particular it said that, although Miss B was a care leaver of Council X at the time she approached the Council in 2017, as Council X’s Social Services did not refer her case to the Council it did not take on the role of her corporate parent.

Analysis

15. However I have concluded that we should not investigate Miss B’s complaint.
16. In particular, I consider the restriction on our jurisdiction I refer to in paragraph 3 applies in Miss B’s case. This is because she has made her complaint to us over three years after she became aware of her issue with the Council.
17. In this respect, I understand that Miss B would have received the Council’s decision about her Housing Register banding shortly after she applied to it in July 2017. I appreciate Miss B then challenged the Council’s decision through its review procedure. But she did not bring her complaint to us until December 2020.
18. I am also not convinced that there is good cause for us to exercise our discretion and investigate Miss B’s complaint now, despite it being late. In particular Miss B has not put forward any good reason for not coming to us sooner.
19. In addition, even if we were to exercise discretion, I am not convinced we would have grounds to find fault with the Council regarding its banding decision in Miss B’s case.
20. In particular I note that under the Council’s Allocations Scheme, consideration for Band 1 status as a care leaver depends on the other Council making a formal referral when a care leaver is moving from its area to the Council’s area. But in Miss B’s case I understand there was no formal referral from Council X, and she was already living in the Council’s area at the time she approached it for housing assistance.

Back to top

Final Decision

21. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council has not given her a higher priority on its Housing Register in view of her status as a care leaver. This is because her complaint has been made late, and there are insufficient reasons for us to exercise discretion and look into her case now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman