Summary: Ms X complains about the way in which the Council managed her housing register application. The Ombudsman has found fault with the Council’s communication. There is no evidence of fault in the way it reached its decision to exclude Ms X from its housing register. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the way in which the Council managed her housing register application. Ms X says the decision to exclude her from the housing register was based on inaccurate information.
2. Ms X says the Council’s actions have caused her significant distress and uncertainty.

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 spoke to Ms X and considered her complaint. I made enquiries of the Council and reviewed the documents it provided.
6. Ms X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. No comments were received.

Back to top

What I found

Background and legislative framework

Council’s housing allocations policy

7. All local housing authorities are required to have a published allocation scheme which sets out how they assess and prioritise applications for social housing.
8. The policy sets out the criteria for when it will refuse an application to join the allocation scheme. The criteria include an applicant who is deemed to have reasonable preference but they or a member of their household is considered guilty of unacceptable behaviour serious enough to make them unsuitable to be a tenant and at the time of the application for housing.
9. In reaching its decision the Council should consider the timing, pattern and seriousness of the behaviour and the applicant’s engagement with appropriate services. The policy states that each application will be considered on a case by case basis.
10. The policy cites some examples of unacceptable behaviour. The following examples are relevant to this investigation:

• conviction for illegal or immoral purposes;
• causing nuisance and annoyance to neighbours; and
• committing certain criminal offences in or near the home and still posing a threat to neighbours or the community.

11. There is a right of review of the decision that an applicant is not a qualifying person and cannot join the Council’s housing register. The applicant will have the right to request a review of this decision within 21 days of being notified of the decision. The review will be undertaken by a senior housing officer who was not involved in the original decision and completed within a 56 day period.

Housing relief duty

12. The ‘relief duty’ is stated in section 189B of the Housing Act 1996. This places a legal duty on housing authorities to help people who are homeless to secure accommodation. When the housing authority is satisfied an applicant is in priority need and is not intentionally homeless, the relief duty ends after 56 days. The housing authority must then complete inquiries promptly to decide what further duty is owed (the main housing duty). If a housing authority has “reason to believe” a person may be homeless, eligible and in priority need, this triggers the duty to provide interim accommodation.
13. The duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188 of the Housing Act 1996) during the ‘relief stage’ is triggered as soon as the authority has reason to believe that an applicant may be eligible, homeless and in priority need. This is a low threshold. It is an absolute duty, and the authority cannot postpone it due to a lack of available resources. A person may be in priority need if, for example they are vulnerable for medical reasons. The law does not say what type of accommodation the authority should provide. But there is a legal duty for authorities to ensure the accommodation is “suitable” for the applicant and household members (section 206 of the Housing Act 1996).

What happened

14. On 7 June 2021 Ms X told the Council she was due to be evicted from her current property on 24 June 2021. On 17 June 2021 the Council placed Ms X and her five children in temporary accommodation (property A). Ms X said that she arranged for her post to be redirected to property A. However, the accommodation was unsuitable, and the family were moved to alternative temporary accommodation (property B).
15. On 24 June 2021 the Council accepted that it owed Ms X a relief duty. The Council wrote to Ms X and said it had a duty to take reasonable steps to help her secure suitable accommodation that had a reasonable prospect of being available for at least six months. The Council asked Ms X to complete a change of circumstances form as she had been placed into temporary accommodation at property B. Ms X submitted the form and supporting evidence by email on 6 July 2021.
16. On 12 July 2021 Ms X told the Council that her son had sadly passed away following a car accident. Ms X said her son had been travelling to property A to collect redirected post. Ms X explained that following her son’s death she did not wish to return to property B. Ms X and one of her children was living with her friend whilst her two younger children were staying with her mother in a two-bedroom flat.
17. On 21 July 2021 a social worker allocated to the family told the housing team that Ms X and her family were staying with a friend on a temporary basis and living in overcrowded conditions.
18. On 26 July 2021 the Council contacted a housing trust to see if they would accept Ms X for a direct offer of accommodation outside of the Council’s allocations policy.
19. In a letter dated 5 August 2021 the social worker explained Ms X’s circumstances. The social worker explained that Ms X had a history of substance misuse and had been working with a recovery service to manage this. Ms X had also been working with probation services to address her issues around anti-social behaviour. Ms X was not in rent arrears and managing her finances well. Ms X was caring for all four children and living with her friend in a two-bedroom flat. The social worker explained the children were currently on a child protection plan.
20. On 9 August 2021 Ms X requested an update from the Council. The Council’s records show that it was still waiting to hear from the housing trust.
21. On 18 August 2021 the housing trust refused to consider Ms X for a direct offer of accommodation due to past anti-social behaviour exhibited by Ms X. Ms X requested a review of this decision.
22. On 26 August 2021 the Council wrote to Ms X about her housing application and change of circumstances. The Council said the decision made by the housing trust was unrelated to the assessment of her housing application. It explained the request by the Council to the housing trust was made on a discretionary basis and outside of the Council’s allocation policy and therefore not within the scope of a statutory review.
23. The Council decided that Ms X met its eligibility criteria and had a local connection to the area. However, it was not satisfied that Ms X qualified for the housing register. The Council said the criteria set above in paragraph 10 applied. The Council cited 18 offences and penalties issued by the Magistrate’s Court. In the interests of ensuring Ms X’s anonymity, I have not cited the specific details here.
24. The letter stated that in December 2021 Ms X was found guilty of these offences and was sentenced to a 12 month community order and fined £720. The Council explained that Ms X’s behaviours, offences and conviction were relevant because they were recent, cyclical in pattern and the order was not spent until December 2022. In addition, the Council considered Ms X’s diagnosis of a personality disorder. The Council decided that whilst this was likely to have impacted Ms X’s behaviour, the diagnosis did not mean Ms X lacked mental capacity and could not be held responsible for her actions.
25. The Council confirmed that its decision that Ms X did not qualify to join the housing register did not impact its homelessness duty. Ms X was informed of her right to request a review of the decision within 21 days.
26. On 26 August 2021 Ms X requested a review. Ms X disputed the charges and said only seven charges were bought to court and four were upheld. Ms X also disputed that she had issues with her neighbours. Ms X said she had paid the fine. Ms X provided a letter from the NHS which stated she had a personality disorder and was engaged with appropriate services.
27. On 7 September 2021 the Council secured accommodation for Ms X through its private rent scheme. A few days later the Council wrote to Ms X ending it housing relief duty.
28. On 24 September 2021 the Council asked Ms X if she wanted to continue with her request for a review as she had been adequately rehoused. Ms X confirmed that she wished to proceed and asked the Council to contact her probation officer as part of the review.
29. On 22 October 2021 the Council wrote to Ms X with its statutory review decision. It said Ms X’s application had been considered correctly and upheld its decision that Ms X did not qualify to join the housing register. The Council said Ms X could make a further application after 2 December 2022, once her conviction was spent. Ms X remained unsatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

30. In August 2021 the Council refused Ms X’s request to join the housing register due to anti-social behaviour. The Council cited 18 offences and penalties issued by the Magistrate’s Court. In response Ms X said the Council was wrong to take this action as the information it held was incorrect.
31. Ms X told the Ombudsman she wants the Council to amend her housing file to show the correct number of charges. Ms X also said she wants suitable accommodation for her family. Our role is limited to checking the allocation scheme has been properly applied by the Council. If there has been fault in the process, we then consider whether any injustice has been caused and how it should be remedied.
32. The Council accepts that the word ‘four’ was omitted from its decision letter sent in August 2021. The letter should have stated “the Court found you guilty of four offences and sentenced you to a 12-month community order along with a £720 fine”. This was fault. I note the review completed in October 2021 also failed to identify this error. This was a missed opportunity to provide Ms X with clarity about how the Council had considered and recorded these four offences.
33. The Council’s housing application form asks applicants to provide details of specific criminal convictions. The Council also checks information held on the Police National Computer which displays all of an individual’s unspent criminal convictions. The checks showed that Ms X was subject to a Protection from Harassment Order. In October 2020 Ms X was found guilty of four offences.
34. In response to our enquiries the Council has accepted its original decision letter and review letter should have explained in more detail the refusal decision.
35. I agree. The Council did not adequately explain why it considered Ms X’s anti-social behaviour caused nuisance and annoyance to neighbours or the community nor did it explain why it considered Ms X still posed a threat. This was despite Ms X disputing that she had had issues with her neighbours. No reference was made in the original decision letter or review letter to the evidence the Council had relied upon in reaching its decision. The Ombudsman expects Councils to be able to demonstrate they have taken relevant information into consideration. This is fault.
36. These faults caused an injustice to Ms X because she received a decision that did not show it had been properly considered and she experienced frustration and uncertainty as a result.
37. However, I cannot say that if these faults had not occurred, the Council would have reached a different decision. I am satisfied the Council was aware that Ms X had four convictions. In accordance with the Council’s policy the nature of these four convictions would mean that Ms X would not qualify for the allocations scheme and her application would be refused. I am therefore satisfied the Council correctly applied the criteria set out in its allocations policy.
38. As part of its review the Council considered the original decision, Ms X’s application and supporting information which included the letter from the NHS. The Council acknowledged Ms X’s mental health issues and explained why it did not consider they mitigated her behaviour. The Council also acted upon Ms X’s request and contacted the probation service who said Ms X had no grounds to appeal the Council’s decision as she was “currently” subject to probation for criminal offences. The Council upheld the original decision. I cannot question the merits of this decision as it a matter for the Council to decide upon exercising its professional judgement.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. For the faults identified in paragraphs 32 and 35 above, the Council will within one month of my final decision:

• provide Ms X with a written apology which acknowledges the faults identified and the uncertainty this caused; and
• review Ms X’s housing file and ensure the number of convictions recorded is accurate. The Council should provide written confirmation to Ms X once this is done.

40. Within two months of my final decision the Council will:

• carry out training to ensure relevant offices deciding applications and reviews

are aware of the need to give applicants full reasons for their decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have found fault by the Council causing an injustice to Ms X. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman