Summary: Miss X complains that the Council failed to exercise discretion when considering her housing application and therefore the level of housing priority she has is incorrect. Based on the evidence seen, the Council has evidenced that it properly considered Miss X’s circumstances and adhered to its housing allocations policy. We found no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that the Council has failed to exercise discretion when considering her housing application and therefore failed to give her application sufficient priority. Specifically, Miss X says the Council has failed to recognise, she has a local connection and her service in the armed forces.
2. Miss X says the Council’s actions have caused her distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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

5. I spoke to Miss X and considered the information she provided. I also made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
6. I sent Miss X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and invited their comments. I considered the comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

7. 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))
8. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who may need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others

(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

9. Housing applicants can ask a council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
10. Statutory guidance encourages local authorities to take account of the needs of all serving or former service personnel who have served within the previous 5 years. The guidance states that certain members of the Armed Forces are exempt from any residency requirements which prevent local authorities from applying a local connection test to disqualify such applications.
11. In 2015 the Government introduced a Right to Move for social tenants to move to take up a job or live closer to employment or training.

The Council’s Housing Allocation Policy June 2020

12. Under the Council’s policy, housing need is determined by assessing the current housing circumstances of applicants. A priority ‘band’ is then allocated according to the urgency of housing need. There are four priority bands as follows:

• Emergency Priority - this is only awarded to households living in severe housing conditions and have no option but to move straight away;
• High Band - this includes people with acute overcrowding, people releasing under-occupied properties and people living in unsanitary or unfit housing conditions. It also includes circumstances where there is a proven need to move to more suitable accommodation within a particular locality of the Borough as extreme hardship would otherwise occur.
• Medium Band – this includes people in properties with general overcrowding, under-occupied social housing, and people lacking a bedroom or other key facilities. It also covers those people who live outside West Norfolk where there is a proven welfare need to move to more suitable accommodation within a particular locality of the Borough.
• Low Band – this includes people who are already adequately housed.

13. Assessment of housing need includes factors such as overcrowding, medical and welfare grounds and whether living conditions are deemed insanitary or unsatisfactory.
14. Additional priority is awarded to applicants who have a local connection if for example:

• they have been living in the area for at least three out of the last five years;
• they have close family (parents, children, brothers or sisters) who have been living in the borough for at least five years;
• they are a current member of the Armed Forces or have been discharged within five years of the date of their housing application;
• there are special circumstances pertaining to why they need to live in the area, such has severe social or medical needs.

Miss X’s complaint

15. In June 2020 Miss X applied to join the housing register. Miss X lived outside the Council’s area but explained she had a local connection.
16. Miss X provided the Council with several documents to support her housing application. Miss X and Miss Y were both veterans and whilst not biologically related consider each other as siblings. Enclosed was a letter from Miss Y expressing why it was important for Miss X to live close to her. Miss X sent further supporting information about her relationship with Miss Y and provided evidence of her military service.
17. The Council considered this information alongside its allocations policy. Miss X lived outside of the area and therefore the Council considered whether there was a local connection. Miss X’s relationship with Miss Y was not a biological one, as defined in the Council’s policy. Miss X also did not meet the Armed Forces eligibility criteria as more than five years had passed since her service ended.
18. However, the Council accepted that Miss X’s relationship with Miss Y and her family was exceptional, and that Miss X had her own support needs. On this basis it accepted Miss X onto the housing register under welfare grounds and awarded her Medium Band priority. Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision that she does not have a local connection to the area and therefore is not eligible for additional priority.
19. In September 2020 Miss X requested a direct let under the Right to Move scheme. The Council refused on the basis that Miss X did not meet the criteria as her request was not employment related.

Analysis

20. Legislation allows local authorities to decide who does or does not qualify for an allocation of social housing. This criteria must be clearly set out in a housing allocation policy. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or an applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
21. The Council followed the correct process when it considered Miss X’s application to join the housing register. It considered all the information received, including details of support Miss X and her daughter received from external organisations and within the community. The Council decided that Miss X did have adequate welfare grounds to move into its area. It therefore allowed her to join the housing register.
22. Miss X complains that the Council failed to take account of her relationship with Miss Y and her military status when deciding what priority band, she should be in. However, I have not seen any evidence of this. The case was considered by an allocations officer, senior housing officer and housing needs manager. The Council granted Miss X Medium Band priority. This was in recognition of Miss X’s relationship with Miss Y and her own support needs. This is clearly one of the grounds that would justify the Council granting Medium Band priority as set out in the Council’s Housing Allocations Policy. In accordance with this policy Miss X did not meet the Armed Forces eligibility criteria as more than five years had passed since her service ended. I understand that the Council has already explained this to Miss X. I find no fault by the Council.
23. I find the Council followed the correct process when it considered Miss X’s request for a direct let. Miss X’s request did not meet the employment related criteria for a Right to Move.
24. While I understand Miss X will be disappointed, I have found no fault in the way the Council reached its decisions in accordance with its policy and therefore I have no grounds to question them.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have found no evidence of fault by the Council and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman