Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to accept his application to join the housing register. He said the Council unfairly accused him of fraud and failed to properly consider his need to move on medical grounds. We did not find the Council acted with fault because applied its housing allocations policy correctly.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council handled his request to join the housing register. In particular, he says:
1. the Council’s decision to refuse his application to join the housing register was unjustified;
2. the Council did not properly assess his need for accommodation on health grounds;
3. the Council’s failed to respond to his complaint about hazards in his current property; and
4. a council officer carried out an unannounced, early morning inspection visit causing significant distress to his child.
2. Mr X says he has suffered significant distress as result of having to remain in unsuitable accommodation. The Council’s handling of his case overall has also caused significant distress and frustration.

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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
7. 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

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have investigated 1(a) and 1 (b) above.
9. I have not investigated 1(c) because Mr X’s complaint has not yet been through the Council’s complaints procedure. His complaint to the Ombudsman is therefore premature.
10. I have not investigated 1(d) because I and not satisfied there is not enough evidence of significant injustice to warrant further investigation by us. I am also satisfied, on the information that was provided by Mr X and the Council, that it is highly unlikely I would make a finding of fault.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I spoke to Mr X.
12. I considered the complaint and the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
13. I referred to relevant law and guidance and the Council’s published allocations scheme.
14. Mr X and the Council 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

Relevant law and policy

Housing allocations

15. 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))
16. 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))

17. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))

The Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme

18. The Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme (“the Scheme”) defines who can apply to join the housing register and how applicants are prioritised.
19. Applicants will not normally qualify for inclusion on the housing register if they have not lived within the Council’s boundary for five years before the application is made. An exemption from the residency criteria can be made on social welfare grounds.
20. The Council reserves the right to make all necessary steps to guard against misrepresentation and fraud.
21. Where applicants have a medical condition or disability, the Scheme (applicable at the time) placed them in a priority band from Band A (emergency and top priority) to Band D (no priority need). Applicants with Band C eligibility have an identified housing need. To be placed in a priority band between A and C, the applicant must demonstrate their medical condition or disability is being worsened by their current accommodation. Information provided by the applicant is assessed by the Council’s Medical Adviser.

What happened

22. This chronology provides an overview of key events in this case and does not detail everything that happened.
23. Mr X lives in private rented second floor flat with his young child. He says this is unsuitable because he has mobility issues and it is in a poor state of repair.
24. In January 2023, Mr X made an application to join the Council’s housing register. His application was assessed by a medical adviser and his was deemed to have Band C eligibility because of his mobility difficulties.
25. However, his application was suspended based on information supplied by Mr X on a previous housing application. According to the Council’s records, Mr X had made an application in 2021. This was rejected because he did not satisfy the Council’s residency criteria.
26. Mr X denied all knowledge of this application and said he had lived in the Council’s area for over five years.
27. Mr X was asked to provide evidence to prove this. Mr X provided bank statements and a phone bill. According to the Council this did not support Mr X’s position.
28. Mr X continued to dispute this and felt he was being discriminated against. He believed the Council had an obligation to provide him with suitable accommodation on health grounds and asked the Council to reconsider its position.
29. In accordance with the Scheme, Mr X’s case was considered by the Council’s Social Welfare Panel (“the Panel”). The Panel determined Mr X had committed a fraudulent act by providing false information on his application. Regardless of this, the Panel decided there were no exceptional circumstances that persuaded it to set aside the residency requirement on social welfare grounds.
30. Mr X was advised of his right to request a review of this decision, but explained if he did so, the Council would refer his case to its fraud team for further investigation.
31. Mr X objected to this approach because:

• he felt he was being blackmailed by the Council;
• he was being discriminated against based on his disability by a particular officer;
• he had provided the Council with evidence that he had lived in the Council’s area since 2017;
• his medical condition not been properly assessed by a medical professional; and
• the Council had not taken account of other relevant information including his entitlement to disability benefits, his inability to work, his need for adaptations to help with his disability and his parental responsibilities.

32. A senior officer responded to these concerns. Mr X was told:

• the Council was duty bound to refer the case to the fraud team based on information provided by Mr X on his 2021 housing application;
• having reviewed the case notes and correspondence on file, there was no evidence to support Mr X’s claim of discrimination; and
• his case would be referred to the Review Team to consider Mr X’s personal circumstances and the decision of the Panel.

33. As part of this review, Mr X was again asked to provide evidence of where he lived in 2017. The Council also made enquiries of another council and Mr X’s current landlord.
34. The review upheld the decision of the Panel and confirmed Mr X did not satisfy the residency requirement and an exception would not been made on social welfare grounds. The Council was also satisfied Mr X had provided false information on his application form. The Council provided a detailed explanation for its decision, covering the points raised by Mr X.
35. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

36. Mr X strongly believes the Council has a duty to rehouse him urgently on medical grounds. He has provided the Ombudsman with a detailed description of the difficulties he faces in his current accommodation. While I appreciate the distress experienced by Mr X in his current accommodation, it is the Council’s role, not the Ombudsman’s to decide whether Mr X is eligible to join the Council’s housing register and, if so, what priority he should be given.
37. In this context, I will consider Mr X’s separate areas of complaint below:

The Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s application to join the housing register was unjustified

38. Mr X denies ever making an application to join the housing register before 2023. He says the Council was therefore wrong to use this as a reason to not address his urgent need for housing.
39. The Scheme is clear that there will be consequences if incorrect information is given on the application form. The application form also requires the applicant to sign a declaration to that effect, so I am satisfied Mr X was made aware of this obligation.
40. Due to the severe shortage of rented accommodation, the Council has an obligation to the public purse and its local citizens to ensure its Scheme is applied consistently and fairly and that potential fraud is investigated.
41. I been provided with copies of both the 2021 and 2023 application forms. On the balance of probabilities, in my opinion, this information justified the Council’s concerns about Mr X’s entitlement to join the housing register, and its decision to conduct further enquiries and suspend Mr X’s application.
42. The Council followed the process we would expect by allowing Mr X the opportunity to provide evidence he had lived in the area of five years. This was particularly important because providing false information could potentially lead to a criminal prosecution.
43. Despite having concerns about possible fraud, the Council agreed to consider whether Mr X’s circumstances were exceptional enough to justify waiving the residency requirement. I have read the information presented to the Panel and its decision letter. Based on this, I am satisfied the Council considered the relevant information and provided Mr X with detailed reasons for its decision. There was no fault here.
44. Nor was there fault with how the Council responded to Mr X’s request for a review of this decision. Again, the Council considered and responded to all of the points raised by Mr X, including his claims of blackmail and disability discrimination. I have found no evidence of either. All correspondence with Mr X used appropriate language and clearly explained the Council’s position about both its fraud concerns and residency requirements.
45. The decision letter also shows the Council followed the correct procedure considering whether Mr X’s personal circumstances, including his medical conditions and parental responsibilities allowed it to make an exemption to the residency rule. The matter for the Panel to consider was, not, for example, whether Mr X’s disability should have had a higher priority banding that Band C, but whether there was any exceptional reason why Mr X had to live in specifically in Ealing as opposed to, say, another London borough.
46. The Council explained why, based on the evidence, it was not satisfied Mr X’s health needs met this criterion. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make. In the absence of any fault in the decision-making process, I cannot question the outcome, no maker how staringly Mr X disagrees.

The Council did not properly assess his need for accommodation on health grounds

47. Upon receipt of Mr X’s housing application, the Council correctly referred his case to the Council’s medical advisor. They advised the Council that his mobility problems placed him in priority Band C.
48. I have seen no evidence that Mr X specifically asked for a review of this decision although he did contest whether his case was considered by a medical professional. I am satisfied it was.
49. However, the issue of banding priority was then superseded by the suspension of Mr X’s application. Even if Mr X had requested a review of his banding priority, I would not expect the Council to have done so, because of the ongoing investigation into his residency and possible fraud. Had his review been successful and he was allowed to join the housing register, at that point Mr X’s claim for additional priority could have been considered. I would not expect the Council to do so before.
50. In any event, I am satisfied Mr X’s disability and medical conditions were properly considered by both the Panel and during the subsequent review.
51. For these reasons, I have not found the Council to be at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

52. I have not upheld Mr X’s complaint. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman