Summary: Mr F complained about the way the Council handed his housing register application. We found fault as the Council did not consider all the information he had provided when reviewing its housing register decision and did not make inquiries into whether he may be homeless. This caused Mr F distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment, reconsider his housing register application and make homelessness inquiries. It will also make some service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr F complained about the way the Council handed his housing register application. In particular he says there was delay and the Council wrongly closed his application despite him providing the requested information.
2. Mr F also complains the Council failed to make homelessness enquiries after his representative told them his current accommodation was so unsuitable he was homeless.
3. As a result, Mr F says he has been caused significant distress and uncertainty and has been left in accommodation that does not meet his medical needs for longer than necessary.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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

6. I spoke to Mr F’s representative, Mr J, about the complaint and considered the information he sent, the Council’s response to my enquiries and relevant law and guidance.
7. Mr F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Housing allocations

8. 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))
9. In considering applications, authorities must determine if an applicant is eligible and qualifies for an allocation of accommodation. (Allocation of accommodation: statutory guidance for local housing authorities in England, paragraph 3.2 and Housing Act 1996, section 166(3))
10. The Council’s housing allocations policy says applicants must provide information so the Council can check who they are, who lives with them, and whether they qualify to join the housing register. This includes proof of identity and immigration status, proof of current address, and evidence showing they have lived in the area for at least three years (unless an exception applies). Applicants must also provide information about their income and savings but the policy does not specify any particular documents or time period for that information.
11. Where an application is based on housing need (such as where accommodation is unsuitable because of a severe and enduring medical condition), supporting evidence, such as medical reports must be provided.
12. The policy says the Council will not be able to process an application without all the supporting information and a fully completed application form. When supporting documents are missing the Council writes to applicants specifying which documents are outstanding and asks for them to be provided.

Housing decision reviews

13. Applicants have the right to request a review of a decision that they are ineligible for an allocation, or that they are not a qualifying person. (Housing Act 1996, section 160ZA(9) and section 166A(9))
14. The allocation of accommodation statutory guidance says:
1. Review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process.
2. There should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable.
3. Reviews should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker.
4. Reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.
5. Reviews should consider all relevant information, including information provided by the applicant after the original decision was made (paragraph 5.23(v)). If that information alters how the applicant meets the scheme, the reviewer must issue a new review decision.
6. If applicants are not satisfied with the outcome of a review, they may seek a judicial review or take their case to the Ombudsman.

Homelessness

15. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
16. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)

If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. These steps should follow an assessment and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. This is the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

What happened

17. Mr F applied to be on the Council’s housing register in July 2024. The application said his current home was damp due to leaks and unsuitable due to his health conditions. He asked for a medical assessment. Mr F ticked “no” to the question about property ownership and attached various documents including residence cards.
18. The Council wrote to Mr F on 9 December asking for more information by 23 December. The Council asked Mr F to confirm whether he owned a property overseas and to send proof of address and two months’ worth of bank statements for three unnamed bank accounts. It also asked Mr F to complete an online health form in relation to the medical assessment.
19. On 16 December, Mr F’s representative, Mr J, sent the Council on Mr F’s behalf, a proof of address, GP medical history and an additional bank statement. Mr J said that Mr F was effectively “homeless in his own home” due to his disability.
20. The Council wrote again to Mr F on 2 January 2025, it repeated the request for information it had made on 9 December. The Council said Mr F had seven days to reply.
21. The Council issued a decision on 4 February that it was closing Mr F’s application due to a lack of the following information:
• Confirmation whether Mr F or his wife owned any properties outside the UK.
• A universal credit letter showing his name and address.
• Bank statements for two months for three unnamed accounts.
• His wife’s national insurance number.
22. On 9 February, Mr J asked the Council to review its decision. In doing so he sent further documents including two months’ worth of bank statements for all accounts, the national insurance evidence, further benefits information and medical information.
23. The Council reviewed its 4 February decision and replied on 11 April. It said the decision was upheld as Mr F had not provided confirmation whether own properties abroad or proof of income. The letter says what information the review considered, this did not include the information Mr J submitted on 9 February.
24. The letter says if Mr F disagreed with the outcome of the review, he had the right to challenge it by judicial review.
25. Mr J contacted the Council and said he wished to complain. I have not seen evidence of a response. Mr J came to the Ombudsman on Mr F’s behalf.

My findings

26. Mr F applied to be on the housing register in July 2024. The Council did not respond until 9 December 2024, when it asked him for more information. This is delay as five months is far longer than the eight weeks we would normally consider a reasonable timescale to deal with an application. This delay caused Mr F distress.
27. The Council closed the application on 4 February due to a lack of information. When Mr J asked the Council to review this decision, on 9 February, he sent further information which I consider responds to the Council’s request. In response to my enquiries, the Council accepted that Mr F’s initial application had confirmed he did not own any property. It said it needed information about Mr F’s immigration status. But it did not request this on 9 December or 2 January.
28. Although some information may have been missing when the Council initially decided to close the case, my view is the Council had received all the information it had requested by 9 February 2025. In line with the statutory guidance, the Council should have considered all the information it held at that point during the review but it did not do so. This is fault.
29. My view is the reviewer should have made a new decision about Mr F’s housing register application, rather than upholding the decision to close the case on the basis of insufficient information. Its failure to do so was fault. As a result, Mr F’s housing register application has not been properly considered.
30. The Council should now consider the application using all the information provided by Mr F and Mr J. If it decides to place Mr F on the register, it should use 9 February 2025 as the effective date.
31. I note that the Council’s decision letter advises Mr F to challenge the decision by judicial review. This is fault as Mr F can also bring a complaint to the Ombudsman.
32. Mr J twice told the Council that Mr F was “homeless in his own home due to his disability” (on 16 December 2024 and 9 February 2025). That is a reference to the Housing Act 1996, section 175(3) which says a person is legally homeless if it is not reasonable to continue to occupy their home. My view is Mr J’s reference meets the low legal threshold in section 184 that the Council had ‘reason to believe’ the applicant ‘may’ be homeless. My view is the Council therefore had a duty to make homelessness enquiries and give Mr F its decision. It did not do so, which is fault.
33. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had advised Mr F to approach the homelessness team, but a homeless applicant does not have to say they’re homeless, complete a particular form or contact a particular department for a council to have a duty to do inquiries. Whilst councils can suggest alternative solutions in cases of potential homelessness where these would be suitable and acceptable to the applicant, councils must not do this to avoid their legal duties, especially the duty to make inquiries into the applicant’s homelessness. We have criticised councils in the past for ‘gatekeeping’ practices, for example, failing to take a homelessness application at the earliest opportunity.
34. My view is there was a reason to believe Mr F may be homeless in February 2025. The Council’s failure to carry out homeless inquiries is therefore fault. This causes Mr F uncertainty about whether the Council owed him any homelessness duty (including interim accommodation).
35. When we have evidence of fault causing injustice we will seek a remedy for that injustice which aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. When this is not possible, we will normally consider asking for a symbolic payment to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might. Our guidance on remedies says that to reedy uncertainty and distress caused by fault, a moderate symbolic payment may be appropriate.

Back to top

Action

36. Within a month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr F for the delay in dealing with his housing register application, for not considering all the information he had provided when reviewing its housing register decision, and for not making inquiries into whether he may be homeless.
2. Pay him £200 to remedy the uncertainty and distress these faults caused.
3. Consider his housing register application using all the information provided by Mr F and Mr J. If it decides to place Mr F on the register, it should use 9 February 2025 as the effective date.
4. Make inquiries into whether Mr F may be homeless.
37. To prevent future injustice to others, within three months of my final decision, the Council should:
1. Amend its standard review decision letter to reflect that a person may bring their complaint to the Ombudsman.
2. Amend its procedures so that if a person has given reason to believe they may be homeless, this is forwarded to the appropriate colleagues to begin homelessness inquiries.
38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

39. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman