The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X and Mrs P complained the Council failed to properly manage their homelessness and housing register applications since 2020. We have found the Council to be at fault because there was some delay and Ms X was prevented from joining the housing register at the right time. There were also several failures relating to priority banding. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment, backdate the housing application with the correct priority banding and review its practices. There was no fault by the Council when it ended its homelessness duty after a suitable property was offered but not accepted.
The complaint
Ms X and Mrs P complain the Council failed to properly manage their homelessness and housing register applications since 2020. In particular, they say the Council: took too long to process the homelessness application; inappropriately advised Mrs P to move into sheltered accommodation; failure to process Ms X’s banding review request; ignored medical evidence relevant to the priority banding decision; prevented them from joining the housing register at the right time; failed to tell them about a rearranged appointment to view a property; failed to address ongoing problems with their ability to bid on suitable properties; and failed to properly communicate with them.
As a result, Ms X says her family have lived in overcrowded conditions for longer than necessary. This has had a significant impact on their health and well-being.
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 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) 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 with Ms X and reviewed the information provided.
I made enquiries with the Council and reviewed the relevant law.
Ms X, Mrs P and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Homelessness Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
If the council is satisfied someone is eligible for assistance and either homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must assess their situation. The council must then try to agree a personalised housing plan (PHP) with the applicant, setting out what both parties will do to try to resolve the housing problem. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A) The relief duty applies when the council is satisfied that an applicant is homeless (rather than just threatened with homelessness) and eligible for assistance. The council has a duty to take reasonable steps to help the applicant secure accommodation that will be available for at least six months. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B and Homelessness Code of Guidance 13.2) The relief duty will end when 56 days has passed and the council is satisfied that the applicant has a priority need and is homeless unintentionally. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B(4)) If homelessness is not successfully relieved, a housing authority will owe the main housing duty to applicants who are eligible, have a priority need for accommodation and are not homeless intentionally. Under the main housing duty, councils must ensure that suitable accommodation is available for the applicant and their household until the duty is brought to an end, usually through the offer of a settled home. (Housing Act 1996, section 193(2)) Housing 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 Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.
The Council’s allocations policy The Council is a partner in a local choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which are advertised.
The Council’s housing allocation scheme has four bands of priority: Band A is for applicants with the highest and most urgent priority, including for emergency medical reasons.
Band B is for applicants with medium priority, including for urgent medical reasons.
Band C is for applicants with low priority, including those who are homeless or overcrowded.
Band D is for other applicants who are able to view properties but are unable to place bids.
Applicants within each of the bands will be allocated housing in date order, so those waiting the longest will be prioritised when using the choice-based lettings scheme to bid for properties.
Housing applicants may request a review of the banding decision within 21 days of being notified.
What happened I have set out below a summary of the key events. But it is not meant to show everything which happened.
Mrs P is the tenant of a two-bedroom flat. She is disabled and has several health conditions, including severe heart failure and mobility problems. She shares her home with her daughter, Ms X and her five children, one of whom has additional health needs.
They were overcrowded and wanted to move to a larger property. Ms X made both homelessness and housing applications. Mrs P’s GP provided a letter setting out her medical conditions and supporting her need to move urgently.
The Council carried out an assessment. This determined Ms X and her family were threatened with homelessness due to overcrowding. She was told in November 2020 that the prevention duty was owed. A PHP was issued. Ms X was advised to put her housing application on hold because she would have greater priority under the homelessness system.
In March 2021, the Council confirmed it owed the relief duty to Ms X. This explained the case worker would work with Ms X to find somewhere to live within 56 days. An updated PHP was issued that identified a need for a four bedroom property. It was suggested the family could be rehoused sooner if Mrs P went into sheltered accommodation. Both Ms X and Mrs P strongly rejected this option. Ms X was asked to provide details of her income and expenditure. Ms X says she had already provided this and was frustrated by the apparent lack of progress.
A senior officer spoke to Ms X and explained the officer previously dealing with her case had left suddenly. The Council accepted this officer had failed to keep in touch with Ms X between November 2020 and March 2021 and failed to upload documents onto the system. The case was allocated to a new officer.
Upon the expiry of the relief duty, Ms X’s application was upgraded to the full homelessness duty in May 2021. The homelessness case officer recommended she should have Band B priority on the housing register due to Mrs P’s medical issues.
In June 2021, Ms X was accepted onto the Council’s housing register with Band C priority and four bedroom entitlement. She immediately called the Council to request a review of the banding decision. She was told her request had been passed to the relevant department.
When she contacted the Council to ask about her review request, she was told homeless applicants were automatically placed in Band C. Ms X reminded the Council of Mrs P’s medical circumstances. She was again told the banding decision would not be reviewed until all housing options had been exhausted.
Frustrated by this lack of progress, Ms X complained to the Council about how her case was being handled and the problems she was having making bids. She remained concerned about her priority banding. She also said the Council had not taken account of her son’s disability and her needed his own bedroom.
In response, the Council explained her bidding options were limited due to the number of bedrooms she required. It was also satisfied requests for further information were necessary. Ms X was asked to provide information about her son’s disability.
Upon receipt of this, the Council’s medical assessor rejected the need for an extra bedroom. She was told she could appeal this decision. She did so, but the decision remained the same.
In July 2021, the family were offered emergency accommodation in a hotel. This was refused as being unsuitable. Frustrated by this, Ms X instructed a solicitor to liaise with the Council on her behalf. The Council explained the delay in finding suitable accommodation was a result of extreme housing shortages in the area and the specific requirements of the family.
In late August 2021, Ms X was invited to view a five bedroom property. The Council had assessed this as being both suitable and affordable.
The initial viewing was cancelled but rearranged soon afterwards. Ms X says she was unaware of this new appointment and the Council should have made more effort to contact her. The Council contacted Ms X’s solicitor.
Ms X’s solicitor told the Council that Ms X had been to view the property but had since been unable to contact her client.
The Council wrote to Ms X saying that it had discharged its duty towards her because she had refused an offer of suitable, affordable accommodation. She was advised of her right to request a review of this decision within 21 days. She did not do so.
Instead, Ms X made another formal complaint. The Council issued its final response in September 2021.
The Council said: her homelessness application initially took too long to progress.
the suggestion that Mrs P could move to sheltered accommodation was well intended as a solution to alleviating the family’s housing situation.
Ms X was incorrectly told she could not join the housing register in November 2020, until her homelessness application was decided. However, Ms X had not missed out of any suitable houses during this time.
Ms X’s bidding history indicated she was able to bid.
Ms X submitted her review request in February 2022. The Council decided it was out of time. Unfortunately, this letter, although believed by the Council to have been sent in March 2022, was not successfully dispatched until June 2022 In April 2022, Ms X’s priority band was increased to Band B, backdated to May 2020.
Analysis Ms X is understandably frustrated by her current housing situation. Her family is severely overcrowded. This is not in dispute. She says the Council has a duty to provide suitable and affordable social housing. She does not want to be rehoused in the private rented sector because it is too expensive, of a lower standard and less secure. By law, the Council can discharge its homelessness duty by making an offer of suitable housing in the private sector. This is no fault in this approach.
The Council has explained to Ms X that the demand for large, social housing properties far outstrips supply and she can expect to wait for many years for one to become available.
I note there were many aspects of Ms X’s contact with the Council that she is aggrieved about. But I do not propose to examine all of these matters here. Our role is not to provide answers to each and every criticism a complainant may have about a council. For this reason, I have focussed on the main substantive issues that gave rise to Ms X’s complaint.
My role is to decide if the Council complied with its duties to prevent or relieve homelessness and acted in line with the procedures set out in law and the Code of Practice. It is also to determine if there has been fault in how the Council has handled Ms X’s application to join the housing register.
If I find the Council acted with fault, I must then decide if this affected Ms X and what the Council must do to put it right.
I will address Ms X’s main areas of complaint.
The Council took too long to process the homelessness application The Council has already accepted there was a delay in progressing her homelessness application between November 2020 (when it accepted the prevention duty) and March 2021 (when it confirmed the relief duty was owed).
The prevention duty should have come to an end in late January 2021. This part of the homelessness action therefore took two months longer than it should have done. This was fault.
Once the Council accepted the main homelessness duty in May 2021, an offer of suitable, affordable accommodation was made in late August/early September 2021. This was within a reasonable timeframe and so there was no further fault.
The Council inappropriately advised Mrs P to move into sheltered accommodation Ms X and Mrs P understandably want to remain a family unit. Ms X is Mrs P’s main carer. The suggestion of sheltered housing was raised as a potential option to increase the housing opportunities available to Ms X and her five children. This was because Mrs P required downstairs living accommodation.
While I acknowledge this caused upset to Mrs P and Ms X, as this Council explained in its complaint response, it was a pragmatic solution that the Council was obliged to suggest. I found no evidence of pressure having been put on them to agree. For this reason, I do not find fault with this approach.
Failure to process Ms X’s banding review request When Ms X was accepted onto the housing register in June 2021, she was assigned Band C. The Council explained this was the band automatically assigned to homeless applicants. In the decision letter, Ms X was correctly advised of her right to request a review of the banding decision.
The records show Ms X made a banding review request on 19 June 2021. She received a reply on 21 June 2021 saying her review request had been sent to the appropriate department.
I have seen no evidence her banding review request was actioned. On the contrary, Ms X was then advised several times over the phone and by email that a review of her banding was not possible. She was also told this face to face when she attended a Council office.
In response to my enquiry about this matter the Council said, “the case note dated 28 May 2021 do not indicate Ms X was told by officers that a formal challenge to the banding decision was prohibited.”
I agree she was not told a review was prohibited. However, Ms X was told on this date, “we had to prove we had exhausted all options before considering a higher banding”. In my view, Ms X was effectively being told her banding would not be changed.
In summary, I am satisfied the Council acted with fault. This led to Ms X being denied her banding review right for 12 months.
The Council ignored medical evidence relevant to its priority banding decision Ms X provided evidence of Mrs P’s health conditions in October 2020. There is no evidence to show this was taken into consideration by the Council when determining her priority banding in June 2021. In response to my enquiries, the Council has accepted this letter was not logged onto its system. This was fault.
There is a case note on Ms X’s file from May 2021 that says, “Band B applies on medical grounds, to reflect the major adverse effect on current housing”. This was the recommendation from the homelessness case officer (HCO). The Council has explained this was only a recommendation and the HCO was not the decision maker within the housing team.
It is not for the Ombudsman to determine what priority band should have been assigned at this time. But we must be satisfied such decisions have been made properly. I do not consider it was in this case.
I have been provided with information sent to the Council about Mrs P’s state of health. She has several serious medical conditions that could not be dismissed as trivial or irrelevant to a housing related decision. The Council had also accepted Mrs P needed specific ground floor accommodation because of her disability.
Whatever the outcome, the Council should have been able to demonstrate it had taken account of the medical information provided by Ms X and to why it was insufficient to warrant higher priority. It should also have been able to account for why the HCO’s recommendation was not followed. Instead, Ms X was told on numerous occasions, that homeless applicants are assigned Band C.
The Ombudsman is clear that councils must consider the individual circumstances of each case before deciding to make an exception to a rule of policy. If it does not do this, it is said to have fettered its discretion. This is what happened here and was fault.
Understandably, Ms X continued with her attempts to engage with the Council about both Mrs P’s and her son’s health conditions. She was asked to complete more medical assessment forms.
It is clear to me, Ms X wanted the Council to increase her banding entitlement based on the medical information she included about both her son and Mrs P. But the Council only referred this to its medical officer to provide advice on accommodation type and size.
This simply added to Ms X’s frustration and confusion about what was being done about her banding review request on medical grounds.
The Council eventually assigned Band B priority in April 2022, backdated to May 2021. This was based solely on Mrs P’s medical conditions.
This was a significant delay.
While I welcome the decision to backdate, in my view the priority date should start earlier, to reflect the fact Ms X could have joined the housing register much sooner in November 2020.
The Council prevented them from joining the housing register at the right time The Council has already accepted Ms X was incorrectly advised she should not join the housing register until her homelessness application has been exhausted. This was fault.
Ms X was not the only homeless applicant who received this incorrect advice. The Council’s website has included information about this error. I am unclear about how many other applicants have been similarly affected, but any that are should also have their housing applications backdated where appropriate. This is included in my recommendations below.
The Council failed to tell them about a rearranged appointment to view a property The case records confirm the Council emailed Ms X with details of the rescheduled appointment. Ms X says she did not receive this and so did not attend. Ms X says the Council should have made more effort to contact her.
This information conflicts with an email from Ms X’s solicitor to the Council confirming she had spoken to Ms X who had been to view the property. The Council made this enquiry prior to discharging the homelessness duty The records also show the housing officer tried to contact Ms X by telephone. It also gave Ms X via her solicitor one last chance to accept the property on 6 September 2021.
I am satisfied there was no fault by the Council. It made all reasonable attempts to contact Ms X. It used the email address that it had used in all previous contact with her. It made further enquires of her solicitor and contacted Ms X by phone. I would not expect the Council to do anything further. There is no dispute that Ms X was aware of the initial appointment, and she had over a week to make enquiries about the rescheduled appointment.
The Council failed to address ongoing problems with their ability to bid on suitable properties Ms X says she has been unable to bid on suitable properties, and often unable to place a bid on smaller properties.
The records show Ms X made several calls to the Council about this. Each time Ms X was advised that either there were no properties to bid for that week (due to the specification she required) or she was not entitled to bid. She was also advised on how to view only propertied that she could place a bid on.
The Council has said some smaller properties are ringfenced for homelessness applicants only. This explains why Ms X may have been unable to bid on certain properties.
I found no evidence of fault by the Council.
Poor communication by the Council The Council’s case records confirm there was no communication with Ms X between November 2020 and March 2021. The Council has already accepted this was poor and more effort should have been made by the officer concerned.
Since that time, the records show other officers responded promptly to Ms X’s concerns about her housing and homelessness applications. I acknowledge Ms X was often frustrated by the fact she had not been rehoused and this led to her contacting the Council.
I can see that part of Ms X’s frustration arose from officers requesting information, such as recent bank statements and benefit entitlements. Again, the Council has accepted the first housing officer failed to upload the documents.
Ms X should not have been repeatedly asked to resend documents because they had not been processed properly by the Council. While I accept some updated paperwork had to be sent again, there were many occasions when Ms X had to resend documents and medical evidence that the Council already had. This was fault.
Injustice In summary, have identified several areas of fault: Delay in progressing her homelessness application.
Failure to process banding review request.
Failure to consider medical evidence for the purpose of the banding.
Application of a blanket policy.
Failure to accept housing register application.
Failure to record information provided by Ms X.
I must now decide what injustice has been caused to Ms X and Mrs P as a result of these faults. In the first instance, I must decide if they have missed out on an opportunity to rehoused. There is a possibility they have because of a) - e) above. It is possible had they joined the housing register in November 2020 with Band B priority, they could have been rehoused sooner. But this is not certain. I have therefore recommended the Council should backdate their housing application and if they have been denied a suitable housing opportunity, a payment should be made to acknowledge this injustice.
I am also satisfied Ms X and Mrs P have both experience significant distress and frustration as a direct result of the poor case handling buy the Council over several months. The Ombudsman does not recommend compensation payments or punitive damages. In such cases, we recommend symbolic payments in recognition of avoidable distress, uncertainty time and trouble.
Agreed action
The Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks from the date of my final decision: Apologise in writing to both Ms X and Mrs P for the faults identified in this decision statement.
Pay Ms X £250 to acknowledge the time and trouble she has spent making her complaint to both the Council and the Ombudsman.
Pay Ms X and Mrs P a further £300 each, as symbolic payments to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused to then as a result of the poor management of their housing and homelessness applications.
Backdate Ms X’s housing application and Priority B banding decision to November 2020, when she first approached the Council for assistance with housing.
Provide evidence to show whether Ms X would likely have been offered a suitable property if there had been no fault and she had joined the housing register in November 2020 with Band B priority. If she has missed out, the Council will then make a payment to Ms X of £250 for each full month, up to September 2021. This was the date Ms X failed to accept a suitable five bedroom property offer. If Ms X did not miss out on a suitable property, no payment would be necessary because there was no injustice arising from the Council’s fault.
The Council has agreed to take the following action within three months from the date of my final decision: If it has not already done so, carry out an audit of homelessness applicants who have been incorrectly prevented from joining the housing register. It should provide the Ombudsman with a report setting out the numbers affected and what action has been taken to backdate remedy this fault.
Reflect on the issues raised in this decision statement and identify any areas of service improvement, particularly around case handling time and banding review advice. The Council should prepare a short report setting out what the Council intends to do to ensure similar problems not reoccur. This report should be sent to the Ombudsman.
Final decision
I have found the Council to have acted with faut and the Council has agreed to action recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman