Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to bypass Mr X for an offer of housing as it did not have enough information to verify his application. The Council asked Mr X for more explanation of a second address on his bank statements but this was not supplied until after the decision to bypass the offer was made.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complains the Council bypassed an offer of housing without investigating the reasons he had included a family address in his housing application.
2. Mr X says that this meant he had to wait 6 months longer for an offer of housing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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. 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 read the papers put in by Mr X.
6. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
7. Mr X, his representative and the organisation 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

Key facts

8. Mr X was on the Council’s housing register. He bid for a property in April 2022 and was in first position to be considered.
9. On 13 April, the housing officer asked him for a letter from the person he was living with as he was ‘sofa surfing’. Mr X provided this letter on 14 April giving the address of a friend. Mr X also provided bank statements which the Council later discovered were registered at the same address (address 2) as his mother and siblings.
10. In response to my enquiries the Council has said that Mr X originally said that address 2 was a stranger's address. He then said that it was where his mother lived and ‘challenged the need for further information’. The Council has explained the address for the bank statements was outside the Council’s area and so if Mr X was living there, he would not be eligible for housing.
11. Mr X has a different recollection of the phone call. He said that he did not say he was using a stranger's address for his bank account. Mr X says that once he obtained his mothers permission he told the housing officer that was where his mother lived. And that Mr X offered to put the housing officer in contact with his mother, but the officer did not take him up on this.
12. On 10 May 2022 the Council wrote to Mr X explaining that it had bypassed his bid for the property because:
• The details provided to indicate his living arrangements and circumstances don’t confirm our findings while verifying details/evidence he had provided.
• The disparity in the information provided has led him to not be considered for the property he bid for.
• When asked about the property address on the bank statement he first said it was a strangers address and he had access to pick up mail but after several calls confirmed it was his mum’s address. When more questions were asked the housing officer was challenged why they needed the information.
13. Mr X asked for a review of the decision. Mr X provided new information, a letter from Mr X’s mother saying he had never lived at her address but was aware he used her address for his bank account. On 22 August 2022 the review was upheld, but the new information meant that Mr X could bid on properties again as the Council removed the deferment on bidding.
14. The Council has said if Mr X provided the information he provided at the review earlier, the deferment would likely not have occurred or been lifted earlier.
15. The Council has said there was one months delay in responding to Mr X’s request for a review and offered a compensation payment of £150 when Mr X made an official complaint about the delay.
16. Mr X successfully bid for a property in September 2023, which was due to ready to move into in December 2022. and moved in in January 2023.

My analysis

17. The Council’s allocation policy does not give any details on the verification process. The Council asked Mr X for more information about an address that his bank statements went to. This seems to be a reasonable request and one that Mr X could provide the information for.
18. There is no way for me to know the exact content of the phone calls between Mr X and the housing officer. It does seem that Mr X did not immediately tell the housing officer the address was his mother’s. The evidence for this is in the letter from Mr X’s solicitor of September 2022 to the Council where it says ‘having first sought his mothers permission to be contacted by the lettings team, our client told the lettings team that address 2 was where his mother lived’. This suggests that when the Council asked Mr X who lived at the address, he spoke to his mother first before saying who lived there.
19. There is evidence the housing officer asked if Mr X would be able to provide a letter confirming he did not live at address 2. There is no record of the telephone call to confirm if Mr X did or did not give the housing officer his mother’s contact details. But, there is an internal email dated 27 April in which the housing officer asks for advice. They say ‘Mr X’s bank statements have another address on them and when questioned about this address he refuses to give details and says it’s a strangers address’.
20. Mr X knew that the Council had asked for a letter saying he did not live at the address the bank statements went to. If he had supplied this letter at an earlier stage, then as the Council itself confirms, the bid may not have been bypassed.
21. Mr X gave a different address, out of the Council’s area and did not confirm straight away that it belonged to his mother. So, I can see the Council needed more information before it could proceed further with his bid. I cannot prove that Mr X gave the housing officer his mothers contact details to confirm this before the letter was sent to him saying his bid was bypassed. So, on balance, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council on the matter Mr X complains about.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This is complaint is not upheld as there is no evidence of fault in the complaint about the decision to bypass an offer of housing.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman