Summary: Mrs X complained the Council placed her in housing out of borough and now says she isn’t eligible for the housing register as she doesn’t meet the local connection criteria. The Council was at fault for its poor communication and delayed response to her review request. The fault raised Mrs X’s expectations. The Council has agreed to remedy her injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council placed her in housing out of borough and now says she isn’t eligible for the housing register as she doesn’t meet the local connection criteria.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to remove her from the housing register. Paragraph 45 explains what I have not investigated and why.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. We cannot question whether an organisation’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)
6. 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

7. I have considered Mrs X’s complaint and have spoken to her about it.
8. I have also considered the Council’s response to Mrs X and to my enquiries.
9. Mrs X and the Council 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

Housing Allocation Scheme

10. The Council’s local connection criteria says an applicant must demonstrate they have lived in the borough for five out of the past seven years in order to qualify to join the housing register. Certain exemptions do apply, including the Council’s homeless prevention service working with the applicant to prevent their homelessness, with an offer of private rented accommodation. However, where a placement is outside of the borough, there is a time limit of this exemption of three years.
11. The Council awards points to prioritise social housing for those who are eligible for assistance and are in the greatest need.
12. The Council gives reasonable preference to some people when it decides how to allocate housing. This includes those who need to move due to a medical condition or disability, health related reasons, due to hardship and those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

What happened

Homelessness prevention

13. In 2016, Mrs X approached the Council as a homeless applicant. The Council said Mrs X was offered and signed a tenancy for private rented accommodation out of borough in 2017.
14. The Council said the route Mrs X took meant there was no formal social housing application. As such, there is no evidence the Council advised Mrs X that by accepting the out of borough accommodation, it would affect her residency status.
15. The Council said its primary duty was to end Mrs X’s homelessness.

Housing register points

16. From December 2017, Mrs X received points on her housing register application. These included points for homelessness prevention, hardship, and waiting time. The points peaked in September 2021.

Medical need

17. In December 2019, Mrs X updated her housing register application to take account of new medical information. The Council did not award additional hardship points based on this information. Mrs X requested a review of the decision. The Council then removed Mrs X’s existing hardship points on the basis that her medical needs had not been verified.
18. Mrs X submitted a medical form in February 2020. Medical advice was given to the Council in April and the Council reached its decision in May 2020. The Council concluded that Mrs X was not entitled to hardship points on medical grounds.
19. Mrs X requested a review of the decision. She later submitted another medical form with further supporting information.
20. The Council said there was no information provided which suggested Mrs X struggled with stairs and was an increased risk of falls. This meant her current accommodation was not unsuitable on medical grounds.
21. The Council explained the information provided by medical professionals suggested Mrs X needed to live near the hospital due to hospital visits twice a month. The Council explained that hardship points are rarer in council areas with lots of affordable transport like in this area. The Council said there was no evidence when Mrs X moved in 2017 that she was too far from the hospital.
22. In October 2020, the Council concluded the stage 1 review and did not award Mrs X medical points. Mrs X requested a stage 2 review.
23. The Council only reached a stage 2 review decision in December 2021 after the Ombudsman became involved. The Council said the delay was due to a lack on managers available to conduct stage 2 reviews.
24. The Council’s decision was that Mrs X was not eligible for the housing register as she did not satisfy the local connection criterion of living in the borough for 5 out of the last 7 years.
25. The Council said that its local connection criteria was key to Mrs X’s housing register application and the question of whether or not she had a health need to move was secondary to that question. It explained that even if the Council had concluded during a review that Mrs X had a health need to move, she still would not qualify for the Council’s housing register because she did not meet the residency qualification criteria.

Local connection criterion

26. The Council said when it completed Mrs X’s stage one review in October 2020, it noted on file that her application will close because Mrs X’s homelessness prevention points expired after three years of being out of the borough. It went on to say that it appeared that the Council never notified Mrs X that she no longer met the local connection criteria and therefore did not qualify to join the housing register.
27. The Council said its records showed that Mrs X moved into her current accommodation on 5 September 2017, which falls within an adjoining borough. It said this meant that Mrs X would have been able to remain on the housing register until 5 September 2020, before she ceased to qualify.
28. The Council said it also meant when it notified Mrs X in October 2020, that she was not entitled to health points, the reviewing officer should have informed her that in fact she no longer qualified to join the housing register and that the decision on whether or not she was entitled to health points was no longer relevant.
29. The Council said that Mrs X was entitled to remain on the housing register until September 2020. Her application was closed in October 2020 and then reopened for a further 3 months until December. The Council said Mrs X benefitted from the exemption for the correct period plus 3 months extra.

My findings

Local connection criteria

30. From the evidence I have seen, it is not clear whether the Council informed Mrs X of the implications of moving out of borough in 2017. Mrs X remained on the housing register and accumulated points and updated her application on medical grounds. During this time, the Council could have informed her that her time on the register was limited to three years unless she moved back into borough. There is no evidence the Council did this.
31. The Council operated in line with the local connection policy. Mrs X has not lived in the area for 5 out of the last 7 years. Her homelessness priority exempted her from this for 3 years. This meant that she was eligible to remain on the register until September 2020.
32. However, Mrs X said if the Council had made her aware of the 3 year exemption policy, she would have tried to move back into borough before September 2020.
33. The Council had multiple opportunities to inform Mrs X between 2017 and 2021 about the local connection policy. In October 2020, when the Council reviewed Mrs X’s updated medical information, it reached a decision on it and reviewed it instead of informing Mrs X that, regardless of her medical need, she would not be eligible to be in the register from September 2020.
34. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council did this. The Council said the notes on the file highlight Mrs X’s eligibility, but the Council did not pass this information on to Mrs X. On balance, I consider the Council to be at fault for failing to inform Mrs X of the time limit for living out of borough.
35. The Council’s poor communication resulted in Mrs X’s expectations being raised when she pursued her housing application.

Medical need

36. The Council considered the information provided by Mrs X and medical professionals. The Council decided that Mrs X should not receive medical points as she her current home is not unsuitable on medical grounds. It would be Mrs X’s preference to live closer to the hospital due to regular visits, but the Council said the area has lots of affordable transport and did not consider that she should be awarded hardship points on this basis.
37. The Council has reviewed its decision twice and has reached the same conclusion. I cannot question a Council’s decision if it has been made properly. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council was at fault in the way it reached its decision.
38. I have found fault with the time it took the Council to respond to Mrs X’s request for a stage 2 review. She requested this in October 2020 and the Council only responded in December 2021 after the Ombudsman became involved in Mrs X’s case.
39. During this time, Mrs X’s expectations were raised. She still thought she might gain additional hardship points on medical grounds when in fact, she was not even eligible to be on the housing register.

Conclusion

40. Based on the evidence I have seen; I have found fault with the Council for:
• not adequately communicating to Mrs X the implications of accepting a property out of borough;
• not informing her when her eligibility for the register was due to expire; and
• delaying its response to her stage 2 review.
41. This fault caused Mrs X the injustice of having her expectations raised and the avoidable distress of being removed from the housing register.
42. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X to remedy her injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

43. Within 4 weeks of my decision, the Council will:
1. Apologise to Mrs X for not being clear how living out of borough would affect her housing register application;
2. Apologise to Mrs X for the delay in responding to her stage 2 review request;
3. Pay Mrs X £100 for the time and trouble she experienced whilst pursuing this complaint;
4. Pay Mrs X £200 for the avoidable distress caused by poor communication about the local connection criterion and for raising her expectations with regards to her housing register application.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault for not informing Mrs X about the implications of moving out of borough. The Council was also at fault for the delays in responding to Mrs X’s stage 2 review request.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

45. I have not investigated the Council’s actions in relation to Mrs X moving out of the area. This took place in 2016 and is too historic for us to consider.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman