Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly rejected his application to join the housing register and discriminated against him on the grounds of his race and disability. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered Mr X’s requests to join the housing register.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X complained the Council wrongly rejected his application to join the housing register without asking him for relevant information. He asserts the Council has discriminated against him on the grounds of his race and disability.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I have
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided; and
• Mr X 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

5. Mr X applied to join the housing register in September 2022. In the application form Mr X stated he was street homeless, and that he had been diagnosed with a mental health condition and needed support.
6. The Council considered his application and in October 2022 advised Mr X he was not eligible to join the register as he had not provided evidence he had a local connection to the borough. The Council also noted Mr X had not provided evidence of his right to remain in the UK. It had therefore cancelled his application. The Council’s letter also informed Mr X of his right to request a review of this decision.
7. Mr X requested a review the same day. He said he had been residing in the borough for over six months as street homeless and that he did not have a local connection to anywhere else in the country. Mr X complained the Council had deliberately disregarded this information in reaching its decision. Mr X was also unhappy the Council had assumed he did not have a right to reside in the UK and had not asked for information about his status. He considered the Council’s failure to request information and its decision not to allow him to join the register, based on assumptions, was wrong, unlawful, and discriminatory.
8. He told the Council he was disabled, vulnerable and had been street homeless for a long time and that its actions had affected his physical and mental health. Mr X said that if it did not take action before five o’clock he would take his own life and leave a letter seeking action against the Council for racism.
9. The Council provided Mr X with details of mental health crisis support resources and asked for details of his whereabouts so that the outreach and support team could assist him with his homelessness. The Council also asked Mr X to provide his Home Office code to confirm his status and eligibility.
10. Given the nature of Mr X’s emails and the threats to take his own life the Council also contacted the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) to confirm whether Mr X or his wife were known to them and could be supported.
11. There is no record of Mr X responding until 9 November 2022 when he chased the Council for a response to his review request and again advised he would harm himself. The Council reiterated its advice about locally available mental health crisis support and again asked Mr X to confirm where he was sleeping rough so that it could provide support. It also repeated its request for his Home Office code.
12. Mr X responded the same day and asked for his correspondence to be treated as a formal complaint. He asked the Council to complete the review within the next 24 hours. Mr X asserted he was subject to racial and disability discrimination by the Council as it had made assumptions about him to deliberately disallow his application to join the housing register. He said the Council had failed to make any contact to safeguard him and deliberately and persistently neglected him.
13. The Council completed its review and wrote to Mr X on 9 December 2022. The Council referred to its allocation policy which stated that applicants who did not have settled accommodation or who were of no fixed abode needed to provide satisfactory evidence of their local connection to qualify to join the housing register. Applicants who could not provide evidence of a qualifying local connection would be excluded from the register.
14. The Council did not accept it had disregarded information about Mr X being street homeless. In assessing his application to join the housing register the Council said it had contacted the homelessness prevention team to arrange a homelessness assessment. It suggested that had Mr X cooperated with this assessment the outreach service would have been able to verify his local connection.
15. In addition the Council told Mr X that not having a local connection elsewhere does not in itself qualify an applicant for the housing register. The Council confirmed its decision that Mr X did not qualify for the housing register on local connection grounds.
16. The Council acknowledged it was likely Mr X’s status as an EU National would mean his is eligible to join the register. But he had not provided sufficient evidence of this. It noted Mr X had provided a copy of a letter from the Home Office showing he had been granted settled status. But that this letter also expressly said it was not proof of Mr X’s status. Instead, a secure record of Mr X’s status was held on line.
17. The Council did not accept it had dealt with Mr X’s application in a way that was discriminatory or otherwise incorrect. It concluded Mr X did not currently qualify for the register as he has not provided evidence of a local connection and the evidence of his settled status was incomplete. The Council confirmed it could reconsider the decision if Mr X used the online service to prove his immigration status and provided details of where he was rough sleeping. This would allow the outreach service to verify his situation and help to resolve his homelessness. The Council advised that even if Mr X was accepted onto the housing register it was likely to take a few years to be allocated a social housing property.
18. Within this letter the Council also confirmed it could not accept Mr X’s complaint as it was satisfied the correct processes were followed when it considered Mr X’s application.
19. Mr X did not accept the Council’s position and questioned how the Council could complete a review without asking him to provide the necessary documents. He again asserted the Council had discriminated against him based on his race and disability and said he would now take his life.
20. In January 2023 the Council advised it could not escalate Mr X’s complaint on grounds of racial discrimination. It confirmed the correct policies and procedures had been followed in assessing housing application. The Council also confirmed it would be happy to support Mr X but would need him to provide the information requested.
21. The Council also provided Mr X with a mental health social worker’s details and suggested he contact them for advice and support.
22. Mr X provided the Council with his Home Office code to confirm his status. The Council carried out an immigration status check the same day and advised Mr X it still needed details of his whereabouts. It also encouraged Mr X to contact the mental health social worker. Mr X responded immediately to say he did not have a fixed place but moved around. The Council advised that if Mr X confirmed where he was currently and likely to be that night and the next day it would try to get help and support to him. Mr X has not provided the Council with details of where he was/is staying.
23. In response to my enquiries the Council says it has offered a number of times by both email and in the review letter to provide Mr X with homelessness assistance via its outreach service. However, Mr X has not taken up these offers.

Analysis

24. The Council’s housing allocation scheme sets out the requirements for joining the housing register, these include having a right to live in the UK and having a local connection to the borough. To establish a local connection applicants must, as a minimum, have lived in the borough for six of the last 12 months or have a permanent job in the borough. Where applicants have no settled address, or are of no fixed abode they will need to provide satisfactory evidence of their local connection to join the register. Applicants who cannot provide evidence of a qualifying local connection are not eligible to join the register.
25. Mr X applied to join the housing register via the Council’s website. The web page asks all applicants to fill out the online form and upload documents confirming:
• Proof of their identity;
• Proof of their current address; and
• Evidence of their right to live in the UK if they are not a British citizen, for example a passport and relevant Home Office documentation.
26. In completing the online application form Mr X confirmed he had no fixed abode, that neither he nor his partner worked in the borough and that they did not have any close relatives living in the borough. Based on Mr X’s answers the online form notified Mr X that he could continue completing the application, but if he could not demonstrate a local connection through residence, employment, or close family in the borough he may not qualify for the housing register. The records show Mr X acknowledged this and wanted to continue anyway.
27. Mr X incorrectly indicated on the form that he is a UK or Irish national. He provided a copy of his passport as proof of his identity which showed he was not a UK national.
28. Based on the information Mr X provided the Council determined he did not meet the local connection criteria to join the housing register. It also noted he had not provided evidence of his right to remain in the UK. This decision is in line with its allocation scheme and although Mr X disagrees, is one the Council was entitled to make.
29. In requesting a review of this decision Mr X provided a copy of a letter from the Home Office confirming he had been granted Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK. As this letter expressly states it is not proof of Mr X’s status and cannot be used as proof of status the Council asked for further evidence. Mr X asserts the Council was wrong to question his right to remain in the UK and that its actions were discriminatory. I am not persuaded this is the case. The Council is required to check the eligibility of applicants for the housing register, including requesting evidence of their immigration status. Mr X has now provided his Home Office code and the Council has confirmed his status.
30. Unfortunately this does not in itself mean he can join the housing register as he has still not established a local connection. Mr X maintains he has lived in the borough long enough to satisfy the local connection requirement but as he has no fixed abode he is unable to evidence this. He asserts the Council has treated him unfairly in requesting documentation he cannot provide. However the records show the Council has repeatedly asked Mr X to confirm his whereabouts so that its outreach service can verify this and provide homelessness advice and support. Mr X has not provided details of where he has been staying or engaged with the homelessness outreach service.
31. As a result the Council has been unable to establish a local connection which would allow Mr X to join the housing register or to provide homelessness support. I recognise this is disappointing for Mr X, but it is not due to fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

32. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered Mr X’s requests to join the housing register.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman