Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to advise her of changes to its housing allocation scheme in 2015, which affected her eligibility. Mrs X also complains that the Council failed to provide assistance when she completed an online homeless prevention form in June 2018. The Council’s failure to notify Mrs X when she no longer qualified for the allocation scheme and its failure to provide homeless advice and assistance amounts to fault. The Council has provided an appropriate remedy for these faults.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X complains the Council failed to advise her of changes to its housing allocation scheme in 2015, which affected her eligibility. Mrs X complains that under the revised policy her application was disqualified in January 2017, but the Council did not remove her from the housing register or inform her she was no longer eligible until February 2018 when she updated her details.
2. Mrs X also complains that the Council failed to provide assistance when she completed an online homeless prevention form in May/ June 2018.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mrs X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• sent a statement setting out my draft decision to Mrs X and the Council and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. In 2016 the Council introduced a new allocations scheme. The new scheme made a significant number of changes which the Council anticipated could affect more than 20,000 of the 30,000 current applicants on the waiting list.
7. The Council wrote to all applicants between August and November 2015 to inform them of the changes and to encourage them to ensure their application details were up to date. The Council also wrote to all applicants in January 2016 to explain whether they were still on the housing register.
8. The changes introduced in the new scheme included a requirement that applicants have lived in Camden for five out of the last seven years. One exception to this requirement was that people who had moved to another borough under the private rented scheme were entitled to remain on the scheme for three years after their move, even if they did not meet the residency requirement.

Homelessness prevention

9. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking from assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018, they are likely to become homeless within 56 days.
10. Councils must provide anyone in their district with information and advice free of charge on:

• preventing homelessness;
• securing accommodation when homeless;
• the rights of people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the duties of the authority;
• any help that is available from the authority or anyone else, for people in the council’s district who are homeless or may become homeless (whether or not they are threatened with homelessness), and
• how to access that help.

11. In addition councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation.

What happened here

12. Mrs X applied to join the Council’s housing allocation scheme in 2011. The Council’s homeless prevention service secured Mrs X a tenancy in a neighbouring borough in 2012. Mrs X subsequently left this property and in 2013 asked the Council for assistance in finding accommodation. The Council secured a tenancy for Mrs X in another neighbouring borough in December 2013.
13. The Council’s housing application scheme requires applicants to keep the information on their applications up to date, this includes adding family members and any changes of address. The Council states Mrs X did not update her application with her new address. An officer updated Mrs X’s details in January 2014.
14. On 26 August 2015 the Council wrote to Mrs X asking her to update her housing application so it could assess who should be on the new housing register. Mrs X states she did not receive this letter and was unaware of the changes in the new allocation scheme. Mrs X updated her application on 28 August 2015 to include details of her baby.
15. The Council wrote to Mrs X in October 2015 to advise it was likely she would qualify for the new scheme. In January 2016 the Council notified Mrs X she qualified for the allocation scheme. The Council did not refer to the residency criteria or explain that Mrs X’s eligibility for the housing list would expire In January 2017. The Council did not remove Mrs X from the housing waiting list in January 2017, nor did it notify Mrs X she no longer qualified for the scheme.
16. Mrs X updated her application on 3 February 2018. On 18 February 2018 the Council advised Mrs X she no longer qualified for the scheme. Mrs X asked the Council to review this decision. The Council confirmed Mrs X did not meet the residency requirement of the allocations policy and so did not qualify to be on the housing register.
17. Mrs X asked for a further review of this decision. She asserted she were unaware of the change in policy in 2016. Mrs X felt they had been disadvantaged as had they known, they would have applied to join the housing register in the borough where they were living and could have been bidding on properties.
18. The Council’s response noted it wrote to all applicants in August 2015 advising them to update their application in readiness for the new scheme. It stated the changes to the allocation scheme were heavily advertised and it was Mrs X’s responsibility to find out how the changes affected her.
19. The Council noted Mrs X moved to her current property in December 2013 so she should have lost her residence qualification and been removed from the register in December 2016. It states Mrs X’s address was incorrectly created as a local address, so she stayed on the register in error. The Council identified the error in February 2018 and closed her application. The review confirmed Mrs X did not qualify for the housing register.
20. At the end of May 2018 Mrs X contacted the Council’s homeless prevention service as her landlord had asked her to leave her current property. Mrs X contacted the Council again at the beginning of June 2018 as her landlord had now served a formal notice requiring her to leave the property. Mrs X completed an online homeless prevention form but there is no evidence the Council provided any advice or assistance. The Council closed the case on 22 August 2018 without contacting Mrs X.
21. Mrs X made a formal complaint that the Council had failed to inform her about the changes to the Council’s housing allocations scheme. In its response the Council stated its records showed it wrote to Mrs X on 26 August 2015 advising her to update her application in advance of the new scheme. It considered it probable that Mrs X received this letter as she updated her application on 28 August 2018.
22. In relation to the delay in notifying Mrs X she no longer qualified for the scheme, the Council stated the officer who updated her application in 2014 failed to note her address was outside Camden. The Council states that where applicants update their applications online the database automatically determines whether the address is in Camden. However, when an officer updates the records manually the database automatically assumes the address is in Camden. This error is the reason the Council did not notify Mrs X that her application was disqualified in January 2017.
23. The Council also acknowledged that Mrs X had completed an online homeless prevention form, which the Council has uploaded onto its database, but had not taken any action. It noted Mrs X had moved to another property in a different area as she could not find affordable privately rented accommodation locally.
24. The Council concluded there were two errors in its work on Mrs X’s case. Firstly, it should have identified Mrs X’s address as ‘non-local’ in 2014. If it had, it would have notified Mrs X she did not qualify for the housing register sooner. Secondly, the Council had failed to respond to Mrs X’s request for housing assistance in May 2018. The Council apologised for these errors.
25. In addition, the Council noted the borough where Mrs X had been living also had a residency requirement. The Council suggested that even if it had notified Mrs X sooner that she did not qualify for its housing scheme, she would not have qualified for the other borough’s scheme. The Council also suggested that it was the local authority where Mrs X lived that had a duty to prevent or relieve her homelessness in May/ June 2018. The Council accepted it should have made a referral to this authority but did not. However, it did not consider the outcome would have been any different but for this failure. Most local authorities meet their homeless duties with offers of private rented accommodation similar to that which Mrs X had found.
26. Mrs X was not happy with the Council’s response and asked for her complaint to be considered further. Mrs X reiterated that she was not aware of the new allocation scheme until 2018. She also questioned the Council’s suggestion that the local authority where she lived would have been responsible for providing homeless advice and assistance. Mrs X did not consider an apology was sufficient to remedy the Council’s failings. The Council reviewed Mrs X’s complaint and again acknowledged there were mistakes in processing her housing application, which the Council had apologised for. It did not offer any further remedy.
27. As Mrs X remains dissatisfied, she has asked the Ombudsman to investigate her concerns. In response to my enquiries the Council states it is obliged to apply its allocation scheme so the decisions taken on Mrs X’s application were unavoidable. It believes it contacted Mrs X about the changes to the scheme on 26 August 2015. The Council states it sent reminders and texts to applicants it held these contact details for and that it held these details for Mrs X.
28. In relation to Mrs X’s request for assistance in May/ June 2018, the Council states there are no records of any contact by homeless prevention officers between 1 June and 22 August 2018 when it closed the file. Officers should have asked to see a copy of the notice, to assess its validity. They should also have spoken to the landlord to see whether there was any prospect of sustaining the tenancy. The Council states it is not clear what the outcome of these enquiries would have been. But if officers had not been able to prevent Mrs X’s homelessness in this way, it is likely they would have referred Mrs X to the local authority where she lived for homeless relief.
29. Mrs X has responded to the draft decision and maintains she was not told about the amendments to the allocation scheme in 2015/ 2016. She also reiterates that the Council did not inform her in January mn016 that her eligibility for the housing register would end in December 2016/ January 2017.
30. Mrs X asserts the Council should have exercised discretion to allow her to remain on the housing register.

Analysis

31. The Council has not upheld all of Mrs X’s complaints but accepts there were failings in the way it dealt with her housing application and her request for assistance.
32. The Council maintains it wrote to Mrs X in August 2015 and asked her to update her application in anticipation of the new scheme. It considers it likely that Mrs X received this letter as she updated her application two days later. Mrs X disputes receiving the letter or that the letter prompted her to update her application. The Council had a clear communications plan for the implementation of the new scheme, which included writing to all applicants on the housing waiting lists. I therefore consider it more likely than not that the Council wrote to Mrs X in August 2015. But I am unable to establish whether Mrs X received this letter.
33. In any event Mrs X updated her application in August 2015. The Council’s online update form had a text alert message which informed users of the upcoming changes to the allocation scheme. There was also a link for further information. Even if Mrs X did not receive the letter, this should have put her on notice of the new scheme. I also note that the Council wrote to Mrs X in September 2015 and January 2016 in relation to the new scheme. I am satisfied on balance that the Council notified Mrs X of the new scheme.
34. However, I consider the failure to notify her in January 2017 that she no longer qualified for the housing register to be fault. I also consider it would have been beneficial if the Council had notified Mrs X in January 2016, when it confirmed she still qualified for the register, that this was time limited.
35. The Council’s failure to respond to Mrs X’s request for assistance in May/ June 2018 also amounts to fault. The Council accepts it should have made enquiries and attempted to prevent Mrs X becoming homeless, but it did not.
36. Having identified fault, I must consider whether this has caused Mrs X an injustice. Mrs X believes she has been significantly disadvantaged by the Council’s failings. She asserts that had she been aware she did not qualify for the allocation scheme in 2017 she would have joined the scheme in the borough where she lived. As she had lived in that borough for three years, she believed she would have been able to bid on properties. Mrs X also asserts that the Council’s failure to assist her in June 2018 meant she was unable to find accommodation locally and had to move to another area. Mrs X does not wish to remain in this area and wants to return to Camden.
37. The allocation scheme for the borough Mrs X lived in in 2017 also has a residency requirement. It requires applicants to have lived in the borough continuously for the last five years to be eligible to bid for social housing. Mrs X moved to the borough in December 2013 so would not have met this requirement.
38. I cannot speculate on whether Mrs X’s landlord would have allowed her to remain at the property if the Council had contacted them in June 2018. Nor can I speculate on whether the Council or neighbouring authority would have been able to assist Mrs X in finding alternative accommodation locally. Mrs X’s is unhappy that she could not find affordable privately rented accommodation locally. But it is likely the Council would have experienced similar difficulties. The Council has previously secured two tenancies for Mrs X, but neither were in Camden.
39. I recognise that the Council’s failings will have caused Mrs X annoyance and frustration, but I do not consider they have caused a significant injustice. I consider an apology to be an appropriate remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

40. The Council's failure to notify Mrs X when she no longer qualified for the allocation scheme and its failure to provide homeless advice and assistance amounts to fault. The Council has provided an appropriate remedy for these faults.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman