Summary: Ms X complains, on behalf of her father, Mr Y, about the Council’s decision not to award Mr Y a local connection regarding his housing register application and homelessness application. Mr Y is a former member of the Armed Forces. We do not find the Council at fault in its first decision not to award Mr Y a local connection for his homelessness application. But, we find the Council failed to arrange suitable accommodation for Mr Y when it accepted a second application from him. We also find the Council failed to award Mr Y an exemption from its housing register local connection criteria (based on his time since retiring from the Armed Forces). Because of this fault, we find the Council failed to have due regard to its commitments under the Armed Forces Covenant. This fault caused Mr Y and Ms X an injustice. To remedy the injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr Y and Ms X, make them several payments and certain service improvements.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to here as Ms X, complains on behalf of her father, Mr Y, that the Council:
1. failed to correctly handle Mr Y’s homelessness applications. More specifically, she complains the Council decided to refer Mr Y to a different Council;
2. failed to award Mr Y a local connection so that he could join the Council’s housing register and bid on properties. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of the housing register application, and says the Council failed to award Mr Y a local connection until 16 September 2021, which she says was not fair;
3. provided incorrect advice about the Armed Forces Covenant; and,
4. decided Mr Y’s housing register application needed to be considered by its Welfare Panel.
2. Ms X says Mr Y had to sleep on her sofa between February and December 2021. She says this impacted his recovery from a significant health condition as well as his emotional wellbeing.
3. Ms X said Mr Y missed the opportunity to bid on suitable properties due to the Council’s handling of his housing register application.
4. Ms X says she went to time and trouble trying to get the Council to listen to her requests that the Armed Forces Covenant applied to Mr Y’s application. She says she felt ignored by the Council because of this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
7. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
8. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
9. 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

10. I spoke with Ms X about her complaint. I considered all the information and documents that Ms X and the Council sent to me.
11. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my first and then second revised draft decision. I considered all comments before making a final decision.

Homelessness applications: law and statutory guidance

12. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
13. Part 7 sets out three key housing duties for councils:

• the prevention duty: if councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation.
• the relief duty: where the council is satisfied an applicant is homeless (rather than threatened with homelessness) and eligible for assistance, it must take reasonable steps to help the applicant secure accommodation that will be available for at least six months. The exception to this duty is when the council makes a local connection referral (see below).

At the relief stage, councils must arrange “interim accommodation” as soon as they have reason to believe an applicant may be eligible, homeless and in priority need. This is a low threshold.

• the main housing duty: if a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. Like with the relief duty, the exception to this is when the council makes a local connection referral.

Once the council accepts the main housing duty it must secure that suitable accommodation is available for occupation by the applicant and their household. We refer to this as “temporary accommodation”. There is no duty on councils under Part 7 to provide a permanent secure or assured tenancy.

Priority need

14. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age
• a person who is vulnerable as a result of having been a member of His Majesty’s regular naval, military or air forces (veterans).

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

15. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness.
16. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

Local connection requirements in homelessness applications

17. An applicant can apply to any council they choose to. It is unlawful for a council to refuse to accept an application based on the applicant having no local connection.
18. Councils can make inquiries into whether a person has a local connection to the council area they have applied to. But, this can only be done at the relief duty stage or main housing duty stage.
19. A person may have a local connection based on:

• normal residency: a suggested working definition of normal residence is residence for at least six months in an area during the previous 12 months, or for three years during the previous five year period
• employment.
• family association: this may include, amongst others, partners, adult children or siblings. The Homelessness Code of Guidance recommends: “the family members relied upon as family associations should have been resident in the district for a period of at least five years at the date of application from homelessness assistance.” (emphasis added)
• special circumstances
• leaving care

20. Serving and former serving members of the armed forces may establish a local connection in an area through normal residency, or being employed there, in the same way as a civilian. Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, section 315 

Referrals to another council at the relief stage

21. A council (the notifying council) can refer an applicant to another council (the notified council) in certain circumstances. Referrals by councils are discretionary only; councils are not required to make referrals.
22. The process for making a referral depends on whether it is a referral at the relief stage or the main housing duty stage.
23. At the relief stage, the notifying council must be satisfied that the applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance and therefore owed the relief duty. The notifying council must also be satisfied that any of the following three conditions are met:

• the applicant has no local connection and a connection with the second council
• the application is made up to five years after an out of borough placement
• the application is made within the two years after a private rented sector offer by the notified authority

Housing Act 1996, as amended by Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, section 198

24. When the notifying council intends to refer or has referred a case to another council, there are two points at which it must notify the applicant:
1. when the notifying council has decided that the conditions for referral are met and intends to notify, or has notified, another council of this
2. when, following a referral, it has been decided that the conditions for referral are or are not met.
25. From the date notice a) above is issued, the council will not be subject to the relief duty. Its duty to arrange interim accommodation under section 188 of the Housing Act will also cease. However, if the council has reason to believe the applicant may be in priority need, it must secure interim accommodation for the applicant until the notified council has accepted or rejected the referral.
26. From the date the second notice b) is issued to the applicant, if the notifying council decides the conditions for referral are met, the applicant is to be treated as having made an application to the notified council. At this point, the notifying council’s duties under Part 7 of the 1996 Act come to an end.

Housing Act 1996, as amended by Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, sections 198 and 199A, and Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraphs 10.30, 10.32, 10.36-10.44 and 10.51

Housing Allocations

27. 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))

Reasonable preference

28. 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))

The Council’s Allocation Scheme

29. The Council’s policy says where an applicant, or a member of the applicant’s household, has a medical or welfare need (including relating to disability) that makes living in their current accommodation unsuitable, they can request a welfare assessment.
30. Applicants who qualify to join the Housing Register can bid for social housing. Cornwall Homechoice is a choice-based lettings scheme which the Council and its partner housing organisations use to advertise social housing in the county.

Local connection requirement

31. Councils can exclude applicants from allocations schemes in certain circumstances, which should be set out in the council’s allocations policy and so will vary between councils. Statutory guidance encourages councils to include a residency requirement of at least two years as part of their qualification criteria. 
32. Of relevance to this complaint, under Cornwall Council’s Common Housing Register/Assessment Framework (as amended June 2021), a local connection will be established if:

• the applicant has close family (including parent(s), sibling(s), or child) that have resided in the area for a minimum of the past five years and the applicant has a need to give or receive support for the foreseeable future/on an ongoing basis
• there are exceptional circumstances where there is an exceptional need to move to Cornwall. Examples include, but are not limited to: those needing to move closer to specialist medical/support facilities.

33. Certain members of the Armed Forces community are exempt from any residency requirements under the Allocation of Housing (Qualification Criteria for Armed Forces) (England) Regulations 2012. These Regulations say councils may not apply a local connection requirement to disqualify the following applicants:

• those currently serving or who were serving in the Regular Armed Forces at any time in the five years preceding their housing register application;
• bereaved spouses or civil partners of those serving in the Regular Forces in certain circumstances; and
• serving or former Reserve Armed Forces members who are suffering from a serious injury, illness or disability wholly or partly attributable to their service.

Decisions and review rights

34. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

The Armed Forces Covenant

35. The Council is a signatory to the Armed Forces Covenant.
36. The Ombudsman has published Armed Forces Covenant guidance to councils (November 2019). This highlights that the Covenant has two key principles:
37. Principle One: Those who serve in the armed forces, whether regular or reserve, those who have served in the past, and their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services.
38. Principle Two: Special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given the most, such as the injured and the bereaved.
39. This could mean helping an injured service person to access supported housing.

Back to top

What I found

40. In early March 2021, Ms X contacted the Council, on behalf of her father, Mr Y, to ask for advice about arranging accommodation for Mr Y that was near to her.
41. Ms X explained Mr Y was unable to cope in his private rented accommodation in a different council area (Council Two) as he was in a very poor state of health. She explained she had visited Mr Y in his accommodation earlier in the year and the local police helped her gain access. Mr Y was taken to hospital.
42. On the same day, Ms X supported Mr Y in applying to join the Council’s housing register. His application shows that he told the Council he served in the armed forces until late 2016 and had acquired an illness or disability because of his service. He said he was homeless and applying on health and welfare grounds as he was sleeping on Ms X’s sofa as he could not manage the stairs.
43. A week later, having accepted a homelessness application from Mr Y, a Council Officer carried out an assessment of Mr Y’s housing needs with Ms X.
44. The Council’s records of the assessment with Ms X show:

• Ms X said Mr Y was no longer able to live in Council Two’s area. She explained Mr Y had sustained several serious injuries or disabilities that she attributed to Mr Y’s time serving in the regular armed forces. She said Mr Y served with the armed forces until 2016.
• Ms X said Mr Y had been unable to manage to the stairs at the property in Council Two’s area since being discharged from hospital. Council records show it considered this property was unsuitable for Mr Y as it was on three levels (with the bathroom and the bedroom on different floors).
• Ms X said her home was overcrowded, but Mr Y relied on her for care.
• the Officer said the Council was unable to provide support in housing Mr Y because he did not have a local connection. The Officer said this was because: Mr Y had not lived in the Council’s area for six of the last 12 months or three out of the last five years; and Mr Y could not benefit from a family connection through Ms X as she had not lived in the area for the last five years.

45. The next day, Ms X chased the Council for its refusal to support Mr Y in writing. She asked the Council to consider Mr Y’s special circumstances in needing to move to the area to access specialist medical or support facilities. The Council Officer asked Ms X to send evidence supporting this statement.
46. On 23 March, a Council Homelessness Prevention Officer wrote to Mr Y accepting the prevention duty.
47. Two days later, the Council completed a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) for Mr Y and sent this to Ms X. It decided Mr Y was eligible to be placed in Band C on its housing register, because it owed the prevention duty to Mr Y, with a one-bedroom entitlement. But, it said to bid on properties through Homechoice, Mr Y needed a local connection and it set out the criteria. Based on the evidence provided by Ms X, the Council decided this did not show Mr Y needed access to specialist medical or support facilities that was only available in its area.
48. On the same day, the Homelessness Prevention Officer contacted Council Two to check whether it would accept a referral. The Officer provided details of Mr Y’s circumstances and the Council’s decision that he did not have a local connection.
49. The Officer told Ms X that he had contacted Council Two.
50. Ms X and the Homelessness Prevention Officer spoke about Mr Y’s case. The Officer said he had requested Homechoice award Mr Y with Band C priority.
51. In April, Ms X complained to her local Councillor.
52. In mid-April, the Council heard from Council Two who said it was able to accept the referral and asked Mr Y to contact Council Two. The Council wrote to Mr Y explaining this and to say it had ended the relief duty.
53. In late May, a Legal Adviser at a homeless charity contacted the Council on Mr Y’s behalf. He said Ms X and Mr Y had not received any written confirmation on Mr Y’s banding and his bedroom entitlement.
54. In June, a Council Officer in its housing allocations team and Mr Y’s Homelessness Prevention Officer replied to the Legal Advisor. The Officers said:

• Mr Y had been awarded Band C and a one-bedroom entitlement. But, the Officer said Mr Y did not meet its local connection criteria; and,
• Mr Y did not have a local connection for his homelessness application. This was because Ms X had lived in the Council’s area for less than five years.

55. In mid-June, the Council sent Ms X a welfare assessment form.
56. In early July, Ms X returned the completed welfare form to the Council.
57. In early September, the Council’s Welfare Panel awarded Mr B a new banding of Band B (high welfare needs). The Council wrote to Mr Y with its decision.
58. In mid-September, Ms X spoke told a different Council Officer that Mr Y retired from the Armed Forces in 2016. The Officer said Mr Y was exempt from the Council’s housing allocations’ local connection criteria.
59. Ms X made several complaints to the Council.
60. At the end of September, the Council told Ms X it needed more time to investigate and respond to her complaint. It said it would aim to reply by 15 October.
61. In early October, the Legal Adviser at a homeless charity contacted the Council to make a new homelessness application for Mr Y. The Legal Adviser said Ms X had asked Mr Y to leave her home by that evening and so he would be homeless.
62. On 11 October, the Council told Ms X it needed until 22 October to respond.
63. Two weeks later, Ms X chased the Council for an update.
64. In November, Ms X chased the Council and asked it to place Mr Y in emergency accommodation in the same town as her home.
65. On 23 November, the Council sent Ms X its stage one complaint response. The Council did not uphold Ms X’s complaint. Ms X asked it to escalate her complaint.
66. In early December, the Council sent Ms X its final complaint response.
67. On the same day, the Council wrote to Mr Y twice with its decision:

• to end the relief duty; and
• that it had accepted it owed the main housing duty.

68. Ms X complained again to the Council.
69. The next day, the Council replied to say, in April, the Council’s homelessness team had correctly decided Council Two owed Mr Y the main housing duty as he was in private rented accommodation in Council Two’s area. The Council had now decided it owed Mr Y the main housing duty.
70. In early December, Ms X called the Council’s housing allocations team to say Mr Y should be in Band A because of the Armed Forces Covenant.
71. A few days later, the Council replied to accept Ms X’s request as a late appeal against the Welfare Panel’s decision from September.
72. Ms X continued complaining to the Council. The Council said it had referred Ms X to the Ombudsman and this was the correct next steps for her.
73. On 20 December, Mr Y moved to accommodation allocated by the Council from its housing register.
74. In February 2022, the Council wrote to Mr Y ending the main housing duty. It said this was because Mr Y had been allocated accommodation in December.
75. In April, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

Council handling of Mr Y’s homelessness application

76. Ms X complains the Council failed to correctly handle Mr Y’s homelessness application from March 2021 and refused to provide support (part a of the complaint). I understand that this part of Ms X’s complaint concerns the Council’s decision to refer Mr Y’s homelessness application to Council Two.
77. On 25 March 2021, the Council referred Mr Y’s homelessness application to Council Two. It is my understand the Council had decided Mr Y did not have a local connection with its area based on the following:

• Mr Y had not lived in the Council’s area for six of the last 12 months or three out of the last five years;
• Mr Y could not benefit from a family connection through Ms X as she had not lived in the area for the last five years;
• it considered the reasons provided by Ms X that there were special circumstances that meant Mr Y needed to move to the area to access specialist medical or support facilities. These reasons focused largely on Ms X being Mr Y’s main carer. But, the Council decided this did not show Mr Y needed access to specialist medical or support facilities that was only available in its area. As Council Two’s area was around 15 minutes’ drive with good transport links, the Council decided Ms X could provide the care in Council Two;
• the Council considered Mr Y’s statement that he was previously working in various areas, which included the Council’s area. But, based on the evidence I have seen, I find, on balance, it is likely the Council did not receive sufficient proof of this to lead to a local connection based on employment; and,
• given Mr Y had resided in Council Two’s area consistently for over three years, the Council had established a local connection for him there and it considered it reasonable to refer Mr Y there.

78. I understand that Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to refer Mr Y to Council Two, but, as explained in paragraphs 17 to 22 above, this was a decision the Council was entitled to make. The Council considered Mr Y’s connection to its area, including the reasons Mr Y was staying with Ms X. But, having decided a local connection did not exist, it promptly referred him to Council Two where it had established a connection. Without fault in how the Council reached this decision, I cannot question its content.
79. As explained above, the Council can only make such a referral when the relief duty is, or would be owed. It cannot make such a referral at the prevention duty stage. In my view, the Council’s referral to Council Two on 25 March was an implicit acceptance that the relief duty was, or would be owed (meaning Mr Y was eligible and homeless). This is supported by the fact that, when Council Two accepted the referral, the Council wrote to Mr Y in mid-April confirming it had ended the relief duty. On 25 March, the Council should have then considered whether it had reason to believe Mr Y may have priority need and, therefore, the Council needed to provide interim accommodation while it waited for Council Two to accept the referral. I have seen no evidence the Council considered this, which is fault. Mr Y missed out on the Council deciding whether Mr Y was in priority need and whether it, therefore, should have provided him with interim accommodation between 25 March and mid-April.
80. Later, in early October 2021, the Council promptly accepted a second homelessness application from Mr Y. Although the Council’s decision on local connection is unclear here, I find, on balance, that the Council likely accepted a local connection now existed because Mr Y had been living with Ms X for six months during the previous 12 months (see paragraph 19 above).
81. Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council decided: to accept the relief duty towards Mr Y, that Mr Y’s accommodation was unsuitable and he was in priority need. But, the Council failed to send Mr Y a decision letter on this until it ended the relief duty in December. This is fault. This meant Mr Y missed out on receiving timely information on the duty owed to him by the Council along with information on his review rights and the Council’s duty to arrange interim accommodation under section 188. Council records show this letter should have been sent on 5 October, but this action was not “achieved”.
82. The Council had a duty to arrange interim accommodation for Mr Y as soon as it decided, at the relief stage, that he may be eligible, homeless and in priority need. This duty arose from 5 October 2021. It then had a duty to arrange suitable temporary accommodation when it accepted the main housing duty in December.
83. I have seen evidence the Council:

• looked into whether two local hotels could provide suitable accommodation. But, the Council decided these were not suitable. This was because the hotels did not provide step-free access, including in case of fire, so they were unable to accommodate Mr Y;
• asked a local housing provider for former service personnel whether it had accommodation available. But, the housing provider said it was at capacity and had other applicants with similar priority to Mr Y;
• asked the Homechoice Team whether it would consider Mr Y for an allocation with a preference for applicants who were owed the main housing duty (to avoid Mr Y waiting until the 56 days relief duty period had passed). But, the Homechoice Team refused this request; and,
• said to Mr Y, in its decision letter accepting the main housing duty, that “due to your physical health needs and the lack of availability local to your support, you are currently staying with [Ms X]”.

84. I find the Council failed to arrange suitable accommodation for Mr Y until it allocated Mr Y accommodation from its housing register. I have not seen any evidence that the Council offered Mr Y interim or temporary accommodation that it considered suitable. Based on the above, it was not for lack of trying that the Council was unable to provide Mr Y with suitable accommodation. Nevertheless, the law is clear that the Council has a duty to provide accommodation to homeless applicants which is suitable. It was unable to do so due to a lack of available suitable accommodation. This is service failure. Because of this, I find Mr Y was in unsuitable accommodation from 5 October until 20 December 2021 (a total of two and a half months). Ms X went to time and trouble chasing the Council to arrange accommodation for Mr Y.
85. In comments on my draft decision, the Council told me it offered accommodation to Mr Y out of Ms X’s area and tried to arrange accommodation at two hotels in Ms X’s area, but this was refused due to Mr Y’s care needs. But, I am not persuaded this changes my findings of fault in the previous paragraph. The hotel accommodation was not offered to Mr Y and refused by him. Rather, it was the hotels that said the accommodation was not suitable for Mr Y’s care needs and, on balance, the Council likely found this meant the accommodation was unsuitable. The Council has not provided any evidence that it offered specific interim accommodation to Mr Y out of area that it decided was suitable. Absent that evidence, I find the Council seems to have accepted that, to be suitable, accommodation for Mr Y needed to be in Ms X’s area, but it did not have any. Lack of available accommodation does not relieve the Council of its duty to provide it (Ealing LBC v Surdonja and another (2000) 32 HLR 481, CA) As explained in the previous paragraph, I find this is service failure (see also paragraph six above).
86. Under our “Guidance on Remedies” we try to place people in the position they would have been but for the fault identified. Where we cannot do that, we offer a symbolic payment reflecting the time spent in unsuitable accommodation which I have set within our scale at £250 per month. When recommending this monthly payment, I have factored in that Mr Y had to sleep on a sofa in the living room because he could not use the stairs, he was recovering from a significant health condition and the unsuitable accommodation was negatively affecting his health.

Council handling of Mr Y’s housing register application

87. The law is clear that certain members of the Armed Forces community are exempt from any residency requirements for housing allocations purposes. This applies to former members of the Regular Armed Forces who served at any time in the five years preceding their housing register application. This is a key distinction from the homelessness legislation and statutory guidance.
88. In early March 2021, when Mr Y first applied to the Council’s housing register, he told it that he had retired from service in late 2016 and had acquired an illness or disability because of his service. But, the Council failed to consider and accept Mr Y was exempt until over six months later in mid-September. This is fault (part b of the complaint). I find, because of this, during the period of delay, Mr Y was incorrectly restricted to bidding only on properties that did not require a local connection and Mr Y missed out on bidding on them. Ms X went to significant time and trouble trying to get the Council to apply the exemption to Mr Y.
89. Both the Council’s housing allocations team and homelessness team missed several opportunities where it could have resolved the issue. In June 2021, Officers in both teams wrote to the homeless charity’s Legal Adviser to say Mr Y did not meet the local connection criteria under its housing allocations scheme. This is fault. I find there was a lack of understanding across both teams in terms of the exemptions under the Allocation of Housing (Qualification Criteria for Armed Forces) Regulations (see paragraph 33 above).
90. In my view, part of the fault here was likely caused by a lack of clarity in the Council’s Common Housing Register/Assessment Framework (as amended June 2021) around the exemptions under the Regulations. The specific exemptions detailed in paragraph 33 above are not present in the Framework. Rather, it states only that the Council will follow any statutory requirements overriding its local connection criteria. I have recommended a service improvement around this.
91. Ms X complains the Council decided Mr Y’s housing register application needed to be considered by its Welfare Panel. But, I find the Council’s decision here is in line with its housing allocations scheme. I do not find it at fault (part d of the complaint). The scheme says applicants with physical health problems, disability, mental health or learning disabilities need to complete a welfare assessment form so its Welfare Panel can decide whether to award additional priority.
92. In July 2021, Ms X returned the completed form to the Homelessness Prevention Officer. But, there were delays by the Council due to a backlog in processing welfare application forms. This delay is fault, which caused Ms X and Mr Y uncertainty.
93. In September, the Welfare Panel decided to award Mr Y Band B priority. When Ms X later complained the Council should have awarded Mr Y Band A priority, the Council exercised its discretion to accept this as a late review request, which it set for consideration at the next Welfare Panel. But, Mr Y successfully bid on accommodation before the Welfare Panel meeting meaning the Panel did not consider the late review request. I do not find fault in the Council’s decision-making here. I appreciate Ms X disagrees with the Council’s requirement that Mr Y’s priority on welfare grounds had to be considered by its Welfare Panel, but this is not evidence of fault (part d of the complaint).
94. But, I find fault in the Council’s handling of Mr Y’s banding and the timeliness of its referral to its Welfare Panel (part b of the complaint) based on the following:

• the Council’s allocation scheme says, generally, all applicants with health problems or a disability should complete a welfare assessment form. In my view, it was clear from Mr Y’s housing register application from March 2021 that he was asking the Council to consider awarding priority on health and welfare grounds. But, the Council failed to send Ms X the welfare form to complete until June 2021. This delay is fault. Had the Council promptly sent the welfare form to Ms X then I find it is likely Mr Y would have been awarded Band B much sooner than September 2021; and
• in September 2021, following the Welfare Panel’s decision, the Council backdated Mr Y’s eligible band date to June 2021 when the form was sent. But, this does not comply with its housing allocations scheme, which states the eligible band date will be the date the housing register application was received if the welfare award is increased following additional supporting information. This is fault. Mr Y missed out on receiving the correct eligible band date.

95. Regarding the injustice Mr Y has experienced, I have considered whether it was likely Mr Y missed out on successfully bidding on a property because of the fault identified. The Council told us that the average wait time for the highest band, Band A, is 10 months, and, for all other Bands, including Band B, it is 11 months. The Council told Mr Y there was a shortage of housing stock in Ms X’s area and bidding only in Ms X’s area limited Mr Y’s options further when the Council had a severe lack of one-bed properties for applicants over 55 years. Based on these reasons, in my view, on balance, it is unlikely Mr Y missed out on successfully bidding on a property. Rather, Mr Y was allocated accommodation within nine months from his original application – two months shorter than the average wait time.

Armed Forces Covenant

96. Ms X complains the Council provided incorrect advice about the Armed Forces Covenant (part c of the complaint). She says as Mr Y was in the armed forces, under the Covenant, he should be exempt from any residency requirements. She says the Council failed to consider the Covenant when making decisions on this.
97. I find the Council sufficiently explained to Ms X that the Armed Forces Covenant is not designed to give the armed forces, veterans and their families preferential treatment compared with other citizen. But, it should ensure they get a fair deal and are not disadvantaged because of their service. The Council explained that the Covenant does not override the homelessness legislation and statutory guidance that covers when councils may decide a former member of the armed forces does not have a local connection and may refer them to a different council. I do not find the Council at fault here.
98. The Council explained to Ms X that it would only award additional preference to former members of the armed forces if the applicant was in a reasonable preference category and it had awarded the applicant Band A (with an urgent housing need). This is in line with the Council’s housing allocations scheme and the relevant Regulations. (Housing Act 1996 (Additional Preference for Armed Forces) (England) Regulations 2012 SI 2012/2989), section 166A(3))
99. Regarding Mr Y’s housing register application, I find the Council failed to have due regard to the commitments of the Covenant. As explained above, the Council failed to make sure staff across relevant teams had a clear understanding of the exemptions to local connections under the 2012 Regulations. In my view, ensuring staff are fully aware of these exemptions and, in turn, this difference in treatment for housing register applications from former members of the armed forces is a significant way by which the Council can give effect to the commitments in the Covenant. I, therefore, uphold part c of Ms X’s complaint. This caused Mr Y uncertainty and Ms X went to time and trouble asking the Council to consider its commitments under the Covenant.

Back to top

Agreed action

100. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise in writing to Mr Y for the fault causing injustice identified above;
2. apologise in writing to Ms X for the avoidable stress, distress and time and trouble she was put to trying to get the Council to arrange suitable accommodation for Mr Y and to accept Mr Y was exempt from the local connection requirements for housing allocations purposes;
3. make Mr Y a payment of £350 for the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused by the delays in deciding Mr Y was exempt from the local connections requirements for his housing register application and missed opportunity to have an earlier decision on his banding. When recommending this payment, it is slightly above our usual payment range of between £100 and £300. This is because I have factored in the significant injustice stemming from Mr Y’s missed opportunity to have the Council decide whether he was in priority need and whether the Council, therefore, should have provided him with interim accommodation between 25 March and mid-April 2021;
4. make Mr Y a payment of £625 for the two and a half months in unsuitable accommodation (based on a recommended payment of £250 per month); and,
5. make Ms X a payment of £200 for the avoidable stress, distress and time and trouble she was put to.
101. I have considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies when recommending the above payments.
102. Within two months of my final decision, the Council has also agreed to:

• review its housing allocations scheme to ensure there is clear guidance on when certain members of the Armed Forces community are exempt from any residency requirements under the Allocation of Housing (Qualification Criteria for Armed Forces) (England) Regulations 2012 (as explained in paragraph 33). The Council should provide training to relevant staff in both its housing allocations team and homelessness team on handling applications where these Regulations may apply;
• circulate a reminder to staff about when the Council must arrange interim accommodation for a homelessness applicant following a referral to a second council at the relief duty stage (as per paragraphs 23 to 26 above);
• circulate a reminder to relevant staff that if a welfare award is increased following additional supporting information, the eligible band date should be the date the completed housing register application was received; and,
• ask a Senior Officer in both its housing allocations team and homelessness team to review this decision statement and share any identified learning with their team. The Council should report back on the outcome of this.

103. The Ombudsman will need to see evidence these actions have been completed.

Back to top

Final decision

104. I have completed my investigation.
105. I have decided to uphold parts a to c of Ms X’s complaint. This is because I have seen evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice to Ms X and Mr Y. The above recommendations are suitable ways for the Council to remedy this, which it has agreed to.
106. I have not decided to uphold part d of Ms X’s complaint because I have not seen evidence of fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman