Summary: Ms B complained about the Council’s decision to close her housing applications. We find that the Council failed to provide clear information about the documents Ms B needed to provide. This led to the closure of her second application which caused avoidable frustration and inconvenience for Ms B. The Council has agreed to assess her application and backdate her award date if she qualifies to join the register. It has also agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Ms B.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains that the Council has closed her housing applications, despite providing all the required supporting documents and evidence of her need for housing.
2. Ms B says that her son needs accommodation on one level which is suitable for his disability. She says that due to the Council’s failings, they remain living in accommodation which is having a detrimental impact on her son’s emotional and physical well-being, which is causing her significant distress.

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. I considered evidence provided by Ms B and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms B 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

Housing allocations

7. Every local housing authority must publish an allocation 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. Paragraph 2.2.3 of the Council’s housing allocation scheme says:

“In addition to the application, the following documents (where available) must be submitted as evidence, via the Scheme website to verify the information provided by the main applicant, plus any other person who might reside with the applicant who might wish to become a joint tenant:

1. Passport, to help determine eligibility to rent social housing in England.
2. A utility or Council Tax bill from the past three months, to help determine eligibility to rent social housing in England.
3. Birth certificate, to help determine qualification to join the Scheme.
4. Details of any relevant unspent convictions, to help determine qualification to join the Scheme.
5. All financial records from the past three months relating to income and savings, to help determine qualification to join the Scheme.
6. All legal records relating to property ownership to help determine qualification to join the Scheme.
7. Any other information that helps to determine eligibility to rent social housing in England, qualification to join the Scheme or making a community contribution.”
1. The scheme places applicants in a priority band from Band A (highest priority) to Band D (lowest priority).
2. Applicants who have been assessed as having no housing need and whose circumstances do not warrant inclusion in any of the priority bands do not qualify to join the housing register.

Background and key events

11. Ms B lives in private rented accommodation with her three sons. She applied to join the housing register in April 2024, selecting ‘care and support’, ‘child welfare’, ‘insanitary or unfit conditions’ and ‘medical’ as her housing needs.
12. The application form sets out the required supporting documents, such as proof of identity, address, and financial records. Ms B provided proof of identity, proof of address and some information about her income.
13. The Council decided to close Ms B’s application in July 2024 because it did not consider there was any evidence that she needed housing for the reasons she had selected. Its letter stated:
• Care and support: This band is given to those who need to move to give or receive care. An award can only be made if a Care Act needs assessment has been completed and there was no evidence of this on its database.
• Child welfare: This band can only be awarded where there is a child protection plan in place, and its records indicated that this was not the case.
• Insanitary or unfit conditions: This band is awarded to those whose accommodation is in a state of disrepair and an Environmental Health Officer has identified a category 1 hazard, which did not appear to be the case.
• Medical: While a member of the household had a medical condition, the evidence provided did not demonstrate that the accommodation was having a direct detrimental impact on their health, in the opinion of a medical professional.
14. In November 2024, Ms B reapplied, selecting ‘care and support’, ‘medical’, ‘mobility’ and ‘exceptional circumstances’ as her housing needs. She provided further evidence regarding her son’s medical and mobility needs, along with proof of identity and information about her income.
15. In January 2025, the Council wrote to Ms B to tell her that it had closed her application because it was incomplete. The letter stated that in order to validate and assess her application, all documents listed on the application form had to be submitted. It did not specify which of those documents had not been provided. It advised Ms B to reapply once she had provided all the required documents. The letter also stated that she had no right to a review of the decision, and if she was unhappy with it, she could seek judicial review or contact our office.
16. At the same time as submitting a complaint to us about the Council’s actions, Ms B also complained to the Council via her Councillor. The Council responded, explaining that Ms B’s application was closed because she had not provided three months of bank statements.
17. Ms B has recently submitted a new application which has not yet been assessed.

Analysis

18. When the Council closed Ms B’s application in July 2024, it explained why the information she had provided about her housing needs did not meet the criteria for inclusion in any of the housing priority bands. I have considered the evidence Ms B provided with her application and find no fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
19. The Council did not check whether Ms B had provided proof of identity, proof of address or financial records when it assessed Ms B’s application in July 2024. It would have been helpful if it had done so as it would have found that Ms B had not provided any bank statements and it could have reminded her of the documentation requirements. Had it done so, she would have been more likely to provide all the required documents when she reapplied in November 2024.
20. In November 2024, the online application guidance, the allocation scheme and the application form all stated that the applicant needed to provide financial records from the past three months relating to income and savings. However, they did not clearly state that the Council required the applicant’s last three months of bank statements. This was fault.
21. When the Council wrote to Ms B in January 2024 closing her application, it failed to specify which documents it considered were missing. Instead, it provided a general list of all required documents. This lack of clarity was fault and left Ms B uncertain about what further documentation she needed to provide. However, I do not consider this caused Ms B any significant injustice, because she found out which documents were missing when she received the response to her complaint around two weeks later.
22. If the Council had provided clear information to Ms B about the documentation requirements before she reapplied in November 2024, it is likely that she would have submitted the correct information and her application would have been processed in January 2025. I consider the Council’s failings have caused Ms B avoidable frustration and inconvenience.

Back to top

Action

23. The Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Ms B for the failings identified in this case. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance when making the apology.
• Make a payment of £100 to Ms B. This is a symbolic payment to acknowledge the avoidable frustration and inconvenience caused by the Council’s actions.
• Assess Ms B’s application and if she qualifies to join the register, backdate her award and registration date to 12 January 2025.
24. The Council has recently changed its procedures, and it no longer closes applications immediately when it considers information is missing. Instead, applicants are contacted and given ten days to submit the missing documents. I do not consider any service improvement recommendations are necessary.
25. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

26. I have completed my investigation and uphold Ms B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Ms B. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman