Summary: The Council was at fault for how it removed Ms X from its housing register and for not allowing her to review this decision. This meant Ms X could not bid on properties or challenge the Council’s decision. The Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X for the distress caused and re-assess Ms X’s housing register application.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complained on behalf of Ms X that the Council unfairly removed Ms X from its housing register and did not allow her to review this decision.
2. Ms X has lost her place on the housing register and the priority she had and will have to make a new application to get back on.

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. 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)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. 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

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Ms Y 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

9. 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))
10. 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))
11. 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.
12. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
13. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
14. At the time of this complaint the Council operated a housing allocation scheme which placed applicants into Bands based on their level of priority. Applicants could then bid on properties which were advertised.
15. There was no provision in the Council’s allocations scheme which said it would remove applicants if they did not place bids. For applicants in Band 2, the Council could decide to place bids on their behalf if they did not place a bid for 6 months.

What happened

16. In June 2019, Ms X was awarded Band 2 on the Council’s housing register.
17. In October 2022, the Council emailed Ms X. The Council said it sent Ms X a letter saying it would close her housing application as she had not placed bids
18. Ms X said the letter the Council sent was a non-interactive form asking for a username and password.
19. In November 2022, the Council closed Ms X’s housing application as it had not received a response to its non-bidding letter.
20. In August 2024, Ms X asked the Council to review its decision to close her housing application. Ms X explained she is reliant on support workers due to her disabilities. She said she lost access to her support workers at the start of the Covid 19 pandemic and had been trying to get this support reinstated. This had meant she was not able to function properly or keep on top of her admin.
21. The Council responded to Ms X shortly after in August 2024. The Council said she submitted her review out of time. The Council also said it gave Ms X a non-reviewable bidders closure letter in November 2022 and she needed to complete a new housing application if she wanted to get back onto the housing register.

Analysis

22. We have exercised discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because Ms X suffers with several disabilities which includes cognitive processing and she cannot deal with written communication without support. Ms X lost her support and did not have this back in place at the time of the Council’s decisions on her housing application. I am therefore satisfied Ms X had good reasons not to complain to us sooner.
23. In October 2022, the Council said it sent Ms X a warning letter about not bidding. Ms X disputes this and the information the Council sent was not clear. The Council has confirmed it no longer has the letter due to an officer error, therefore I cannot establish what was sent to Ms X.
24. When Ms X asked the Council to review its decision to close her housing register application, the Council told her it had sent a non-reviewable bidders closure letter. This was fault. The Council should have considered whether to carry out an out of time review. There is no evidence it did this. It did not comment on the reasons Ms X provided for not asking for a review sooner.
25. Ms X also said the Council unfairly removed her from the housing register. The Council removed Ms X because she was not bidding on properties. There is nothing in the Council’s housing allocations policy (in place at the time) that said it could remove Ms X for not bidding. In fact the allocations policy says for those in Band 2 the Council could place bids on someone’s behalf if they were not bidding. The Council has since confirmed it has a new allocations policy and this allows it to remove applicants if they are not bidding on properties.
26. I am satisfied that removing Ms X for not bidding was not carried out in line with the Council’s housing allocations policy and was fault. This meant Ms X has missed out on being included on the Council’s housing register. I do not consider on balance she has missed out on securing accommodation as she was not regularly bidding, but being removed in this way is an injustice to Ms X.
27. When considering a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X for removing Ms X from the housing register in this way, I initially recommended the Council reinstate Ms X back onto its housing register. However in response to a draft of this decision the Council confirmed Ms X had changed address so needed to make a new application so the Council could assess her circumstances at that address. The Council said if Ms X still qualified to join it would keep her original registration date (pre-2019) and if she was still eligible for Band 2 it would backdate her award date to June 2019. I am satisfied this would remedy the injustice caused to Ms X.

Back to top

Agreed Action

28. Within one month of my final decision the Council agreed to carry out the following:
• Apologise to Ms X for the above faults. 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.
• Assist Ms X to make a new application to join the housing register.
1. If Ms X is eligible to join the housing register the Council will backdate her registration date to when she originally joined the housing register.
2. If Ms X qualifies for Band 2, the Council will backdate this to June 2019, when it initially awarded her Band 2.
• Pay Ms X £150 for the distress and uncertainty she experienced as a result of the Council removing her from the housing register and not considering whether it should review this decision.
29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

30. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman