Summary: Miss X complained the Council refused to accept her application to join the housing register to relieve her homelessness. The Council was at fault for delays in deciding her housing register application and for failing to carry out a review of her homelessness. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, pay her £200 to acknowledge the frustration this caused and review her application. It has also agreed to review its procedures to prevent such delays in future.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council refused to accept her application to join the housing register to relieve her homelessness. She says the Council has wrongly assessed her circumstances and this has caused her distress and anxiety.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. 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

6. I have considered the information provided by Miss X and discussed the complaint with her on the telephone. I have considered the information provided by the Council in response to our initial enquiries on the complaint and the relevant law and guidance.
7. I gave the Council and Miss X the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments I received in reaching a final decision.

The relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

8. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council:
• he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5))
9. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. This is called the prevention duty. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
10. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). PHPs should be kept under review. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 11).
11. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
12. Most housing decisions should be confirmed in writing, and applicants have the right to ask for a review of the decision. If the person is unhappy with the outcome of a review, they may appeal to the County Court on a point of law.

Housing allocations

13. 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))
14. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who 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))
15. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications including decisions about their housing priority.

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

16. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables applicants to bid for available properties it advertises. The Council’s scheme requires applicants to have lived in the Council’s areas for at least three years before they can join the housing register. It places applicants into three bands, band 1 having the highest priority and an urgent need for housing and band 3 for those with moderate housing needs and a less urgent need to move. Those assessed as having no housing need are not accepted onto the housing register.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

17. In August 2021 Miss X was living at home with her mother, her mother’s partner and her siblings in the Council’s area. Due to concerns about the behaviour of her mother’s partner Miss X approached the Council and applied to join the Council’s housing register. The Housing team advised Miss X to contact the Council’s homelessness team about her needs.
18. In November 2021 Miss X emailed the Council that she was staying at a relative’s to get away from her mother’s partner. In December 2021 an officer spoke with Miss X to take a homelessness application. They noted she had previously lived with her mother but left after a disagreement regarding her mother’s partner. They noted she worked and was currently staying at a relative’s house which was in another council’s area and had previously lived with family in the Council’s area since 2011. They noted she had no priority needs and was not vulnerable. She wanted to be on the housing register and to get her own place. The officer discussed this and explained Miss X would be low priority and her main option was private rented.
19. Miss X applied to join the Council’s housing register again but her application was closed as she already had a live application on the system which was still open for assessment.
20. The Council wrote to Miss X in January 2022 that it accepted a duty to prevent Miss X’s homelessness. It sent Miss X a personalised housing plan and advised her its duty would end if it was satisfied Miss X had accommodation it was reasonable for her to occupy for at least six months.
21. In February 2022 the Council wrote to Miss X regarding the homelessness assessment. It said it was satisfied she had permission to stay at her relative’s and that permission had not ended or been withdrawn and it was reasonable for her to continue to live there. It ended its homelessness prevention duty to her and explained she had the right to ask for a review of its decision if she disagreed with it. It noted she was continuing to explore private rented accommodation. Miss X did not ask to review this decision.
22. In March and April 2022 Miss X contacted the Council about a change to her housing application as she had changed jobs.
23. In June 2022 a Council officer carried out a housing needs interview. Miss X confirmed her mother had evicted her. Her mother now had a newborn baby and so there was no space for her at her mother’s home. Miss X confirmed she was working and still staying at a relative’s who lived in a different council area, and she had not been asked to leave. The officer told Miss X she had a local connection with that council area as she had been there for the last six months and they would refer her to that council. They also noted Miss X had no priority need. The officer considered Miss X was not threatened with homelessness in the next 56 days and wrote to Miss X to confirm this. The letter set out Miss X’s right of review.
24. Miss X responded that she did not understand why she had another assessment and that she had already been assessed as homeless and her relative wanted her to leave. She wanted to know when she would be registered on the housing register and requested a review of the decision.
25. Miss X also complained to the Council that she had not heard anything about her housing application and had slept on a couch for six months. She said was unhappy that due to the time taken she was now advised to apply to another council area. She said she had caring responsibilities for siblings in the Council’s area, worked in that area and have lived there until she was evicted.
26. In July and August Miss X chased the Council for a response to her complaint. The Council has a two stage complaints’ procedure. It wrote to Miss X at stage 1 of its complaints’ procedure in mid August 2022. It apologised for the time it had taken to reach a decision on her housing need. It explained there were two different routes to housing:
• Homelessness: It confirmed the Council had found she was not homeless. It explained she could request a review of that decision if she felt it was incorrect.
• Housing register: It said she did not meet the criteria to be included on the Council’s housing register and there was a right of review of that decision.
27. Miss X responded in September 2022 and requested to go to stage two. She said the Council had accepted she was homeless and she had applied to join the housing register but an officer had incorrectly assessed she should apply to another council area. Miss X also emailed the Council to request a reassessment of her housing register application and said the Council had not considered her full circumstances.
28. In October 2022 the Council reassessed Miss X’s housing application and told her she did not qualify to join the housing register as she had not lived in the Council’s area for the last three years.
29. The Council wrote to Miss X with its stage 2 response in early November 2022. It said Miss X first approached it as homeless in December 2021 and it had notified her in February 2022 to say it did not consider she was homeless as she could remain living at her relative’s. A further assessment in June 2022 also found Miss X was not homeless or threatened with homelessness as she could remain at her relative’s. It said the officer who assessed the application noted Miss X had a local connection in another council area as she had lived there for six months. It said this was incorrect as the officer failed to sufficiently explore that Miss X had a local connection in the Council’s area as her mother had lived there over for over five years.
30. It also said her request for a review in late June 2022 was not followed up to determine if a fresh application should be taken. It apologised for this.
31. It confirmed her housing register application was rejected in July 2022. It said when she provided further information it reassessed her application but again rejected it as she had lived outside the borough since December 2021 and was a single, non-working applicant sharing with relatives with no other recognised housing need. It apologised for the time taken to review her application.
32. It said she had been provided details of how to request a review of her housing register application. It had also asked an officer to contact Miss X to discuss taking a new homelessness application taking account of the information she provided when she had requested a review and her current circumstances.
33. Miss X remained unhappy and complained to us. She says he has not been contacted by the homelessness department.

Findings

34. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide what priority Miss X should have for housing; that is the Council’s responsibility. Our role is to review whether the Council made its decisions in the right way, including whether it considered the right evidence, applied the right policies and gave clear reasons for its decisions.

Homelessness

35. When Miss X first applied as homeless the Council accepted a prevention duty and provided advice to Miss X on renting privately. It decided in February 2022 that it did not owe her a housing duty and explained its reasons. It set out Miss X’s right to request a review of this decision but Miss X did not request a review.
36. When the Council assessed Miss X’s homelessness again in June 2022, it failed to properly explore her local connection to the Council’s area. I have also seen no evidence it properly explored her current situation, sleeping on a relative’s couch, and whether this was suitable accommodation. This was fault. Miss X requested a review of the Council’s decision and it failed to action this. This was further fault. and leaves Miss X with a sense of uncertainty and frustration over whether her application has been properly assessed.
37. The Council accepts it should have considered whether Miss X had a local connection with it on the basis she had lived in its area for three of the last five years. On the basis of the information seen, it has also not considered whether she had a local connection because she was working in its area.
38. In its stage 2 response the Council said she would be contacted again to reassess her homelessness which would be an appropriate way to resolve this. However, Miss X says this has not happened and she is currently staying between her relative and friend’s houses ‘sofa-surfing’. This is fault and has added to Miss X’s frustration.
39. To remedy this fault, the Council should carry out a late review or take a fresh homelessness application.

Housing register

40. Miss X applied to join the Council’s housing register in August 2021. The Council failed to reach a decision on her application until July 2022. Although there is no statutory timescale for processing housing applications we would normally expect this to happen within four to six weeks. This significant delay caused Miss X frustration.
41. When Miss X submitted a second application in January 2021 the Council closed it without notifying Miss X as she already had a live application. In doing so it failed to consider the additional information she had provided. This was fault, adding to Miss X’s frustration.
42. The Council has since decided Miss X is not eligible to join the housing register as she has not lived continuously in the Council’s area for the past three years, which is in line with its allocations scheme. So, I cannot say that delay caused her a significant injustice. The Council in its stage 2 complaint response set out Miss X’s right to request a review of the decision she is not eligible to join the housing register and it is open to her to use that right.

Back to top

Recommended action

43. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Miss X and pay her £200 to acknowledge the frustration caused by the delay in reaching a decision on her housing register application and the failure to review its decision on her homelessness application.
• reconsider Miss X’s homeless application or carry out a late review, after allowing Miss X the opportunity to submit any additional information or evidence.
44. Within three months of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
• remind officers of the need to fully explore local connections and an individual’s circumstances in reaching a decision on their homelessness application, and to action requests for a review of their decisions.
• review its procedures to ensure there are no significant delays in reaching decisions on housing register applications.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I have completed my investigation. There was fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy. It has also agreed to make service improvements to prevent recurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman