Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider his medical and welfare needs when it made decisions about his housing register application. He also said it did not refer his case to its Social Needs Panel and took too long to reply to his complaints and review request. We found fault by the Council in its handling of Mr X’s housing register application and his requests for it to review its decision on his application. We also found it at fault in its handling of his complaint and its consideration of a letter from his solicitor. The Council agreed to apologise, reconsider its decisions on Mr X’s housing register application and make him a symbolic payment in recognition of the injustice caused to him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:

1. failed to consider his disabilities when deciding if there were grounds to make an exception to its five-year local residency requirements.
2. failed to refer his circumstances to its Social Needs Panel;
3. delayed carrying out a review of its decision to close his housing application; and,
4. poorly communicated with him and his solicitors by failing to provide details of his review rights and failing to respond to their contact, including about his complaint.

2. Mr X says the Council’s actions amount to discrimination and have caused him distress, frustration, uncertainty and prevented him from finding suitable accommodation.

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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. 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))
8. 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))

9. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:

• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.

10. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
11. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
12. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:

• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

London Borough of Waltham Forest Housing Allocations Scheme

Section 2.3

13. To be included on the Housing Register applicants will normally have to show they live in the London Borough of Waltham Forest and have lived in the borough continuously for the last five years.
14. The above requirement does not apply to:
• an applicant who can demonstrate that they have a particular need to be housed within the borough due to special circumstances (including medical or welfare needs related to disability): these applicants should make a request for the Social Needs Panel to consider the circumstances of their case.

Appendix 1, Section 2

15. A referral for an assessment by the Social Needs Panel will only be made if authorised by the Divisional Director of Housing Solutions or the Rehousing Manager or equivalent senior manager. A referral to the panel will only be authorised if, in the opinion of the authorising manager, there is a reasonable prospect that the panel will decide in the applicant’s favour.
16. The Social Needs Panel considers applications from applicants in Bands 1-5 who:
• are experiencing mental health problems, disabling social factors, learning disabilities, substance dependency or other social problems.
• have health problems that are not sufficient on their own to confer priority, but where there are other relevant social factors.

Homelessness

17. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
18. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)

19. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
20. Councils must provide to anyone in their district information and advice free of charge on:
    preventing homelessness;

• securing accommodation when homeless;
• the rights of people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the duties of the authority;
• any help that is available from the authority or anyone else, for people in the council’s district who are homeless or may become homeless (whether or not they are threatened with homelessness); and
• how to access that help.

The prevention duty

21. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

What happened

22. What follows is a summary of the key events. It does not show everything that happened.
23. In August 2021 Mr X moved to the Council’s area. He lived in shared accommodation on the second floor. Mr X has Cerebral Palsy and other health conditions.
24. In March 2023 Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register. It awarded his application priority band 5.
25. In December Mr X told the Council the priority band awarded to his application did not reflect his medical circumstances. The Council told Mr X how to provide supporting medical information.
26. Mr X provided medical information to the Council. The Council asked its Medical Adviser to assess the information.
27. On 19 March the Council’s Medical Adviser told the Council his application should be awarded priority band 3.
28. The Council updated its IT system to reflect the Medical Adviser’s decision. However it mistakenly recorded his application as being awarded priority band 2.
29. On 24 March Mr X’s solicitor wrote to the Council. The letter said the Council had failed to properly consider his health conditions when assessing the priority banding given to his application.
30. The letter also said Mr X was at imminent threat of homelessness as his landlord was looking to repossess the property. Mr X says he also told the Council he was threatened with homelessness.
31. In late March Mr X provided the Council with a copy of a letter written by his doctor on 6 March 2024. The letter said:

• Mr X must stop at every step when going up and down stairs and he sometimes needs help to do so.
• Mr X needs help from family members to clean his home and prepare meals.
• Mr X’s condition has worsened since November 2023 and his mobility has decreased. Medical appointments have not improved his mobility.

There is no evidence the Council asked its medical adviser to consider this letter.

32. Also in late March Mr X bid for a property (Property Y) advertised on the Council’s Choice Based Lettings website. The listing allowed applicants in priority band 2 or above to place a bid. Mr X was able to bid on the property because of the Council’s mistake when updating its IT system. Mr X was the highest placed bidder.
33. In April the Council completed verification checks following Mr X’s bid for Property Y. The checks found Mr X did not meet its five-year residency criteria and so it closed his housing register application.
34. Unhappy Mr X asked the Council to refer his application to its Social Needs Panel so it could consider if his circumstances warranted it making an exception to its five-year residency criteria. He also asked for a review of its decision to close his application.
35. In June Mr X wrote to the Mayor’s office about his housing register application. The Council said it was acting on Mr X’s review request.
36. In September Mr X’s solicitor asked the Ombudsman to investigate his case. We explained he needed to complete the Council’s complaints procedure before we can investigate. We asked the Council to consider Mr X’s concerns about its handling of his housing register application and its failure to refer his application to its Social Needs Panel, at stage one of its complaint’s procedure.
37. In late October the Council replied to Mr X’s complaint. It apologised for the delay in replying and said it would complete a review of his case in the next 10 working days.
38. In January 2025 the Council wrote to Mr X apologising for the continued delay in completing the review of his application.
39. In March the Council completed its review of Mr X’s application. It said:
• Mr X’s circumstances were not exceptional enough to warrant it waiving its five-year residency rule.
• it had considered the letter from Mr X’s doctor dated 6 March 2024 as part of its review.
• it apologised for the delay in completing the review.
40. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Mr X escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure.
41. In early April Mr X wrote to the Council apologising for mistakenly stating the time he had lived in the borough. He asked it to make reasonable adjustments for him because his disabilities made it difficult for him to complete the housing register application.
42. In late April the Council replied to Mr X’s stage two complaint. It said:
• Mr X cannot join its housing register because he does not meet the five-year residency requirement and his circumstances do not warrant an exception to this requirement.
• it apologised for the delays in completing the review and replying to his complaints. It offered him £500 in recognition of the inconvenience and frustration caused by the delays.
43. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.
44. In response to our enquiries the Council said:
• its Medical Adviser awarded Mr X’s housing register application priority band 3 in March 2024. It wrongly recorded the award as band 2 on its IT system and so Mr X was able to bid for Property Y.
• it became aware Mr X did not meet its five-year residency criteria when verifying his application following his bid for Property Y.
• its Social Needs Panel only considers cases where it considers the applicant has a very urgent need for rehousing. It said cases only go before the panel if the Rehousing Manager thinks there is a reasonable prospect of a decision being made in the applicant’s favour. It said Mr X’s circumstances did not warrant a referral to the panel.
• it has no record of Mr X being invited to make a homelessness application. It noted Mr X was being helped by a solicitor and its website has information on how to make a homelessness application.
• it does not have evidence Mr X had problems using its services because of his disability.
• it has addressed delays in replying to Mr X’s review request and his complaints with the relevant officers to prevent a recurrence.

Finding

Housing register application

45. The Council’s allocations policy requires applicants to live within its area for five years before they can apply to join its housing register. Mr X did not meet this requirement and so the Council’s decision to close his application is in keeping with its policy.
46. However the Council’s allocations policy sets out circumstances where it may waiver the five-year residency requirement. The policy says a decision on a request to waive the requirement will be made by the Social Needs Panel following a referral by an appropriate housing manager. Mr X asked for the panel to consider his case. I have seen no evidence the Council considered his request. This is fault. The fault caused Mr X the avoidable time and trouble of pursuing a reply. It also caused him uncertainty about the Council’s decision to close his application.
47. I also note the Council’s Medical Adviser did not consider the contents of the letter from Mr X’s doctor dated 6 March. This is because Mr X sent this letter to the Council after the Medical Adviser’s decision. I have seen no evidence the Council asked its Medical Adviser to consider if the letter provided reasons to further increase Mr X’s priority banding. This is fault by the Council. The failure to asks its Medical Adviser to consider the letter means there is uncertainty whether the Medical Adviser’s assessment of the information would have provided grounds for the Council to refer Mr X’s case to its Social Needs Panel. This is injustice.

Priority band awarded to Mr X’s application

48. As part of its reply to the Ombudsman’s enquires the Council provided a copy of the outcome of the Medical Adviser’s consideration of evidence provided to it by Mr X. The decision, dated 19 March 2024, says Mr X’s application should be awarded priority band 3.
49. I note that Mr X was able to bid on property Y because of an error when updating the computer record of his housing register application. This is fault by the Council. It should make sure its records are update correctly. This fault caused Mr X to incorrectly believe he could bid for Property Y. This is injustice.

Letter from Mr X’s solicitor in March 2024

50. Mr X’s solicitor wrote to the Council in March 2024 raising concerns about the Council’s consideration of his medical need for rehousing. There is no evidence the Council replied to the letter. This is fault.
51. Also in the letter Mr X’s solicitor explained that Mr X was at imminent threat of being made homeless. There is no evidence the Council followed this matter up with either Mr X or his solicitor to establish if Mr X was owed the Prevention Duty. This is fault. As a result Mr X may have missed out on support from the Council. This uncertainty is injustice.

Delay in considering review request and complaints

52. The Council’s replies to Mr X’s complaints recognised it took too long to reply to his complaints and complete a review of its decision to close his housing register application. It acknowledged this caused Mr X uncertainty, frustration and put him to avoidable time and trouble. It apologised and made him a symbolic payment of £500. This payment is in keeping with our guidance on remedies and so I consider it adequately addresses the injustice caused to Mr X.

Reasonable adjustments

53. I have seen no evidence Mr X asked the Council to make reasonable adjustments to help him complete its housing register application form. I do not find the Council at fault in this matter.

Back to top

Agreed Action

54. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr X for the fault identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Make Mr X a further symbolic payment of £200. This is in recognition of injustice caused by its failure to ask its Medical Adviser to consider the letter from Mr X’s doctor dated 6 March and for its failure to respond to his request for the Social Needs Panel to consider his case and reply to his solicitor’s letter.
• Ask its Medical Adviser to consider if the letter from Mr X’s doctor dated 6 March provides grounds to increase the priority banding awarded to Mr X’s housing register application.
• Reconsider its decision not to refer Mr X’s case to its Social Needs panel making sure it considers the outcome of its Medical Advisers consideration of Mr X’s doctor’s letter of 6 March 2024. It should explain the outcome of its reconsideration in writing to Mr X.
• In the event the Social Needs Panel does consider Mr X’s case and finds it should waiver its five-year residency requirement the Council should check its records to see if Mr X would have been offered a suitable property while his application was closed.
55. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

56. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman