Summary: The Council delayed assessing Miss B’s housing application and then wrongly decided not to carry out a review of its decision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss B. It has also agreed to make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains that the Council wrongly decided that she does not qualify to join its housing register. She says that because of this, she was homeless for several months.

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. 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 have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and consider all comments received.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

5. The Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme sets out the rules for qualifying to join the Housing Register, how applicants are prioritised and how the Council manages the allocation of available properties.
6. The scheme places applicants in a priority band from Band A (highest priority) to Band D (lowest priority). It says Band A will be awarded to applicants who need housing because they are leaving the care of Birmingham Children’s Trust.
7. Applicants who have been assessed as having no housing need and whose circumstances do not warrant inclusion in any of the priority bands do not qualify to join the housing register.
8. Applicants have the right to request a review of a council’s decision. Government guidance suggests eight weeks as a reasonable timescale for completing reviews.

Key events

9. Miss B applied to join the Council’s housing register in April 2023. On the application form she selected “I am a care leaver aged 18 – 21 who is owed a duty of care by Birmingham City Council” as the reason she had a connection to Birmingham.
10. Miss B stated on her application that her ‘staying put’ arrangement was coming to an end. ‘Staying put’ arrangements enable care leavers to remain with their former foster carers after they turn 18.
11. Miss B amended her application a few days later and stated that she was living with friends and would have nowhere to live by the end of June.
12. In August, the Council decided that Miss B did not qualify to join its housing register. It explained that she was not under the care of Birmingham Children’s Services and so she did not qualify for a ‘move on from care’ award. It advised Miss B to contact its Housing Options Service if she was threatened with homelessness within the next 56 days.
13. Miss B requested a review of the Council’s decision. She said that while she was under the care of another Council, she had lived in Birmingham for most of her life. Miss B’s social worker also requested a review and explained why she considered Miss B should be allowed to join the housing register.
14. The Council wrote to Miss B in January 2024. It said that she had started to make a new housing application in August 2023 which it would assess once it was completed. It explained that her previous application had been superseded by the one made in August 2023, and so it had closed her review request.
15. Following our contact with the Council, it carried out a review of its decision that Miss B does not qualify to join the housing register. It decided to uphold its original decision. It explained why Miss B does not qualify for a ‘move on from care’ award. As Miss B stated she was homeless, the reviewing officer also made a referral to its Housing Options Service to provide Miss B with advice and assistance.

Analysis

16. I have considered the Council’s housing allocations scheme and whether there was any fault in the way the Council decided that Miss B did not qualify to join the housing register.
17. Miss B’s housing application gives two reasons for needing housing - that she was threatened with homelessness and that she was a care leaver.
18. Applicants only qualify for a ‘moving on from care’ award if they are leaving the care of Birmingham Children’s Trust. The Council decided that Miss B did not qualify for this award because, whilst she was a care leaver, she was not leaving the care of Birmingham Children’s Trust. I have found no evidence of fault in the way this decision was made.
19. Applicants qualify for a ‘homeless’ award if they have made a homelessness application to the Council and it has accepted a duty to the applicant. The Council decided that Miss B did not qualify for this award because she had not made a homelessness application and so the Council had not accepted a duty to her. I am satisfied that the Council told Miss B how to make a homelessness application. I have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided Miss B did not qualify for this award.
20. As the information Miss B included in her application did not meet the criteria for inclusion in any of the housing bands, the Council decided that she did not qualify to join the housing register. I have found no evidence of fault in the way this decision was reached.
21. We expect councils to assess housing applications within eight weeks. The Council took 18 weeks to assess Miss B’s application. This delay was fault.
22. The Council also took too long to consider Miss B’s request for a review of its decision. Government guidance suggests eight weeks is a reasonable timescale for carrying out reviews. The Council took 21 weeks to consider Miss B’s request. This delay was fault.
23. The Council decided not to carry out a review because it considered the review had been superseded by the online application Miss B had started to complete. I consider there was fault in the way the Council reached its decision here. Miss B had not completed the application, or submitted it, and so it should have had no bearing on the review.
24. Following our contact with the Council, it decided to carry out the review. It upheld its original decision that Miss B does not qualify to join the housing register. I have found no evidence of fault in the way this decision was reached.
25. The Council’s failings in this case left Miss B with uncertainty for a long period. She could have made other plans if she had been told sooner that she did not qualify to join the register, and if the review had been carried out without delay.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Miss B for the failings identified in this case. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance when making the apology.
• Make a symbolic payment of £250 to Miss B to recognise the uncertainty and frustration she experienced as a result of the failings identified in this case.
27. The Council has also agreed to take the following action within eight weeks of my final decision:
• Ensure its officers are aware that they should not close a review because an applicant has started to make a new application.
28. The Council recently provided us with its updated action plan which shows the action it is taking to reduce delays in processing housing applications and reviews, which we are continuing to monitor.
29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation and uphold Miss B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman