Summary: Mr X complained the Council took too long to assess his application to join its housing register, asked him to provide the same documents on multiple occasions and did not reply to his communications. We found fault by the Council in the way it handled Mr X’s application which caused him an injustice. The Council agreed to send Mr X a written apology and make him a payment in recognition of the uncertainty, frustration and time and trouble caused him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council took too long to assess his application to join its housing register. He states he had to provide documents requested by the Council on multiple occasions and had to repeatedly chase the Council for updates on the outcome of his application.
2. Mr X states the Council’s actions have caused him uncertainty, frustration and put him to avoidable time and trouble.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future 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. As part of my investigation I have:
• Discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered his complaint;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• Considered the relevant guidance and our guidance on remedies; and
• Set out my initial thoughts on the complaint in a draft decision statement and invited Mr X and the Council to comment.

Back to top

What I found

6. 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))
7. Housing applicants can ask the Council to review a wide range of decisions about their housing applications, including decisions that they are not eligible to join the housing register.

Southwark Council’s Housing Allocations Policy

8. The policy explains that applicants to its housing register will be required to meet the local connection criteria to qualify to join its housing register. It says a local connection will be established if the applicant works in the area and complies with Section 5.14 of the policy.
9. Section 5.14 defines a working household as one where one member of the household is in employment within the borough. The policy defines employment as having:

1. A permanent contract.
2. Working as a temporary member of staff
3. Self-employed.

What happened

10. Mr X lives outside of the Council’s boundaries but has a job within its boundaries.
11. In July 2022 Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register. He explained he worked within the borough and need to move there because health conditions made commuting to his job difficult.
12. In August the Council rejected Mr X’s application. It said Mr X had not lived within its boundaries for five years and so did not meet its local connection criteria. The decision letter invited Mr X to provide evidence he met the local connection criteria through his job.
13. Mr X provided evidence of his employment to the Council, but he did not receive an acknowledgment or an answer.
14. In September the Council wrote to Mr X saying it had closed his application.
15. Unhappy Mr X made a complaint to the Council saying he had supplied evidence of his job in the borough and so it should not have closed his application.
16. The Council’s response did not address Mr X’s concerns and advised him to make a new application.
17. Mr X continued to contact the Council about his application, but he did not receive a response.
18. In January 2023 Mr X made a new application to join the Council’s housing register. He provided supporting information including copies of his payslips and employment contract. Mr X’s employment contract said he worked within the Council’s boundaries, but his payslips showed he was working at another site outside the borough albeit temporarily. He did not receive a response from the Council.
19. In March Mr X complained to the Council about its handling of his applications.
20. In April the Council wrote to Mr X asking him to provide supporting documents including details of his employment, payslips and supporting medical evidence.
21. Mr X provided the required information.
22. Following receipt of Mr X’s supporting documents the Council replied to his complaint. It upheld his complaint because of delay in considering the application he made in January 2023. The response did not address his concerns about the Council’s handling of his earlier application. It said Mr X’s application should be assessed by the end of May.
23. In May the Council asked Mr X to provide his passport details. Mr X did so.
24. In July the Council asked Mr X to provide documents including identification, proof he lived in the borough for the last five years and a letter from his employer showing his name and address.
25. Also, in July Mr X received a letter saying medical information he provided demonstrated he had a moderate medical requirement to move to accommodation with no internal stairs and lift access. It said his application would be placed in priority band 3.
26. In August the Council asked Mr X to provide proof of his right to reside in the UK. It also asked him to send another letter from his employer as the one he previously provided did not include his address. Mr X provided the information.
27. In September the Council asked Mr X to provide the information he gave to the Council in August.
28. Later in September the Council told Mr X that he did not meet the criteria to join its housing register. It said that payslips he provided said he was working at a location outside the borough and so he did not meet the local connection criteria. It closed Mr X’s application and advised him of his right to request a review its decision.
29. Unhappy with the Council’s handling of his case Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.
30. In response to our enquires the Council said:
• It acknowledged its officers asked for information it already held on several occasions.
• It said when Mr X submitted his application in January 2023 it was trialling a new approach to processing applications and this, along with the department being understaffed and having IT issues meant it took longer to process his application. It said it has addressed the IT issues and secured additional staff and this is helping it process applications quicker.
• An officer failed to correctly assess Mr X’s local connection and so it wrongly awarded him medical priority in July 2023. It said it has apologised to Mr X and offered him £285 in recognition of the raised expectations and time and trouble caused to him.
• The evidence provided by Mr X said he was working at a location outside of its borough and so he does not have a local connection on employment grounds. It also said Mr X did not indicate his employment outside the borough was temporary. It said Mr X could have asked for a review of its decision that he was not eligible to join its housing register, but he did not do so.

Finding

31. Mr X made his first application to join the Council’s housing register in June 2022. He did so on the basis that he meet the local connection criteria because he was employed in the borough. However, the Council closed his application because he did not live in the borough. The Council did not consider his employment when making its decision nor did it ask him to provide this information prior to deciding his application. I note Mr X provided information about his employment in response to the Council’s decision, but it failed to respond to him.
32. Mr X made his second application in January 2023. The Council did not contact him until he made a complaint in March. It did not ask him to provide information to support his application until April. We consider the Council should assess applications within eight weeks. The Council did not start its assessment of Mr X’s application until April and did not make decision until September. This is fault.
33. Part of the delay in assessing Mr X’s second housing application results from him being asked to provide the same documents on multiple occasions. The Council accepts that its officers did not always check his case to see if it already had documents before requesting them again.
34. The Council also says that changes in its procedures for assessing applications along with IT and staffing issues contributed to the delays in assessing Mr X’s second application. The Council should have robust processes and systems in place to ensure it can assess applications within eight weeks. I note the Council is taking action to resolve these problems and so I do not consider it is appropriate to make a service improvement recommendation.
35. The Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaints has been poor. The reply to his stage one complaint did not answer his concerns and it did not say if the complaint had been upheld or not. The response to Mr X’s stage two complaint only addressed his concerns about the Council’s handling of his second application and did not consider his concerns about his earlier application. This means the Council did not consider Mr X’s concerns that he was trying to apply to its housing register from June 2022 onwards.
36. The Council concluded Mr X did not meet its eligibility criteria because he provided payslips showing he was working at site located outside the borough. Mr X says he has only been working at the site on a temporary basis to cover staff shortages for his employer and he is usually based at a site within the Council’s boundaries. I note that Mr X was working at the site within the borough at the time he made his initial application. Therefore, the outcome of his application may have been different if the council had considered the information he provided in August 2022. This causes Mr X uncertainty.
37. I note that Mr X disagrees with the decision the Council made in September 2023. The Council told Mr X he could ask for a review of its decision, but he did not do so. I consider this was the appropriate route for Mr X to use to challenge the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Agreed action

38. I found fault by the Council in its handling of Mr X’s applications to join its housing register. The Council previously identified fault and paid Mr X £285 for delay. My investigation has found further evidence of fault by the Council causing Mr X frustration, uncertainty and putting him to avoidable time and trouble. To remedy the fault and injustice I have found the Council should:
• Send Mr X a letter of apology and offer to meet with him to help him make a new application; and
• Pay him an additional £250 in recognition of the additional injustice identified in my investigation.

The Council should take the above action within one month of my final decision.

39. The Council should take the following action to improve its services:
• Provide refresher training to staff handling complaints to make sure that complaint responses address the complainant’s substantive concerns and make a finding on the complaint.
• Provide staff handling housing register applications with a memo reminding them to check case files for documents before requesting them again to avoid delays and frustration for applicants.

The Council should take the above action within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council which caused Mr X an injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council will take addresses the injustice caused to him.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman