Summary: Ms D complained the Council failed to accept her applications to join the housing register since 2020. I have found fault by the Council. It implemented an undocumented policy to exclude tenants of a Housing Association from joining the housing register. This meant Ms D was incorrectly prevented from being eligible to join the housing register for over four years. The Council has agreed to pay Ms D redress for avoidable distress and change her effective date.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council failed to accept her housing register applications because she was a Housing Association tenant, in breach of its allocation policy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I considered evidence provided by Ms D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. On 5 June 2020 Ms D applied online to join the Council’s Housing Register. She told me (and the Council has now confirmed this to be correct) that when she got to a section asking if she was a tenant of her Housing Association (an X tenant) the system automatically notified her she was not eligible to join the housing register. She was unable to progress the application. She applied again in March 2022 and the same thing happened when stated she was an X tenant. Again, she was told she did not qualify to join the housing register. This was repeated a further time in February 2023.
7. The Council says on 14 August 2023 it decided to change its unwritten policy and allow X tenants to join the housing register. On 15 August Ms D contacted the Council asking if she could apply. She was told she remained ineligible. She continued to contact the Council and on 12 September the Housing Needs Register Team told her, as an X tenant, she had been unable to join the housing register and had never provided all the documentation required with her applications. This meant the Council could not backdate her application. She could now apply and “if you are unable to proceed with the application you may need to say you are not an X tenant”.
8. Ms D applied to the join the housing register on 20 March 2024. The Council accepted her application and in April she was awarded Band B status and eligible for three bedroom properties. Her ‘effective date’ on the application was 25 March 2024. Ms D submitted a formal complaint to the Council in August. She believed the Council should have allowed her to join the housing register sooner and her ‘effective date’ should be backdated. On 15 August Ms D told the Council she had been informed her previous applications were invalid because she had not supplied documentation, but this was because she was unable to proceed to the documentation stage once she stated she was an X tenant. The Council responded to the complaint on 8 October. It reiterated that Ms D had failed to provide documentation for the 2020 application. She had been in housing need at that time but did not qualify because she was an X tenant. It had now backdated the ‘effective date’ to 14 August 2023 when the policy changed.
9. On 8 October Ms D asked the Council to escalate her complaint because it had failed to deal with her concerns. It had not explained why Ms D was told to state she was not an X tenant on the application form. She asked, “why should I write the wrong information on an application just to proceed”. The Council refused the request and said her complaint had been dealt with.

What should have happened

10. The Council’s Allocations Policy sets out how it should deal with applications to join the housing register. Prior to 14 August 2023 the Council had an unwritten additional policy not to allow X tenants to join the housing register. The Council says, “the interpretation of the [Allocations Policy] not to allow social housing tenants was decided by the Head of Housing and the Housing Strategy and Inclusions Manager”. It is unclear when this policy was implemented but it was in place from at least 2020. The policy meant that if an X tenant applied to join the housing register using the online form, they would get to a question asking if they were an X tenant. If they said they were, the system would automatically notify them they were ineligible to apply. They would not be able to progress the application to the point that documentation was requested.
11. On 14 August 2023 the Council changed the policy after the Head of Housing left its employ. The Council says that verbal instructions were given to Officers that X tenants could now join the housing register. The Council has failed to explain why the policy changed. It also advised staff that X tenants should say they were not X tenants when filling out the online application form to allow the application to proceed.
12. When the Council accepts an applicant is eligible to join the housing register and in housing need, it assesses the level of that need and places them in a Band. Band A is the highest priority. The Council will usually award available social housing to the person on the housing register in the highest Band and with the longest ‘effective date’.
13. The Council has approved a new Allocations Policy which will be implemented in Summer 2025.

Was there fault by the Council

14. The Council implemented an unwritten policy prior to August 2023 to exclude X tenants from joining the housing register. This was not part of the Allocations Policy, and the Council had no right to create an additional policy that created a blanket exclusion on X tenants. In response to my enquiries the Council has accepted “the policy was not correct, there was no justification for this under the Allocations Policy”. This serious failing meant that Ms D was denied the right to join the housing register since she first applied in 2020 despite having housing need.
15. The Council changed its policy in August 2023. It failed to notify Ms D about this change when she made enquiries that week. In September the Council told her to give false information on the housing register application and state she was not an X tenant so the application would progress. Ms D has told me she was, understandably, confused and concerned about being told to submit false information. I have not seen any evidence the Council sought to remove the question from the online application in August when the policy changed. The Council says it is now working to remove the question, but this should have been started over 20 months ago. It also means that whilst the question remains on the application form X tenants who correctly answer the question about their landlord may have their applications automatically rejected.
16. The Council’s complaint response was poor. It failed to acknowledge that Ms D could not provide documentation for her earlier applications because of fault by the Council. The Council had an opportunity to acknowledge the faults and failed to do so. It also should have allowed the complaint to be escalated because it had not explained and dealt with all the points made by Ms D.

Did the fault cause an injustice

17. Ms D could and should have had her housing register application accepted in 2020 if the faults by the Council had not occurred. The Council has already acknowledged she had housing need in 2020 and so it is fair to assume she would have been placed in Band B. The ‘effective date’ would be when the application was fully processed which can take several weeks so I consider 6 July 2020 is a fair ‘effective date’ (rather than her current ‘effective date’ of 14 August 2023).
18. I asked the Council to show me all the three bedroom properties that were allocated to people on the housing register in Band B in the eight wards Ms D had selected as her preferred areas for the period 6 July 2020 to 22 May 2025. This was to see if Ms D had lost an opportunity to be offered a property. Only a few three bedroom properties were offered in that period, and they all went to applicants with an earlier effective date or with additional needs and priority (such as an adapted property) than Ms D, if her effective date had been July 2020. I am satisfied she did not lose out on a chance to be rehoused by the Council, but she has been caused avoidable distress due to the Council’s failings.

Back to top

Action

19. To remedy the injustice caused to Ms D the Council has agreed to:
• Pay Ms D £500 for avoidable distress
• Confirm to Ms D that her new ‘effective date’ is 6 July 2020.
20. To make service improvements the Council has also confirmed it is working on amendments to its online form.
21. The Council has now updated Ms D’s ‘effective date’. It should provide us with evidence it has paid the redress within four weeks of the investigation ending.

Back to top

Decision

22. I find fault causing injustice and have completed the investigation because the Council accepts the recommended redress.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman