Section: Allocations & Transfers
Treatment of Housing Applicant Criticised
A woman missed out on permanent accommodation as a result of Ealing Council's mishandling of her housing application, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Tony Redmond. In his report, he says that, while he recognises the Council's legitimate aim of preventing housing fraud, "...the Council may not have got the balance right between preventing fraud and supporting those in need of social housing."
Ms W complained about the Council's handling of her application for housing. When she applied in 2001 she was not told that her application would need to be verified at a later stage, or that she would have to provide proof of residence for 10 years.
The Council failed to deal properly with Ms W's application for housing by not advising her of the need to have her application verified when she first applied and what this would entail. The Council also failed to give sufficient consideration to Ms W's personal circumstances and the difficulty she might legitimately have in providing the proof requested.
Had Ms W been told what was required at the start, it is reasonable to assume that she would have been able to comply with the Council's requirements when she was number one on the shortlist for a property for which she had placed a bid. She therefore missed securing permanent accommodation as a result of the Council's failings.
The Ombudsman recommends that, to remedy the injustice, the Council should:
- Increase Ms W's priority until she is able to secure permanent accommodation.
- Pay her £750 compensation for the time she has spent living in insecure accommodation since November 2006, and £250 for her time and trouble in pursuing her complaint.
- Send her a written apology for the problems she has experienced.
With a view to ensuring that there is a better balance between protecting the Council against fraud and supporting those in need of social housing, the Council should also review the process for verifying applications for housing, including:
- the need to provide proof of residence for 10 years; and
- the way discretion is exercised over those who are unable to provide the necessary proof.
Local Government Report 06/A/11660
Case Law Update
This case relates to Newham LBC's housing allocation scheme, which, in part, operates by way of choice-based letting.
In a Judicial Review, the High Court concluded that the claimant had been wrongly assessed. It also ruled that the scheme contained the following unlawful features:
- When prioritising for overcrowding, it only took "statutory overcrowding" into account.
- It did not give a "reasonable preference" to applicants in the statutory groups (Housing Act 1996 s167(2)) over straightforward transfer applicants.
- It failed to enable an appropriate assessment of multiple needs.
R(Ahmad) v Newham LBC [2007] EWHC (Admin), 11 September 2007
Legal Update
Reporting on Aug-Oct 2007
- Allocations & Transfers
- Antisocial Behaviour
- Audit & Regulation
- Compulsory/Voluntary Purchase
- Homelessness & Asylum Seekers
- Housing Benefit & Council Tax
- Housing Grants
- Housing Management
- Private Sector
- Security of Tenure
- Travellers and Gypsies
Quick Links
Welcome to the Legal Update
New subscribers and free review
Archive Issues Reporting Periods
- Aug-Oct 2010
- May-Jul 2010
- Feb-Apr 2010
- Nov 2009-Jan 2010
- Aug-Oct 2009
- May-Jul 2009
- Feb-Apr 2009
- Nov 2008-Jan 2009
- Aug-Oct 2008
- May-Jul 2008
- Feb-Apr 2008
- Nov 2007-Jan 2008
- Aug-Oct 2007
- May-July 2007
- March-April 2007
- Jan-Feb 2007
- Nov-Dec 2006
- Sept.-October 2006
- July-August 2006
- May-June 2006
- January-April 2006
- Sept.-Dec. 2005
- May-August 2005
- January-April 2005
- Oct.-Dec. 2004
- July-Sept. 2004
- April-June 2004
- CURRENT ISSUES...