The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complains about the Authority’s decision to suspend him from the Seaside and Country Homes scheme. There is no evidence of fault by the Authority in telling Mr X it would rehouse him through the SCH scheme and no evidence of fault in how it made its decision to suspend his application. There is also no evidence to show the Authority discriminated against Mr X on the grounds of his sexuality.
The complaint
Mr X complains that the Authority told him that he remained eligible for a housing transfer under the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme despite a conviction for housing fraud. Mr X considers he has wrongly been denied a housing transfer under the scheme and the Authority has discriminated against him on the grounds of his sexuality. As a result he is now homeless and his health is suffering.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (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 have: Considered the complaint and the information provided by Mr X; Made enquiries of the Authority and considered its response; Invited Mr X and the Authority to comment on the draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Seaside and Country Homes Seaside and Country Homes (SCH) is a scheme where people aged over 55 in social housing in London have the opportunity to move to properties managed by housing associations in some coastal and country areas. Current tenants of the scheme can also apply for a transfer to another property in the scheme. The Authority manages the SCH scheme. When a property becomes available it nominates applicants to housing association which is the landlord. It is for the housing association to decide if it should accept the nomination.
What happened Mr X had previously moved under the SCH scheme. In early 2021 he requested a transfer due to a number of issues with his current property. The Authority agreed his request and placed him on the transfer list.
In summer 2021 Mr X’s landlord served a notice of seeking possession as Mr X had been convicted of housing fraud. Mr X contacted the Authority to see if it would still assist him. He included an email with another local authority in which he stated his landlord was evicting him and the impact this was having on his health. He also said he had left the property. Mr X did not say why his landlord was evicting him.
The Authority replied to Mr X and it had undertaken to rehouse him and it would honour that commitment.
Mr X’s landlord then contacted the Authority to advise Mr X had been convicted of housing fraud and it was seeking possession of his property. The Authority made further enquiries of Mr X’s landlord to establish the details of Mr X’s conviction and for a copy of the notice of seeking possession. It then contacted the housing association in Mr X’s area of choice who advised it would not accept a nomination for Mr X due to his conviction for housing fraud. The Authority notified Mr X it could no longer offer a housing transfer to him under the SCH scheme as the partner housing associations would not accept nominations due to his conviction.
Mr X made a complaint to the Authority. He complained it had wrongly told his representative that he was convicted of housing benefit fraud and the Authority was discriminating against him due to his disability and sexuality. The Authority considered the complaint through its two stage complaints procedure. The Authority apologised for wrongly stating he was convicted of housing benefit fraud. It did not uphold Mr X’s complaints of discrimination. The Authority also explained that it could not consider Mr X for a move under the SCH scheme as the partner housing associations had made it clear they would not accept him due to his conviction.
In response to my enquiries the Authority has said: It was aware of a number of issues between Mr X and his landlord. But it was not aware of the legal action against Mr X at the time it assured him it would honour its commitment to rehouse him. So it was acting in good faith based on the information it had when advising Mr X that it would rehouse him.
Mr X was not the lead applicant when he applied for the SCH scheme. As part of the application process the Authority will ask monitoring questions of the lead applicant but not any other household members. Monitoring questions are not asked if an applicant applies online. The Authority, therefore, did not have any information about Mr X’s sexuality until he raised it in his complaint.
Mr X has said the Authority’s decision not to rehouse him through the SCH scheme has caused him significant stress and caused him to be homeless which has been detrimental to his health.
Mr X also considers the Authority made its decision to suspend his application as it wrongly believed he was convicted of housing benefit fraud.
Analysis Undertaking to rehouse Mr X On balance, I do not consider the Authority to be at fault for telling Mr X that it would rehouse him under the SCH scheme when he informed it that his landlord was evicting him. The Authority was aware of a number of issues between Mr X and his landlord. But Mr X did not inform the Authority that his landlord had prosecuted him for housing fraud and his landlord had not contacted the Authority at this point. The Authority was therefore not aware of the legal proceedings for housing fraud at the time it sent the email to Mr X and it gave its undertaking to rehouse Mr X based on the information it had at that time. It is therefore not at fault.
Suspension from SCH scheme The Authority was correct to review its position once Mr X’s landlord had notified it that he had been convicted of housing fraud. The evidence shows it checked with the housing associations in Mr X’s area of choice and previous area of choice if they would be willing to accept a nomination. There is no evidence to show the Authority checked with all the partner housing associations in the scheme to see if Mr X could move to other areas. It would have been better for the Authority to do so, but on balance, I do not consider this to be fault. The Authority would be aware that Mr X’s conviction meant it was unlikely the housing associations would accept a nomination for him. I therefore do not consider the Authority is at fault for suspending Mr X’s application.
There is also no evidence to show the Authority made its decision to suspend Mr X’s application because it wrongly believed he had been convicted of housing benefit fraud. The Authority wrongly referred to Mr X being convicted of housing benefit fraud in correspondence with his representative. But it made enquiries of the housing associations to see if they would accept a nomination for Mr X with a housing fraud conviction. So, I am satisfied the Authority did not suspend Mr X’s application on the basis he was convicted of housing benefit fraud.
Complaint of discrimination There is no evidence that the Authority discriminated against Mr X on grounds of his sexuality. Mr X was not the lead applicant when making the application for the SCH scheme so the Authority did not have any information about Mr X’s sexuality. There is also no evidence to show that Mr X’s sexuality was a factor in suspending Mr X’s application. The evidence shows the suspensions was because the housing associations would not accept Mr X’s nomination.
Final decision
There is no evidence of fault in telling Mr X it would rehouse him through the SCH scheme and no evidence of fault in how it made its decision to suspend his application. There is also no evidence to show the Authority discriminated against Mr X on the grounds of his sexuality. I have therefore completed my investigation. Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman