Summary: Ms X complained the Council suspended and later closed her housing application without properly considering her circumstances. The Council was at fault for the delays in actioning Ms X’s change of circumstances and then in reviewing its decision on her application. It has already apologised for the frustration this caused and is taking action to prevent the recurrence of such delays. There was no fault in the way the Council reached its decision Ms X no longer qualified for the housing register or in the way it reviewed its decision.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council suspended then closed her housing application without properly considering her circumstances. As a result, Ms X says she has missed the opportunity to be rehoused.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I considered:
• the information Ms X provided, and spoke to her about her complaint;
• the information the Council provided in response to our enquiries; and
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below.
6. I gave the Council and Ms X the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered the comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Housing allocations

7. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  Most councils keep a housing register, which records information about those waiting for housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme.  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
8. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others.

(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

9. 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.

10. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
11. The Ombudsman normally will not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

The Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme

12. To be considered for the Councils housing register, applicants must have a local connection. These means they must have either:
• lived in the borough for five consecutive years;
• worked in the Council’s area and have a housing need such as living in overcrowded circumstances or have a severe social or medical need to live in the area or
• be serving in the regular forces or have served in the regular forces within five years of the application.
13. To qualify as working in the borough, applicants are required to have been working in the borough for 16 hours or more per week for nine out of the last 12 months. ‘Verification will be sought at the point of application and at the point of offer. Applicants must provide payslips, P45 and P60s, tax returns, bank statements and a verifying letter of headed paper from their employer in order to qualify’.
14. The Council assesses the application and places the applicant into one of four bands. Band 1 is the highest priority and Band 4 is the lowest priority. Those with a medical or welfare need receive higher priority depending on the severity of the need.
15. Within each Band applications are prioritised by reference to a priority star system and then by date of registration on the scheme. A priority star is awarded for reasons such as people who need to move on severe medical or severe welfare grounds, to working households, and for applicants who are undertaking voluntary work. Volunteers must have been volunteering for a continuous period of at least six months up to the point of application.
16. The scheme sets out that applicants are required to inform the Council of any changes in circumstances which will affect their housing application. Where there is any change, a change of circumstances form must be completed, and supporting documents must be provided.
17. The scheme sets out a right of review and that the review will be carried out and the decisions and reasons for it will be given to the applicant in writing in 28 days of the request being received.

What happened

18. Ms X joined the Council’s housing register in 2018. She was assessed as living out of the borough with an employment local connection. She was in band three due to overcrowding (she was sleeping in the living room of the property) and had priority stars for employment and volunteering. At the time she lived at address A.
19. In March 2022 she submitted a change in circumstances form requesting medical priority. An assessment from the Council’s medical adviser dated April 22 noted Ms X’s medical conditions but did not consider they were adversely affected by her current accommodation. I have seen no evidence Ms X was advised of this at that time.
20. In June 2022 bid for a Council property. The Council carried out some checks and found Ms X was now living at address B, which was also outside of the borough. She had not updated the Council about her change of address so was no longer considered for the property. The Council suspended her application and advised Ms X to complete a change in circumstances form.
21. Ms X completed the change in circumstances later that month. On the form she stated she was a victim of domestic violence and stalking and did not have her own bedroom at the current property.
22. The Council responded in July and noted she had submitted a change of address form and form for medical priority. It apologised for the time taken to process the changes. The email noted an officer had advised Ms X of her housing options including applying to the Council as homeless, but Ms X did not want to pursue that option.
23. Ms X emailed the Council in August chasing up her application. She provided a bank statement which gave her new address and complained about the Council’s delay. Around this time it appears the Council lifted her suspension.
24. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in early September 2022. It accepted Ms X had not received appropriate and timely responses regarding her application. However, it said the suspension remained until the Council received up to date information from Ms X to determine whether she still qualified to join the housing register. It said her place of work no longer existed so it needed up to date information to determine if she still had an employment connection to the borough. It then needed to assess her housing need at the current address and requested evidence in support of this. It noted she had referred to domestic violence in her application and asked her to provide supporting information so the Council could assess whether she should receive additional priority. The Council then wrote to Ms X separately, setting out the information it required.
25. Ms X provided a copy of a bank statement and phone bill to evidence her change of address. The Council made further enquiries and established Ms X was not currently volunteering so recommended her volunteering priority star be removed.
26. In late September 2022 Ms X came first when she bid for a property. However, the Council had yet to verify her employment status or her circumstances at her current address, so her application was again suspended.
27. In early October 2022 Ms X queried what had happened regarding her bid. An officer advised her application was suspended.
28. In October 2022 Ms X sent the Council:
• a copy of a victim statement and a restraining order which had expired earlier in 2022. This gave her home address as a different address (address C).
• a payslip for her employer, company Y, for August 2022 and a bank statement showing the payment into her account in September 2022.
• a p60 from April 2022 for company Y.
• a letter dated October 2022 from company Y which stated she had worked there since 2018.
• information from her landlord which showed Ms X was sharing a room in a four-bedroom property.
29. The Council had concerns about Ms X’s employment as the address given for company Y no longer existed. (My investigation established the company had moved to a new address, also in the Council’s area, and some documents Ms X provided to the Council showed the old address and some had the new one). It also considered her housing circumstances at her current address required assessing. It referred Ms X’s application to its Fraud and Verification Team.
30. In November 2022 Ms X contacted the Council with concerns her application was repeatedly suspended, reactivated then suspended again. She said she had spoken to an officer in the Fraud and Verification Team at length. Ms X said the police had advised her to be careful about disclosing her address. She said she had provided the information requested and asked that her account be reinstated.
31. The Council responded by letter that day. In summary it said its investigations found she did not work at the workplace stated in her application and was not living at the address originally stated in her application. It said its verification team had recommended her application be removed from the housing allocations scheme. It said it considered she had provided false information so closed her application. It offered her a right of review.
32. It also wrote in November 2022 to advise it did not consider Ms X had a medical requirement for a move and there was no medical reason why the current accommodation was unsuitable.

Review of the decision

33. Ms X wrote to the Council and said her request to go to the welfare panel was ignored. She was a victim of stalking and identity theft and had changed address to protect her identity. The Council responded that it would consider her comments as a review request.
34. The Council wrote to Ms X to request some information as part of the review. It requested:
• an updated risk assessment from the police or letter from a women’s aid charity
• Ms X’s address history for the last 12 months including any time she was sofa surfing.
• tenancy agreement for last 12 months.
• bank statements for last 12 months showing rent payments.
• payslips for last 12 months.
• bank statements for last 12 months showing wages.
• her current employment contract.
• if she was still doing voluntary work, details of this.
35. Ms X provided her address history which showed she left address A in 2018, had lived in three different addresses, then at address C until April 2022. She said she had moved into address B in May 2022 and did not have a tenancy agreement as she was sofa surfing with a friend. She said she had not carried out voluntary work since April 2022 and attached a January 2023 bank statements and December 2022 payslip. She also sent the Council an employment contract for another company, company Z dated November 2022 for 16 hours a week (12pm to 8pm on Saturday and Sunday). Ms X did not supply 12 months of payslips and bank statements or any information from the police or women’s aid charity.
36. The Council sought information from the HMRC. It showed Ms X’s employment at company Y ended in August 2023 and it had no record of her working at company Z.
37. Ms X requested an update on her application in March 2203. The Council responded and requested information regarding her risk of domestic violence. It said she had only provided one bank statement and it needed twelve months. It also needed evidence of her work over the last 12 months.
38. Ms X re-sent the Council her December payslip for company Z and a January bank statement. Later that month she sent the Council payslips for Dec 22 to February 2023 for company Z and payslips for company Y from April to August 2022, plus her P60s from April 2019 and 2020 for company Y. She sent a bank statement for part of February 2023. She asked the Council to reactivate her account.
39. In April 2023 the Council advised her the review was on hold as a manager was away and would be authorised on their return.
40. In May 2023 Ms X asked what else the Council required. It advised it required a risk assessment regarding domestic violence as the restraining order had expired.
41. The Council wrote to Ms X in mid May 2023. It apologised for the significant delay in carrying out the review. It said Ms X had provided a letter from company Y in October 2022 but no contract of employment. She had provided a contract from company Z but no letter and HMRC records did not confirm she worked there. It was not satisfied she met the employment criteria. It said she had not provided all the information it requested.
42. It said payslips from company Y did not include the employer’s address and her national insurance number was incorrect. It said the payslips and bank statements did not match. It said it had no contract for company Y and no letter from company Z. It said company gave a letter saying Ms X worked for them but an internet search showed it was permanently closed.
43. It said a medical assessment found no medical reason for Ms X to live in the borough.
44. It said the restraining order expired in 2022 and the victim statement referred to incidents in 2018. It said the victim statement also referenced her husband but she had made no further mention of him. Ms X had not provided any evidence she was at risk at her current address so it concluded the risk was historic.
45. It said it could not complete the application on the information provided so it would remain closed.
46. In late May 2023 Ms X provided a police letter which referred to the restraining order and the impact on Ms X’s mental health. It said this may be mitigated by her moving area. Ms X re-sent some of the documents she had already supplied. She then supplied further information including her p60 for 2023 from company Z, a payslip for June 2023 and a bank statement showing her pay. Ms X remained unhappy and complained to us. In June 2023 she supplied a letter dated November 2022 from company Z confirming she worked there 16 hours a week.
47. In September 2023 the Council agreed to carry out a discretionary review of Ms X’s application

Second review

48. The Council wrote to Ms X in mid-September 2023 and requested some further information including Oyster card records for evidence of her journey to work, full bank statements from March to September 2023, confirmation of whether she had other employment and of any benefits claimed and copies of bank statements for other accounts. It also asked her to complete an income and expenditure form. Ms X sent a copy of her contract with company Z, a letter dated November 2022 from company Z and payslips for July to September 2023.
49. The Council wrote to Ms X in October 2023 with its review decision. The letter stated that Ms X’s payslips from company Y did not show her or her employer’s address and she did not provide a contract of employment. It said her contract at company Z was for less than 16 hours a week and she had not provided a letter.
50. It said payment dates on payslips and bank statements did not correspond and she had not provided a letter from her current employer. It said information from the HMRC did not confirm she was an employee at company Z and it showed she stopped working at company Y in August 2022.
51. It said payslips from company Y did not show its address and her national insurance number was incorrect. It said a letter from company Y from October 2022 stated she had been employed since January 2018 but her last payslip was dated August 2022.
52. It said information provided from company Z did not include the employer’s name and address as requested. It had also requested information about her commute to work but had not received this. It therefore considered Ms X did not meet the employment criteria.
53. It said the medical review did not make specific property recommendations or recommended medical priority. The Council did not consider Ms X needed to live in the borough to receive medical care. It also considered the risk to Ms X from her ex-partner was historic and the Council had no reason to believe she was at risk at her current address. In addition it set out the other information Ms X had failed to provide in support of her application including her employer’s full name and address and full bank statements. It therefore concluded there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant Ms X’s inclusion on the housing register. It confirmed Ms X was not eligible to join the housing register.

Response to enquiries

54. In response to our enquiries the Council explained it had a backlog of review decisions which it was working through. It had employed an additional officer to help address this. It says it has also provided overtime to officers and has temporarily directed resources to carry out reviews due to the volume of review requests it was receiving. It is also commencing a review of its allocations scheme which will help user understanding of decisions which in turn should reduce review requests.

Findings

55. Ms X had not updated her address with the Council when she bid on a property in June 2022. It therefore stopped considering her for the property. As Ms X’s application was based on overcrowding at her application address and her employment in the borough, the Council needed to confirm she was still eligible to be on the housing allocations scheme. The Council was not at fault for not considering Ms X for the property.
56. When Ms X provided evidence of her new address the Council made her application live again and she came first when she bid for a property. This was fault as the Council had not yet verified Ms X’s employment status or whether she was currently overcrowded. The Council was not at fault for suspending the application again, nor was it at fault for not considering Ms X for the property. However, its error in initially lifting the suspension raised Ms X’s expectation and caused her frustration.
57. Ms X supplied the change in circumstances form in June 2022, but the Council did not request additional information until September 2022. It did not make a decision on her change of circumstances until November 2022. These delays were fault and caused Ms X frustration. However, the Council decided Ms X was not eligible to join the housing register so this did not cause her a significant injustice. It considered the information Ms X provided and explained its decision. There was no evidence of fault in the way it reached the decision on Ms X’s application so I cannot question it.
58. There was a significant delay in the Council completing the review of its decision on Ms X’s application. Ms X requested a review in late November 2022 and Ms X was not notified of the outcome until May 2023. Some of the delay was due to the Council awaiting information from Ms X. However even taking this into account there were delays in the Council’s actions and this was fault which caused Ms X frustration. The Council has already apologised for this delay which was appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. The Council says the delay was due to a backlog in review decisions. It has explained the action it is taking to address the backlog and I am satisfied this is an appropriate way to prevent recurrence of the fault.
59. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
60. The review confirmed the Council’s decision that Ms X was not eligible to join the housing allocations scheme. The Council set out its reasoning in the letter. There was an error in the letter as it said Ms X’s current contract at company Z was for eight hours a week. This was wrong. The contract was for 16 hours. However, even taking this into account, the Council clearly explained how it had reached its view and the information it had taken into account. There was no fault in the way it reached its decision.
61. The Council agreed to carry out a second discretionary review of its decision after Ms X complained to us and she provided it with further information. The Council is not satisfied the evidence Ms X provided is sufficient to show she meets the employment criteria for inclusion on the housing register. It also explained why it considered she did not need to live in the borough for medical care and why it considered any risk to her of domestic violence was historic. The Council set out its consideration of the evidence she provided and its reasoning. It has followed its housing allocations scheme in reaching its decision. Ms X has not provided all the information the Council requested. The Council was not at fault in the way it reached its decision so I cannot question whether it was right or wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

62. I have completed my investigation. There was fault causing injustice which the Council has already remedied.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman