The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We did not find fault with the way the Council assessed Mr Y’s housing application. It applied its housing allocations scheme.
The complaint
Miss X complained on behalf of Mr Y. Miss X complained about the Council’s decision not to allow Mr Y to join its housing register. She said the Council failed to properly consider the medical evidence and understand Mr Y’s circumstances.
She said this caused Mr Y distress and affected his mental health and wellbeing because it denied him the opportunity to move area. She said the Council should allow Mr Y to join the register on exceptional medical grounds.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Miss X and considered the information she provided with her complaint. I considered the information from the Council along with relevant law, guidance and policy.
Mr Y, Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Law and guidance Allocations 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)) The Localism Act 2011 introduced new freedoms to allow councils to better manage their waiting list and to tailor their allocation priorities to meet local needs.
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)) 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.
The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9)) Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
The Council’s housing allocation scheme The allocations scheme sets out how the Council allocates its social housing. The scheme is to make sure priority is given to those most in need, as defined in legislation and in accordance with local priorities. This is to ensure the Council makes the best use of its housing stock.
The Council has restricted those who can qualify to join its housing register to those who have lived in Manchester continuously for the last two years. It has some exceptions to this rule.
Its allocations scheme sets out some examples of exceptional circumstances.
The Council says the demand for social homes in Manchester is substantially greater than the number of homes available. It says it is unrealistic for most people to think they will get a social home. Therefore, most people need to consider other housing options.
What happened What follows is a brief chronology of key information and events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
Mr Y applied to join the Council’s register in February 2020. The Council considered his application and found he did not qualify because he did not have two years continuous residency in Manchester and did not meet the exemption criteria.
From August to November 2020 Mr Y submitted other documents and letters in support of his application. The Council considered the information but it did not change its decision. It gave Mr Y advice about making a homelessness application.
In March 2021 Mr Y submitted further medical information and a letter of support from his GP. He resubmitted the information in December. The Council maintained its decision he did not qualify to join its housing register and there was no justification to use its discretion to rescind the residency requirement.
Mr Y asked for a review of the decision in February 2022. The Council asked for further information for it to consider.
In May Mr Y complained to the Council. He said it failed to carry out the review within 56 days and it failed to use its discretion to allow him to join the register.
The Council responded. It did not uphold Mr Y’s complaint. It said it asked for more information to consider as part of the review and he did not provide it. It explained its decision not to use its discretion to allow Mr Y to join the register.
Mr Y was unhappy with the response and asked for his complaint to be escalated. The Council gave its final response in June and upheld its decision.
Mr Y remained unhappy. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman on behalf of Mr Y.
My findings
I did not find fault with the way the Council assessed Mr Y’s housing application.
We would not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We would not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published scheme.
In this case Mr Y was not allowed to join the housing register. The Council found he did not qualify because he had not lived in Manchester continuously for the last two years or have exceptional circumstances.
To reach its decision the Council considered all the information Mr Y provided with his application. It explained he did not meet the criteria to be considered an exceptional case because: ‘… none of that supporting information has included evidence of your current home being unsuitable or causing you ill-health or has suggested that you are at risk in your current home’.
The Councils decision refers to all the information it considered to reach its decision.
I understand Mr Y does not agree with the Council’s decision but there was no fault with the way it was made. Therefore, we would not question the professional judgement of the decision maker.
Final decision
I did not find fault with the Council. I completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman