Summary: A woman complained that the Council had delayed unreasonably in processing her housing register application and unfairly decided she is intentionally homeless. But we will not investigate these matters. This is because any fault by the Council regarding the woman’s housing register application has not caused her an injustice to warrant our involvement. In addition, she has separate review and appeal rights she can use to dispute the Council’s homelessness decision.

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Miss C provided with her complaint and her comments in response to a draft of this decision. I also took account of information from the Council about Miss C’s housing case.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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 accordance with the authority’s published scheme.
6. But the law also gives authorities considerable freedom about what policies to include in their scheme. This includes the freedom to make changes to a scheme, even if that means some existing applicants will be disadvantaged as a result.
7. Normally we will not find fault with an authority’s assessment of an applicant’s eligibility and priority for rehousing if it has carried this out in line with its published scheme.
8. Miss C is unhappy with the Council’s recent decision that she does not qualify for its housing register. But I do not see any fault by it in this respect.
9. In particular, the Council introduced a new Allocation Scheme earlier this year which changed the residency requirement for applicants from two to three years. Miss C is excluded by this new rule as she has only been living in the area for around two and a half years. In addition, although applicants owed a homelessness duty by the Council do not have to meet the residency requirement, this exception no longer applies to Miss C as the Council has just ended its duty in her case.
10. The Council accepted some fault on its part in its response to Miss C’s complaint. In particular the Council acknowledged its online application portal was unavailable for almost two months so Miss C could not amend her application. It also recognised that the information it gave Miss C about this matter was unclear.
11. But Miss C feels the Council has still not recognised the full extent of what it has done wrong in her case. In particular Miss C remains unhappy that the Council asked her to again provide documents she says she previously submitted, and that its delays have meant she missed out on having her application approved under its previous Allocation Policy.
12. However, even if there was some other fault by the Council as Miss C suggests, I am not convinced we could say she had suffered a significant lasting injustice as a result which would justify us pursuing matters in her case.
13. Miss C has evidently been inconvenienced and put to some unnecessary trouble in pursuing her application issues with the Council. But I do not see that any delay in processing the application has made any substantive difference to her chances of obtaining an offer of social housing. In particular, I understand priority applicants may have to wait many years for an offer of two or three-bed properties. So even if Miss C’s application had been approved and she was able to bid for properties at an earlier stage, I consider it highly unlikely she would have qualified for an offer by the time the Council introduced its new Allocation Scheme.

Homelessness decision

14. The Housing Act 1996 (“the Act”) says councils have a legal duty to secure accommodation for homeless people who are eligible, have a priority need, and are not intentionally homeless. The Act also gives homeless applicants a right of review about councils’ main decisions on their homelessness application, including a decision that someone is intentionally homeless. If an applicant wants to dispute a negative review decision they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.
15. Miss C has asked the Council to review its intentional homelessness decision in her case and it is currently considering this matter. But if the Council upholds its decision following the review Miss C would then have had a right of appeal to the county court if there is a point of law at issue.
16. However, the law says we normally cannot investigate a complaint where someone could take the matter to court. I see no reason why Miss C should not be expected to use her court appeal rights if that proves necessary.
17. I should add that, unlike the courts, we have no powers to overturn homelessness decisions or make rulings on points of law. So I consider we cannot achieve the outcome Miss C is seeking in this respect.
18. In the circumstances I have concluded that we should not investigate Miss C’s complaint about the Council’s intentional homelessness decision in her case.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Miss C’s complaints about the way the Council has dealt with her housing register application and its decision regarding her homelessness application. This is because Miss C has not suffered a significant lasting injustice as a result of fault by the Council concerning her housing register application. In addition, Miss C has statutory review and appeal rights she can use to challenge the Council’s homelessness decision in her case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman