Summary: The Council was at fault in its consideration of Mr X’s housing application and his local connection. It has agreed our recommended remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider his housing application because it failed to recognise his local connection due to employment in the Council’s area. He says he has lost out on potential offers of accommodation.

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 discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents it provided. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

5. 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))Choice based lettings.
6. 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.
7. The scheme places applicants in a priority band from Band A (highest priority) to Band D (lowest priority).
8. Applicants who are not resident in the council’s area and do not have a minimum of two years continuous connection to the area will not normally qualify to join the register. However, applicants can qualify if:
• they are employed or have received an offer of employment in the Council’s area
• Have near relatives who have lived in the Council’s area for 5 or more years.
9. 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.
10. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.

What happened

11. Mr X applied to the Council’s housing allocations scheme in July 2023. He said he was living outside the Council’s area with his partner and child. He said he worked in the Council’s area. He provided copies of screenshots showing his payslips. These did not show his employer’s details. He provided a copy of his contract, but this was dated 2015.
12. In November the Council wrote to Mr X. It said it required evidence of his local connection established by employment. It asked for
• A contract of employment
• Wages or salary slips
• Proof of tax and benefit information
• A formal offer letter
13. Mr X provided a copy of his employment contact from 2015 and a further contract from 2017 which showed he was employed in Birmingham.
14. In late November 2023 the Council wrote to Mr X and said it had closed his housing register application because he did not have a local connection to Birmingham. It said he had not provided all the evidence requested that he was working in Birmingham.
15. Mr X asked the Council to review its decision in November 2023. He said the Council had treated him unfairly by dismissing his application and he had concerns about discrimination. He said he had provided legal employment contract documents.
16. The Council reviewed its decision in June 2024. The Council upheld its original decision that Mr X did not qualify under the local connection criteria. It said this was because the assessing officer could not demonstrate Mr X’s local connection based solely on his employment contract. The Council It said he had not provided all the evidence it requested and repeated the list it had sent him in November 2023.
17. In July 2024 Mr X complained to the Ombudsman. He said he had provided the information to show he was employed in the Council’s area. He considered the Council was treating him unfairly. Mr X sent a copy of a letter dated January 2024 stating he was still employed by the same company in Birmingham.
18. In its response to my enquiries the Council said Mr X’s contract was dated 2017 and his recent pay evidence did not show his employer or its location. Therefore, it considered the evidence did not confirm his current employment location.
19. However, the Council accepted its letter of November 2023, and its review decision of June 2024 did not make it sufficiently clear that it required current local connection information, and it did not explain what information it required.
20. The Council said it did not receive Mr X’s employer’s the letter of January 2024.
21. The Council responded to my enquiries regarding its delays. It said that it had a significant backlog in assessing applications and in dealing with reviews. It has taken steps to address this by providing additional resources and changing its processes. It says that
• Of the 3700 applications awaiting assessment, 92% of these are within its 8-week target.
• It reduced its backlog of reviews from 300 to 43 and almost all reviews are completed within 8 weeks.
22. The Council has apologised for its fault of not properly clarifying the information required and its delays and for the inconvenience this caused. The Council offered to:
• Reassess Mr X’s application when he submits evidence of his current employment status. If Mr X qualifies the Council will backdate his application to November 2023.
• Pay Mr X £100 in view of its fault in assessing his application and review and its failure to correctly notify him of the information it required.
23. The Council says based on the information it has it is likely to assess Mr X as priority band as C. It has provided information regarding the offers it has made to applicants in priority band C from November 2023 to date. This shows that Mr X did not miss out on any potential offers of accommodation as no offers were made to band C applicants with an earlier priority award date in his areas of choice.

Analysis

24. There was fault by the Council as it did not properly explain Mr X needed to provide current employment evidence. This fault was repeated when it carried out a review.
25. The Council was at fault because it took too long to assess Mr X’s application. It took four months when we consider it should take no more than eight weeks.
26. The Council also took too long to review its decision that Mr X did not qualify. The statutory guidance states that Councils should not take more than eight weeks, but the Council took seven months.
27. These faults caused injustice to Mr X because he was caused frustration and uncertainty for longer than necessary. I have considered the Council’s offer to remedy the injustice that it caused Mr X. While it goes some way towards providing a remedy, I have made further recommendations.
28. I consider the Council has taken appropriate steps to reduce the delays in assessing applications and reviewing decisions.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. Within one month of my decision I recommend the Council:
• apologises to Mr X in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies for the faults found in this statement
• pays Mr X £200 as symbolic payment for the injustice caused by these faults
• backdates Mr X’s application to 5 September 2023 if he provides appropriate evidence and he qualifies, as this is 8 weeks after it received his application.
30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

31. There was fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr X. It has agreed a suitable remedy and so I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman