Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it handled Ms X’s request for rehousing. This resulted in the Council not reviewing its decision despite Ms X requesting this. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and carry out a review of its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains about the way the Council assessed her request for rehousing. Ms X says the Council has not carried out a review of its decision following her request and she continues to live in a property which is not suitable for her.

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. As part of this investigation I considered the complaint made by Ms X and the responses from the Council. I considered the information provided by Ms X and the Council. I discussed the complaint over the telephone with Ms X. I sent a draft of this letter to Ms X and the Council and considered comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

5. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:
• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
6. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
7. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
8. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:
• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review. 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;
• the review should be considered on the basis of a council’s allocation scheme, any legal requirements and all relevant information. This should include information provided by the applicant on any relevant developments since the original decision was made.
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline. 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.
• applicants must be notified in writing of the outcome of the review. The notification must set out the reasons for the decision.

What happened

9. Ms X lives in a flat she rents from the Council. She started living there in December 2018.
10. In December 2019 Ms X submitted an application to join the Council’s housing register and a tenancy transfer form. Ms X said she suffers with mental health difficulties and autism and finds living in the property difficult due to noise and smells coming in. Ms X also explained she is finding the anti-social behaviour from her neighbours difficult to cope with.
11. In January 2020 Ms X hand delivered evidence in support of her request for rehousing. This included a doctors letter in support of her need to move, her autistic diagnosis letter, an occupational therapist report and neurodevelopment report. Ms X received a stamp from the Council confirming it had received these documents.
12. In late February 2020 the Council wrote to Ms X and told her she did not qualify to join the housing register as she was sufficiently housed. The letter told Ms X she could request a review of this decision. Ms X said she sent letters in March 2020 to the Council requesting a review.
13. After learning her review request had not been received and after speaking to her housing officer, Ms X emailed the officer who made the original decision, on 13 April 2020, to request a review of the Council’s decision.
14. The same Council officer and Ms X exchanged emails in April 2020. The Council said the issues Ms X was experiencing with her neighbours was for her housing/neighbourhood officer to deal with. However the officer also agreed to look at Ms X’s housing application and occupational therapy report Ms X provided. The officer told Ms X once they had assessed her housing application and read the occupational therapy report they would get back to her.
15. In May 2020 Ms X contacted the Council to chase up a response regarding her request for rehousing. In June 2020 Ms X requested a change in circumstance form for housing. She then wrote to the Council explaining her carer has now moved in with her.
16. On 5 August 2020 Ms X contacted the Council to see if it had investigated and made a decision following her request for a review of the decision to not allow her to join the housing register. The same Council officer responded to Ms X on 10 August 2020 and said the Council has tried to explain how Ms X can best find alternative accommodation and she should speak to her housing officer if there are issues with neighbours in her block.
17. Following this Ms X raised a complaint with the Council about how it has assessed her request for rehousing.
18. On 1 December 2020 the Council proved Ms X with its stage one response. The Council said its allocations team confirmed Ms X does not qualify to join the housing register and her accommodation meets her needs.
19. On 2 December 2020 Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two of its procedure.
20. The Council provided its final response on 10 February 2021. The Council confirmed both Ms X’s housing and transfer applications were a request to join the housing register. The Council explained after Ms X submitted her housing and transfer applications the Council considered the information it had and decided Ms X could not join the housing register as she did not have a housing need. After Ms X contacted the Council about its decision not to allow her to join the housing register, the same Council officer responded to Ms X to explain her housing options.
21. Ms X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

22. Ms X has made two different applications in the form of a housing application and transfer application, however both of these are effectively applications to join the Council’s housing register.
23. The Council was at fault for the way it handled Ms X’s request for rehousing. After receiving the Council’s decision letter, Ms X said she requested a review by letter in March 2020 but received no response. It is not clear whether the Council received her letter, however Ms X emailed the Council in April 2020 clearly requesting a review of its decision not to allow her to join the housing register.
24. The Council did not respond to Ms X’s request for a review. The officer who made the initial decision informed Ms X of her housing options but did not tell her whether the Council would be carrying out a review of the decision. The Council should have at this stage either told Ms X it would not be reviewing her decision and set out reasons or should have accepted her review request and told her the review procedure.
25. Following further correspondence between Ms X and the Council officer, the officer agreed to assess Ms X’s housing application and get back to her. It is not clear whether the officer was carrying out a review of the application or not. If this was a review it should have been carried out by a different officer who was more senior.
26. Ms X continued to chase the Council for a response after it told her it would assess her application again in April 2020. In the meantime Ms X told the Council in June 2020, her carer had moved into her property as a live in carer. The Council did not respond to Ms X until August 2020. In its response it did not explain why Ms X could not join the housing register or whether it had reviewed her application.
27. As I have found the Council at fault for the way it handled Ms X’s request for rehousing I need to consider whether this has caused Ms X injustice. If the Council had properly accepted Ms X’s review request and set out the review procedure this would have given Ms X clarity on the situation and the opportunity to provide further evidence as to why her property is not suitable. It also may have avoided Ms X making a complaint to the Council. In addition, Ms X’s circumstances changed as her carer came to live with her in June 2020. The Council did not consider this information in its complaint response or email responses to Ms X.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. Within one month of my final decision the Council agreed to carry out the following and provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has done so:
• Apologise to Ms X for not properly carrying out a review of the decision not to allow her to join the housing register.
• Write to Ms X informing her the Council will now carry out a review of its decision, setting out the review timeframe and deadline to provide any evidence.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation and found the Council was at fault for the way it handled Ms X’s request for rehousing. This has caused Ms X injustice as she did not get the opportunity to have her decision reviewed. The Council has agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

30. I did not investigate the complaints Ms X raised about the behaviour of her neighbours and how the Council has responded to her concerns as this would fall within the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman