Summary: Mr X complained the Council suspended his housing application without considering all the information. He said this caused him to miss out on a suitable property. We found fault with the Council for reaching a decision contrary to its policy. We consider this to have caused Mr X uncertainty and distress but do not consider he missed out on a suitable property.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council incorrectly removed him from the housing register. He said this meant that he missed out on a suitable property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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. I considered Mr X’s complaint and the information provided by him.
5. I also considered the Council’s housing allocation policy, review decision and response to my enquiries.
6. 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

The law and guidance

The published scheme

7. 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 strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))

Decisions and review rights

8. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:
• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
9. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
10. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

Review procedures

11. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:
• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

The Council Housing Allocations Policy – unreasonable behaviour

12. The allocations policy includes a section on unreasonable behaviour. It provides examples of what it would consider as unreasonable behaviour in the context of deciding a housing register application.
13. The list includes ‘Perpetrators of domestic abuse who are subject to a non-molestation order, an injunction order, an occupation order or a restraining order, which is in force at the date an application is being determined’.
14. The policy goes on to state that cases will be considered on an individual basis and when reaching a decision to refuse a registration because of unacceptable or anti-social behaviour. It highlights that all reasonable and relevant factors will be considered before making any decision.

What happened

Housing register application

15. Mr X applied for the housing register. The Council placed him in Band B – High Housing Need and provisionally awarded him a three-bedroom need.
16. A week later, the Council suspended Mr X’s application. This was due to queries arising over child benefit for his children. Mr X had not provided proof of child benefit so there was no proof of him having a three-bedroom need.
17. Five days later, the Council cancelled Mr X’s application due to him being found ineligible as he had a non-molestation order against him. Mr X immediately requested a review of the cancellation.

Housing review request

18. Mr X said the Council removed him from the register as soon as he mentioned the non-molestation order without any chance for him to explain the situation. He said that if the Council has properly considered all the information before reaching a decision, it would have seen that it was unlikely that he was a perpetrator.
19. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s request for a review and said it would respond within 8 weeks. It asked Mr X to provide any supporting information.
20. Once the deadline had passed, the Council acknowledged that it had mistakenly recorded the wrong date for Mr X’s review, it apologised to Mr X and agreed an extension.
21. 10 weeks after Mr X’s review request, the Council completed a review of its decision to remove him from the register. The Council overturned the cancellation and reinstated Mr X’s application with immediate effect. The Council said it would be seeking to implement further training of housing register assessors going forward.
22. The Council placed him back in Band B – High Housing Need with his original effective date. The Council said at this time, Mr X had a verified one-bedroom need as he had not provided proof of child benefit.
23. A few days later, Mr X provided proof of child benefit for some of his children. The Council reassessed him and awarded him a two-bedroom need. Mr X explained that the claim for child benefit for his other children was under dispute at the time, so he was not in receipt of it.
24. The Council said it discussed with Mr X that once this was resolved and the child benefit proofs were provided, he would be eligible for a three-bedroom need. Mr X was satisfied with this and confirmed he would not bid on any properties until his three-bedroom need was reinstated.

Property bids

25. Mr X said that during the period that his housing application was suspended, he missed out on a property that would have been right for his family.
26. The Council said this three-bedroom property was advertised during the period his application was suspended. The Council said that even if it had not been for the cancellation, there was still a query over child benefit proofs so Mr X would not have been eligible to bid on a three-bedroom property.
27. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided a list of all the two-bedroom properties that were available during the period that Mr X’s application was suspended. This list showed the banding award, effective date and the shortlist position of the nominated household. It also provided a map showing the location of all the properties and Mr X’s preferred areas.
28. Only one property fell into Mr X’s preferred areas. The nominated household would have had a lower banding, effective date and shortlist position than Mr X if his application had not been suspended. Therefore, if Mr X was able to bid, he would have likely been successful. However, given that it was only a two-bedroom property, on balance, Mr X would not have bid on it even if he were able to.

My findings

29. The Council acknowledged that it was at fault when it decided to cancel Mr X’s housing application. It should have considered all the available information and not just that Mr X had a non-molestation order against him. Had it not been for this fault, Mr X would not have been removed from the register.
30. The Council also delayed Mr X’s review request due to an error with dates. These mistakes meant that Mr X’s housing application was suspended for 10 weeks in total. During this time, Mr X experienced uncertainty and distress.
31. I do not consider the Council’s mistake to have caused Mr X to miss out on a suitable property for his family.
32. Following the review, the Council reinstated Mr X’s place on the housing register in the same position he would have been had it not been for the fault. The Council also said it was going to offer further officer training.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. Within 4 weeks of my decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr X for incorrectly cancelling his housing application.
2. Pay Mr X £300 for the distress caused by the uncertainty of his housing situation.
3. Provide evidence of the training provided to housing register officers.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault for cancelling Mr X’s housing register application before considering all the available information. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice this caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman