Summary: A Housing Association, acting on behalf of the Council incorrectly accepted, then withdrew Mr C’s application for a property. However, the Council subsequently took appropriate steps in rectifying this error by reinstating the offer. There is therefore no evidence of fault in how it dealt with the matter.

The complaint

1. The complaint, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains about how the Council dealt with his application for housing. Mr C says:
• The Council unfairly refused his application because he was self-employed.
• The Housing Association told him his application had been accepted, only to be told a week later that his application had been refused.
• The Housing Association delayed finalising Mr C’s application, meaning he had to stay in a hotel for 3 nights.

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 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

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint received from Mr C; and
• reviewed and considered information received from the Council; and
• communicated with Mr C about his complaint.
5. I also sent a draft version of this decision to both parties and invited their comments which I subsequently considered before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. The Council operates a scheme providing accommodation for those who live or work in Westminster and want to get on the property ladder by purchasing or renting a property.
7. The website for the scheme explains the eligibility criteria. Applicants must either have lived or work in the area for the last 12 months. For applicants that work in the area, they must spend at least 16 hours of their working week working within Westminster.
8. The application form asks applicants to read all information on the scheme’s website before applying and explains that applicants will need to provide proof of them working or living in Westminster.
9. The application form states that from time to time, discretionary decision may be taken by the Director of Housing.

What happened

10. In August 2019, Mr C completed an application for the scheme. He recorded that although he did not live in Westminster, he had worked there for the last 12 months. Mr C recorded that he had 2 jobs, one of which was a self-employed role.
11. Upon completion of the application, records show Mr C spoke with the Council and said he worked in the area for approximately 20 hours per week. The Council told Mr C he would need to provide evidence to demonstrate this.
12. Mr C provided a letter from his employer, which confirmed his employment with them, but did not show that he worked in the area.
13. Mr C also provided a letter from a professional, whom Mr C says he works for on a self-employed basis. The letter shows that the professional has offices in different areas in London, including Westminster. The letter confirmed that Mr C worked for the professional but did not specify the exact location or the number of hours.
14. The Council contacted Mr C and asked him to provide an amended letter showing the address of the office he worked in, the date he started employment and the number of hours worked in Westminster. The Council explained it could not proceed with his application until this was received.
15. Mr C asked for his application to be put before the Director of Housing for them to make a discretionary decision.
16. The Director of Housing told Mr C that, if he provided information showing his working connection to the area, he would ensure that his application would be proceeded with.
17. Mr C complained. He said he had provided sufficient information and felt he was being discriminated against due to him being self-employed.
18. The Council said it does not consider its requests unreasonable and has a duty to allocate housing in a fair and transparent way. The Council said it does not discriminate against self-employed people but does expect Mr C to prove his connection to the area.
19. The Housing Association, which managed the scheme on behalf of the Council, subsequently contacted Mr C to inform him that his application had been successful. A week later the Housing Association wrote to Mr C to inform him that he had been contacted in error and that they were not able to offer him accommodation.
20. Mr C says this left him at risk of being homeless, as upon being told his application had been successful, he had terminated the tenancy on his current property.
21. The Council subsequently reviewed the case and, in light of the error made by the Housing Association, made the decision that the offer of accommodation should be reinstated.
22. On 27 September, the Housing Association informed him that the offer had been reinstated, subject to reference checks.
23. Mr C continued to communicate with the Housing Association during October. It told him that the referencing checks were under way and advised him not to give notice to his current landlord until he had received an offer.
24. On 31 October, the Housing Association completed its reference checks and the following days Mr C signed a tenancy agreement.

Analysis

25. Mr C feels that he has been discriminated against because he is self-employed. However, I have not seen any evidence that this is the case.
26. The Council had a clear policy in place regarding allocation criteria for the scheme and I do not consider it unreasonable for the Council to require evidence to show that these criteria have been met.
27. Mr C had already provided one letter from the professional he works for, so I do not consider it an unreasonable request for a further letter to be provided, clarifying where he was based and how many hours he worked.
28. Mr C asked for the Director of Housing to consider showing discretion in this case. I am satisfied that this request was considered.
29. The Housing Association subsequently told Mr C his application had been successful. When it became aware that this was an error, it withdrew its offer of accommodation.
30. Whilst this was fault, I am satisfied that the Council rectified this by instructing the Housing Association to reverse its decision and offer Mr C a property.
31. Once this was agreed the Housing Association carried out reference checks, which took approximately 1 month. It made Mr C aware that these checks were taking place and told Mr C that it would not advise someone to terminate their tenancy, until he received a firm offer. Once the reference checks were completed, Mr C received a tenancy agreement the following day.
32. I am satisfied that the Housing Association, which acted on behalf of the Council in this case, communicated appropriately with Mr C, whilst it carried out the necessary checks, and that once these were completed it confirmed his tenancy in a timely manner.
33. The Housing Association were clear that any offer was dependent on the reference checks. Mr C made the decision to terminate his existing tenancy, despite these checks still being underway. I therefore do not find that there is any evidence that the actions of the Housing Association led to Mr C needing to stay in a hotel for 3 nights. Furthermore, I note that there is no evidence that Mr C brought this matter to the attention of the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman