Summary: Mr X complains the Council is acting unreasonably by saying he does not qualify for its housing register on residence grounds as it was responsible for him moving out of the Borough in 2016. There is no evidence the Council placed Mr X out of the Borough in 2016.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council is acting unreasonably by saying he does not qualify for its housing register on residence grounds as it was responsible for moving him out of the Borough in 2016. He also complains the Council failed to notify him it had closed his homelessness case made in November 2018.
2. Mr X says these issues mean he is not in secure accommodation.

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 the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X says he approached the Council for help with housing in May 2016 after he was evicted from his mother’s home. Mr X told me the Council placed him in temporary accommodation out of the borough and he lived there for a year.
7. Mr X says he approached the Council again in September 2017. He says the Council would not accept him on its housing register because he had not been resident in the Borough for the past three years. Mr X says he has living in Croydon all his life except for the period from May 2016 when the Council placed him outside the borough.
8. In November 2018, Mr X again approached the Council for help with housing. The Council took a homelessness application as Mr X explained he might have to move out of his parents’ home. The Council considered his application and made a decision on 22 January 2019.
9. The decision letter said the Council did not consider he was homeless or threatened with homelessness. It took this view after speaking with Mr X’s mother. It said that in any family there can be tension and rows and it did not believe his mother now intended to carry out the threat to make him homeless. The letter explained the other help the Council could provide regarding him finding his own property. It also gave him details of how to request a review of that decision.
10. Mr X says he did not receive this letter. A file note dated 13 February shows the Council attempted to contact Mr X regarding the decision but got no answer on the phone. It confirms the decision letter had been posted and also emailed to Mr X.
11. Mr X made a further application to join the housing register in September 2019. The Council says the address information provided by Mr X on his application did not meet the three year residency requirement. It suggests that this may be because Mr X has not filled in the form correctly as there is some overlap between address.
12. In December 2019, Mr X approached the Council again as homeless as his parents were evicting him. In January 2020, the Council provided Mr X with emergency accommodation while it considers his homeless application. Any concerns Mr X has about his current housing situation have not been considered as part of this complaint.

Analysis

13. Mr X complains that he cannot join the housing register because he does not meet the three year residency criteria. The Council’s allocations policy says you must have lived in Croydon for at least three years before you can go on the housing register.
14. Mr X believed that in April 2016 the Council placed him in a property outside Croydon. He says he had no choice as this was the only property offered to him. In response to my enquiries the Council says it did not place Mr X in accommodation in May 2016. It says it has no records and so is unable to provide any comments on this. Mr X says he does not have any documents which show the Council placed him in the accommodation in May 2016.
15. Mr X has not lived in Croydon for the last three years before his application in September 2019. As there is no evidence to show the Council placed Mr X in accommodation outside the borough, I cannot say there is fault in the decision not to allow him on the housing register. If Mr X moved back into Croydon in April 2017 and has lived in the borough continuously since then, he will soon meet the residency criteria if he applies to join the housing register. However, this is only one criteria and there may be other reasons he does not qualify.
16. Mr X also complains he was not told the Council had closed his homelessness case in November 2018. The information provided to me shows the Council took a homelessness application in November 2018 and made a decision in January 2019. Mr X did contact the Council in February 2019 about its decision which suggests he had not seen the decision letter when he phoned. The Council says it posted a copy of the decision letter as well as providing a copy by email.
17. On the basis of the information I have seen I am satisfied the Council did make a decision on Mr X’s homelessness application in January 2019 and that it did communicate this to Mr X. I cannot explain why Mr X did not see either the letter or email that was sent to him but I cannot conclude there is fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman