Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly suspended his housing application and removed him from the bidding system in November 2024. Mr X says the Council’s actions meant he missed out on the offer of a property. We found the Council’s failure to review the decision to close Mr X’s application is fault. As is the failure to properly assess Mr X’s request for medical priority. These faults have caused Mr X distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mr X. It will also review Mr X’s medical priority and the decision to close his application.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council wrongly suspended his housing application and removed him from the bidding system in November 2024. He complains the Council failed to communicate clearly with him or to verify his documents.

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 the 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. 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

Housing allocations

6. 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))
7. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. It uses a banding scheme to prioritise applications. Those with the highest priority will be awarded Band 1, and those with the lowest priority are awarded Band 4. Within each Band priority is given by a priority star system and the date of registration.
8. The Council’s scheme also requires applicants to meet the local connection criteria to qualify to join the housing register. A local connection is established if an applicant:
• has lived in Southwark for the last five years;
• works in the area and demonstrates a housing need;
• wants to live near to a close relative who has lived in Southwark for more than five years and receive or provide care/support;
• there is another very specific reason why the in need to live in Southwark
• homeless applicants placed in temporary accommodation in Southwark by another local authority
9. Councils must notify applicants in writing of decisions that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation and give reasons. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of this decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))

What happened here

10. In April 2024 the Council placed Mr X in Band 4 of the housing register. Mr X questioned this priority as he did not consider this reflected his circumstances. Mr X told the Council he worked full time in Southwark but was currently without a permanent address. He said he was staying with friends and family in overcrowded conditions.
11. Mr X told the Council he was no longer living at the address on his application, as it did not have a lift and he had experienced significant difficulties with the stairs following recent surgery.
12. The Council awarded Mr X a priority working star. It also asked Mr X to complete a change of circumstances form to have a medical assessment and a change of address form. It explained Mr X’s application would be suspended until it received the documents
13. Mr returned these forms in June 2024.
14. In October 2024 the Council wrote to Mr X confirming it had assessed the medical information he had provided and determined he did not have a medical requirement to move. It did not award a medical priority. The Council advised Mr X of his right to request a review of this decision. There is no record Mr X requested a review.
15. Mr X had been bidding on properties for several months and in November 2024 his bid placed high enough to be considered for an offer on a property. Before the Council makes an offer of accommodation it carries out routine checks to ensure all the information on the housing application is correct.
16. In December 2024 the Council wrote to Mr X advising its checks found information which suggested it did not hold up to date information. The Council had passed Mr X’s application to its verification team to establish Mr X’s address of residence. It told Mr X it had suspended his application pending verification of his account and would provide an update within the next 28 days.
17. Mr X said his information was up to date and questioned why his account was suspended without any warning. He asked for an explanation and clarification regarding the reason for the suspension. Mr X provided a further copy of documents showing he was currently staying with friends and family.
18. On 2 January 2025 Mr X made a formal complaint about his account being suspended. He said he had repeatedly chased an update but not received a response. Mr X asked the Council to remove the suspension so that he could bid on properties.
19. The Council responded on 20 January 2025. It explained the Council was not satisfied with the results of its routine checks and had referred Mr X’s application to its fraud and investigation team. At this point his application was suspended. The Council said Mr X would be notified of the fraud and investigation team’s findings in writing when they concluded their investigation. It suggested Mr X contact the Council if he had not heard within two weeks.
20. Mr X was unhappy with the delays and lack of communication and asked for his complaint to be considered further. He also question why he was considered for an offer when he was not one of the top three placed bidders.
21. On 23 January 2025 the Council informed Mr X its audit of his application had found information to suggest he did not meet the residential requirements and that he was no longer living at his application address when he applied. Its verification team’s investigation had also received information that confirmed Mr X did not live at his application address.
22. The Council concluded Mr X did not meet the local connection criteria set out in the allocation scheme and closed his application. It informed Mr X of his right to request a review of this decision. Mr X disputed the decision and requested a detailed explanation. He said he had been a resident of Southwark for over 10 years and that all the documentation he had provided was accurate. The Council did not treat this as a review request.
23. The Council reviewed Mr X’s complaint and responded at stage two of its complaint process in April 2025. It noted the Council had informed Mr X of the outcome it the investigation on 23 January 2025 and that his application had been closed. The Council said it could not review the decision within the complaint procedure.
24. As Mr X remains unhappy he has asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint. Mr X complains about poor communication and a lack of accountability which led him to miss out on the offer of a property. He would like to be reconsidered for this property or be offered a suitable alternative.
25. In response to my enquiries the Council says it has identified faults which had not been picked up during its complaint investigation. While it considers the decision to close Mr X’s application was correct, it noted it had not given Mr X the opportunity to challenge the decision.
26. The Council acknowledges it should have accepted Mr X’s email in January 2025 as a review request but did not refer this to the relevant team for review. It says it has issued guidance to relevant officers regarding the need to refer disagreements with or requests for explanations of decision for review.
27. In addition, the Council says Mr X’s medical assessment in June 2024 was linked to an incorrect reference number. As a result Mr X’s medical assessment was not completed and the outcome letter issued was incorrect. This should have been picked up by an officer and referred back to the assessors at the time. The Council says it has revised its system to minimise this occurring again.

Given these errors the Council proposes to allow a review of the decision to close Mr X’s application and resend the medical assessment request to its assessors to establish whether that would give Mr X a housing need as an out-of-borough resident.

Analysis

28. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether Mr X can join the housing register or the level of priority he should be awarded; that is the Council’s job. Our role is to review the process by which decisions are made, and where we find fault, to determine whether a significant injustice was caused to the individual complainant.
29. The Council was initially satisfied that Mr X met the criteria to join the housing register, and he was able to bid on properties. In accordance with its allocation policy, the Council then carried out further checks when considering offering Mr X a property. Based on these checks it determined Mr X did not meet the local residency criteria.
30. While the Council followed a proper process in reaching this decision, it should, as it now acknowledges, have treated Mr X’s disagreement with the decision as a review request. The failure to review this decision in January 2025 is fault.
31. The error in assessing Mr X’s request for medical priority in June 2024 is also fault.
32. These faults caused Mr X unnecessary distress and uncertainty. The Council should make a symbolic payment to recognise this distress and uncertainty.
33. The Council has offered to review its decision to close Mr X’s application and to assess Mr X’s medical information. This is to be welcomed. Should the review or medical assessment determine Mr X is eligible to join the housing register the Council should consider how to remedy any injustice caused by the faults.

Back to top

Action

34. The Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X for the distress and uncertainty caused by 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.
• Pay Mr X £300 to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused by the fault identified.
• Review the decision to close Mr X’s application, ensuring Mr X has an opportunity to contribute to the review process;
• Assess Mr X’s medical assessment form and any additional information Mr X provides to determine whether he has a medical housing need.
35. Should the review or medical assessment determine Mr X is eligible to join the housing register the Council should:
1. reinstate Mr X’s housing application;
2. consider whether Mr X would have been offered a property in November 2024 or successfully bid on any subsequent suitable properties while he was unable to bid. If Mr X has missed out on the offer of a property, the Council should seek to redress this in line with our guidance on remedies by way of a direct offer or symbolic payment.
36. The Council should take this action within one month and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

37. I find fault causing injustice The Council agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman