Summary: The Council delayed assessing Mr B’s application for housing, failed to send correspondence to Mr B by post and delayed responding to his complaints. The Council is also not providing Mr B with adequate assistance to apply for properties. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr B, provide proper assistance to Mr B and take action to prevent similar failings in future.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the way the Council has handled his housing applications. In particular he complains that:
• The Council wrongly closed his housing application in 2017 and did not tell him that it had done so.
• When the Council closed the application he made in December 2020 it sent its decision to an obsolete email address.
• The Council took too long to respond to his complaints and assess his housing applications.
2. Mr B says that as a result of the Council’s failings, he remains living in unsuitable accommodation.

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. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

6. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. Housing applicants can bid on available properties.
7. The Council’s housing allocations scheme sets out the rules for qualifying to join the Housing Register, how applicants are prioritised and how the Council manages the allocation of available properties.
8. The Council places applicants who qualify to join the housing register in a priority band from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 4 (lowest priority). This priority is the first factor the Council uses to allocate a property.
9. Applicants who have been assessed as having no housing need and whose circumstances do not warrant inclusion in any of the priority bands do not qualify to join the housing register.
10. Band 4 is awarded to applicants aged 55 or over or disabled applicants seeking retirement or extra care housing.
11. Autobids are bids that are placed on behalf of the applicant.
12. The law says that councils must ensure that any necessary assistance in making an application for an allocation of housing accommodation is available to people in their area who are likely to have difficulty in doing so without assistance. (Housing Act 1996 s166)

Overview

13. Mr B joined the Council’s housing register in 2005.
14. In 2017, the Council introduced a new housing allocations scheme. It wrote to everyone on the housing register to advise that they needed to apply online to join the new register by 19 April 2017.
15. Mr B says that he wrote to the Council to explain that he did not have access to a computer and was not computer literate. He did not receive a response.
16. In August 2020, Mr B complained to his Councillor that he had been removed from the housing register. In the Council’s response, it said that it had written to Mr B twice in 2017 explaining that he needed to re-apply to join the register, but he did not do so. It advised Mr B to complete a new housing application, and it recommended that he apply for sheltered housing so that he could bid on properties reserved for those over the age of 55.
17. Mr B contacted the Council in December 2020 and an officer took Mr B’s housing application over the telephone. As an email address is required to complete the form, and Mr B did not have one, the officer entered a fake email address – noemailaddress@callme.com. Mr B did not apply for sheltered or extra care housing; he said he had a medical need for housing.
18. The Council emailed Mr B in April 2021 asking him to provide medical evidence to support his application. The email was sent to the fake email address and so Mr B did not receive the Council’s request. The Council then decided that Mr B did not qualify to join the housing register. It sent its decision to the fake email address and so again, Mr B did not receive it.
19. Mr B completed another housing application over the telephone in June 2021. The officer entered the Council housing team’s email address on the form. Mr B applied for sheltered or extra care housing, and he said he had a medical need for housing.
20. The Council considered Mr B’s application in December 2021. It decided he did not qualify for a medical award but did qualify for a retirement or extra care award. It sent its decision to Mr B in February 2022.
21. The Council has activated its autobid facility and automatically bids for properties on Mr B’s behalf.

Analysis

22. Mr B says that he wrote to the Council in 2017 because he was unable to apply to join the new register online. There is no evidence of this in the Council’s records. Considering the Council’s letter included a deadline for re-applying, I would have expected Mr B to telephone the Council when he did not receive a response to his letter. Mr B did not attempt to contact the Council again until 2020. I have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to remove Mr B from the housing register in 2017.
23. Mr B submitted medical evidence to support his application in February 2021, but it was not uploaded to the Council’s system until June 2021, after the Council had determined his application. This was fault. However, I do not consider it caused Mr B any significant injustice. The medical evidence was considered at a later date and it did not result in a medical award.
24. The Council sent letters about Mr B’s first application to a fake email address. This was fault. As a result, Mr B did not immediately know that the Council had decided he did not qualify for housing.
25. Mr B re-applied to join the register on 24 June 2021. We consider councils should assess applications within four to six weeks. The Council assessed the application 23 weeks later, on 1 December 2021. This delay was fault. The Council decided Mr B qualified to join the housing register but did not activate his account until February 2022. This was fault.
26. Where we find evidence of fault, we consider what would likely have happened if there had been no fault by the Council. It is possible that Mr B may have re-applied sooner if he had received the Council’s decision letter of 27 April 2021. But even if he had not re-applied until 24 June, his application would have been active by 5 August 2021 if there had been no fault by the Council.
27. As Mr B is unable to place bids on properties using the online system, the Council activated its autobid facility which automatically bids for properties on Mr B’s behalf. Applicants using the online system are able to bid on two properties each week and can choose the type of property they wish to bid on, and in the area they wish to live in. However, when the autobid facility is activated, only one bid is made each week, and while it is placed on a property within the district the applicant wants to live in, it is not placed on the specific area within that district which they have expressed a preference for. This means that applicants’ bids are often wasted on properties which they would never accept, and they are inevitably waiting far longer before they receive a suitable offer. I consider the autobid procedure is unfair to applicants like Mr B, who cannot bid on properties using the online system.
28. As explained in paragraph 12, councils must ensure that assistance is available to people who may have difficulty applying for accommodation without assistance. I consider the Council should have offered assistance to Mr B to enable him to bid on two properties of his choice each week. It was fault not to do so. Had the Council offered proper assistance, and activated his account by 5 August, I consider Mr B would have been offered a suitable property in March 2022.
29. Since the Council changed the email address on Mr B’s account, it has generally sent letters to Mr B by post. However, it has often sent the letters by email in the first instance. This has caused a slight delay in letters being sent to Mr B.
30. The Council’s complaints procedure states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints in 15 working days, and stage 2 complaints in 20 working days. The Council responded to Mr B’s stage 1 complaint on 11 August, 36 working days after he complained on 22 June 21. The Council responded to Mr B’s stage 2 complaint on 12 October, 29 working days after he complained on 1 September 2021. These delays were fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. Within four weeks, the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr B for the failings identified in this case.
• Make a payment of £150 to Mr B to recognise his frustration and the time and trouble he has been put to as a result of the failings identified.
• Make a payment of £500 for the five months since Mr B missed out on a retirement property and has had to remain living in accommodation he considers to be unsuitable.
• Backdate Mr B’s registration and award date to 5 August 2021.
• Add a prominent note to its system to ensure all correspondence is sent to Mr B by post and not by email.
• Arrange assistance for Mr B so that he is able to bid on two properties each week, in his preferred areas.
32. Within eight weeks, the Council will review its procedures for dealing with housing applications from applicants who are unable to use the internet and do not have access to email. Where the Council is aware that the applicant is unable to access the internet, it will ensure all correspondence is sent by post, and that applicants are not unreasonably disadvantaged because they cannot use the online bidding system.
33. The Council has accepted that it has ongoing delays in processing and reviewing housing applications due to unprecedented demand. It has provided us with a copy of its action plan to reduce the timescales for assessing new applications, which includes a full-scale restructure and extensive recruitment.
34. The Council has recently agreed to provide an updated action plan to show how it proposes to reduce delays in processing all applications and review requests. It has also agreed to provide an updated report to show the improvements made since the first action plan was sent to us.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman