Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s shortlisting process for properties Mr B bid on. The Council tried to prevent Mr B’s eviction and then decided he was not in priority need with regard to his homelessness application. The Council informed him of his right to a review of this decision. This complaint is not upheld.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mr B, complains the Council has not shortlisted him for a property despite him being in bidding queue position 1 and 5, and having disabled priority.
2. Mr B also complains the Council failed to help to prevent his eviction in June 2019.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Mr B’s complaints about shortlisting for properties and prevention of his eviction. The final section of this statement contains my reason for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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

7. I read the papers submitted by Mr B and discussed the complaint with him.
8. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
9. I gave the Council and Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Complaint about shortlisting for a property

10. Mr B complains that the Council has not shortlisted him for a property despite him being in bidding queue position 1 and 5, and having disabled priority.
11. I have looked at the information sent by the Council. The Council has not shortlisted Mr B for a property in the last 2 years. He has never been in bidding queue position 1 and 5 as he suggests, his highest position has been 111 in the queue.
12. The Council says that Mr B’s application has no disabled priority. No medical evidence form has been submitted for his wife since August 2014 and due to Mrs B’s immigration status, her medical reports would not give priority to Mr B’s application. The Council says that Mr B’s disability, a shortened left arm is very unlikely to provide him with any medical priority.
13. I can find no fault in the Council’s shortlisting of Mr B’s bids for properties. His bids do not have enough priority to enable him to bid successfully. Mr B is able to supply further medical evidence to the Council if he wants the Council to consider whether he can be awarded extra priority. Mr B can also supply details of his employment to the Council, if he considers that this may increase his priority.

The Law

14. If someone is homeless, or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, they can seek help from the housing authority. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases.
15. Where the person is actually homeless, the relief duty may apply. This will usually apply if the person is:

• homeless; and
• eligible for assistance (basically, entitled to assistance from the state)

The housing authority will need to carry out an assessment and work with the person to develop a personalised housing plan (PHP).

16. Councils must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
17. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons.  All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)
18. Examples of applicants in priority need are people with dependent children, pregnant women and people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age.

Eviction

19. In May 2019 Mr B was served with a notice of eviction to leave his property on 18 June 2019.
20. The housing officer emailed the housing association, to find out the reasons for eviction and if it could be suspended on 12 June 2019. On 17 June the housing association officer said Mr B was due to be evicted for £3700 in rent arrears and because the lease on the property to the housing association was coming to an end. The Council sent Mr B a personalised housing plan on 12 June.
21. On 14 June 2019 the Council wrote to Mr B with its decision that he was not in priority need.
22. Mr B was again told on 18 June 2019 that he was not in priority need. Mr B was offered a private rental property some distance away, but did not view it as it was a first floor property and he felt his wife could not manage the stairs.
23. The Council wrote to Mr B on 8 July 2019 to say that it had reviewed its decision of 14 June 2019 and decided to withdraw the decision of 14 June for further enquiries to be made.
24. The Council wrote to Mr B on 22 October 2019. This gave the decision that Mr B was eligible for assistance, homeless but not in priority need. The letter said that it had considered whether Mr B was vulnerable as a result of physical disability (his arm), but did not consider it left him vulnerable and unable to care for himself. It also explained that Mrs B had no recourse to public funds and so consideration of her disability could not give priority to Mr B. The letter also explained that Mr B had a right to request a review of the decision.
25. The Council says Mr B was offered a further property, in Dagenham, which he refused and since them, the Council has had no further contact from Mr B.
26. I have looked at all the information. I can find no evidence that the Council did not try to prevent Mr B’s eviction. The Council spoke to the housing association and so I can find no fault on this point.
27. As I explain later in my letter, I do not intend to exercise discretion to look at the Council’s decision on his homeless application. Mr B had the right to request a review of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is not upheld as there is no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

29. I have not investigated Mr B's complaint about the Council’s decision that he was not in priority need because of his disability. Mr B had a right to a review of the Council’s decision of October 2019 and then to pursue the matter in the courts. I consider it reasonable for him to use his right of review, which he had used before on a previous decision and so do not intend to exercise discretion to investigate the Council’s decision of October 2019.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman