Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a man’s housing register application. This is because the Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy for the injustice the man suffered due to its fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complained about errors and delays in the Council’s handling of his housing register application. In particular Mr X complained that:

1. the Council unreasonably refused his application in December 2022 on the basis he was adequately housed, despite it knowing he was street homeless;

2. the Council did not notify him about its decision to reinstate his application after he asked for a review;

3. officers have discriminated and been prejudiced against him; and

4. the Council has delayed in responding to his complaint about these matters.

As a remedy Mr X wanted an apology, the backdating and prioritisation of his application, and for the officers concerned to be sacked.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if, for example, we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we are satisfied with the actions an organisation proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6), 24A(7) and 34(B) as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr X provided about his complaint and his comments in response to my draft view in his case. I also took account of information form the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. In 2022 Mr X was in interim accommodation the Council provided while it assessed his homelessness application. But in October the Council decided Mr X did not have a priority need under the law on homelessness and ended his accommodation booking. Mr X said he became street homeless at that stage.
5. Mr X then applied to join the Council’s housing register so that he could be considered for permanent social housing. But in December the Council refused his application saying he was already adequately housed.
6. Mr X asked for a review of this decision. In February 2023 the reviewing officer said the decision had been withdrawn and the Housing service would make a new one. The Council said it issued a new decision accepting Mr X’s application in late March. It decided he had Band 4 priority backdated to the date of his application. But Mr X said he never received this.
7. On 1 March Mr X also made a complaint to the Council about the way it was treating him. The Council did not respond to the complaint until November.
8. I consider there are signs of fault by the Council which has caused Mr X an injustice.
9. First, it appears the Council's initial decision on Mr X’s application last December was not warranted because it knew by that stage that he was street homeless. On that basis it seems the Council could have correctly assessed that Mr X qualified for the housing register at that point and this would have avoided the need for him to carry on corresponding and complaining about the matter.
10. Second, I have not seen any evidence the Council sent its review decision letter to Mr X at the end of March. It appears likely, therefore, that Mr X was not aware he was on the housing register and could bid for properties until he received the Council’s complaint response in November.
11. Third, I have also seen no evidence of an earlier response from the Council to Mr X’s complaint on 1 March before it sent the response in November. So, there are signs of a lengthy undue delay in this respect.
12. Fourth, I consider the Council’s final response did not properly address Mr X’s complaint issues and contained several inaccuracies. In particular the letter did not fully acknowledge its fault, overlooked its decisions last December and in February and misinterpreted Mr X’s complaint about its response to his review request.
13. However, I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council has deliberately discriminated against Mr X or that officers treated his case less favourably because of prejudice against him.
14. Also, although Mr X has evidently been caused some unnecessary distress, uncertainty and inconvenience as a result of the Council’s fault, I do not see he has been significantly disadvantaged regarding his chances of being rehoused. This is because, even if had known he was on the housing register and able to bid for properties in December last year, it appears highly unlikely he would have had enough priority in Band 4 to make a successful bid for a property by now.
15. In the circumstances I considered the Council could provide a suitable remedy for Mr X’s case by taking the following action:
1. writing to him to acknowledge and apologise for the errors and misunderstandings in its complaint response;

2. apologising for its unreasonable delay in responding to his complaint on 1 March 2023;

3. confirming its decision about his housing register application and reinstating his right to ask for a review of the decision within 21 days; and

4. making a symbolic payment of £150 to acknowledge the injustice he has suffered due to its fault.
4. The Council has now agreed to provide this remedy. I consider this is a proportionate way of dealing with Mr X’s complaint. Therefore, we have no reason to pursue his case any further.

Final decision

17. We do not have reason to start an investigation of Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council has dealt with his housing register application. This is because the Council has now agreed to take suitable action to remedy the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman