The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: There was no fault by the Council in the way it determined Mrs B’s housing priority on its housing register, or in the way it offered temporary accommodation to Mrs B when she was homeless.
The complaint
Mrs B complains that the Council failed to properly consider the information she provided to support her housing application, and because of this, it has not awarded enough housing priority.
Mrs B also complains that the Council has failed to provide her family with suitable temporary accommodation. She says that as a result of failings by the Council, she remains living in unsuitable accommodation with family.
What I have investigated I have investigated Mrs B’s complaint about her housing priority. I have not investigated Mrs B’s complaint that the accommodation it offered was not suitable for the reasons explained in the last section of this statement.
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 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) We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), 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 documents provided by the complainant; discussed the issues with the complainant; made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.
What I found
Housing allocations 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.
Priority band: The Council places applicants who qualify to join the housing register in a priority band from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 4 (lowest priority). This priority is the first factor the Council uses to allocate a property.
Band 1: So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band 1 where: The applicant, or a member of their household, has a medical condition or disability which is made substantially worse by current housing. This includes people whose life is at risk or who are completely housebound because of their housing conditions or type of accommodation.
The applicant, or a member of their household, is at risk of/suffering domestic abuse, extreme violence or harassment whose facts and circumstances demonstrate to the Council that the threat is immediate and it is not safe for the applicant / household to remain in their present home. This is based on verification by senior officers within the police or other agencies as necessary in conjunction with a Council approved risk assessment. The police risk assessment is known as a ‘tier one’.
The applicant, or a member of their household, is living in a private rented sector property that has been identified as having insanitary or unfit conditions, where the conditions pose an ongoing and serious risk to health and the property conditions cannot be rectified by the owner within 6 months.
Band 2: So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band 2 where: The applicant is homeless and owed the main duty because they have been assessed as being in priority need and unintentionally homeless.
The applicant is living in housing which is unsuitable for the medical or disability needs of a member of their household. This includes applicants who are not housebound or whose life is not at risk, but whose current housing is directly impacting their health.
The applicant’s household is lacking two bedrooms in their current accommodation.
The applicant, or a member of their household, needs to move due to threat of domestic abuse, violence or harassment but who are not in immediate danger.
The applicant, or a member of their household, needs to move to give or receive care that is substantial and ongoing.
Homeless legislation If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, in priority need and unintentionally homeless, it will owe them the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193) Under the main housing duty, housing authorities 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. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17) The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2) Applicants can ask a council to review its decision that the accommodation offered is suitable. A request for a review must be made within 21 days, or longer if allowed by the Council. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, Homeless Code of Guidance, paragraph 19.3) If the applicant is still dissatisfied following a review of the suitability of the accommodation, they can appeal to the county court on a point of law. Applicants can also appeal if a council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, section 204) The law says that bed and breakfast accommodation is not to be regarded as suitable for a homeless applicant with family commitments unless no other type of accommodation is available, and then for a maximum of six weeks. (The Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2003)
Overview
Mrs B submitted a housing application to the Council in December 2020. At the time, she was living in a two-bedroom housing association property with her three children. She told the Council that she did not feel safe in the property following an incident where she was harassed by strangers.
Mrs B reported another similar incident to the police in March 2021. The police completed a ‘tier one’ referral which Mrs B submitted to the Council.
Concerned for her safety, Mrs B moved with her children into her parent’s home.
Mrs B then made a homelessness application to the Council. The Council told Mrs B that it could provide emergency accommodation if she was unable to remain at her parent’s house.
The Council accepted Mrs B onto its Housing Register. It awarded Band 2 due to a threat of abuse, violence or harassment and Band 3 due to overcrowding. It decided that the medical evidence submitted did not demonstrate that Mrs B’s accommodation was having a direct impact on her health. It explained that if she wanted to be considered for a mobility award, she would need to request an assessment from the Council’s Occupational Therapy team.
The Council accepted the main housing duty to Mrs B in May 2021. The Council then awarded Band 2 due to homelessness and, after considering further medical evidence which Mrs B had submitted, it awarded Band 2 due to medical needs.
Mrs B’s housing application was briefly closed in June because she did not keep to a repayment plan to pay off rent arrears from a previous tenancy. When she resumed the payments, the Council re-opened her application. It confirmed that she had been awarded Band 2 due to a threat of abuse, violence or harassment, Band 2 due to homelessness, Band 2 due to medical needs and Band 3 due to overcrowding.
Mrs B then requested a review of the Council’s decision. She considered she should be awarded Band 1.
Mrs B gave birth to her fourth child in July.
Mrs B asked the Council about temporary accommodation in July, August and September. She was told that temporary accommodation could be provided, but that it could be a bed and breakfast, hostel or hotel. Mrs B said that she did not want to move into that type of accommodation.
Mrs B contacted the Council again in October and requested temporary accommodation. She was offered accommodation in a hotel which she accepted, but after viewing the hotel she decided not to stay. Mrs B considered the accommodation was unsuitable and she returned to her parent’s house.
In November, the Council increased Mrs B’s overcrowding award from Band 3 to Band 2.
After Mrs B experienced further harassment in January 2022, she submitted another tier one form to the Council.
The Council carried out a review of its housing priority decision the following week. It considered the two tier one forms, the medical evidence which Mrs B had submitted and an occupational therapy report. It decided to uphold its decision to award Band 2.
Mrs B submitted further medical evidence in April which was considered in May. The Council decided not to change Mrs B’s housing priority.
Analysis Housing priority As explained in paragraph four, the Ombudsman cannot criticise a decision which has been reached without fault. I have considered how the Council reached its decision to award Band 2.
The Council’s review decision letter explains why it decided not to change Mrs B’s housing priority in relation to each of the housing needs she selected on her application form – overcrowding, medical, mobility, homelessness, care and support, insanitary and unfit conditions and exceptional circumstances.
Overcrowding: The Council upheld its decision that Mrs B met the criteria for a Band 2 overcrowding award because she is lacking two bedrooms.
The Council uses the bedroom standard to measure overcrowding levels for the purpose of awarding priority and allocating accommodation. The bedroom standard states that a separate bedroom is required for: Two persons living together with another as husband and wife A person aged 21 years or more Two persons of the same sex aged 10 years to 20 years Two persons (whether of the same sex or not) aged less than 10 years Two persons of the same sex where one person is aged between 10 years and 20 years and the other is aged less than 10 years Any person aged under 21 years in any case where he or she cannot be paired with another occupier of the dwelling.
Mrs B is living in a three-bedroom house with her parents, sister and four children, who are all aged under six years old. I am satisfied that, according to the bedroom standard, the family is lacking two bedrooms. The Housing Allocations Scheme states that Band 2 should be awarded where the applicant’s household is lacking two bedrooms.
Medical: The Council upheld its decision that Mrs B met the criteria for a Band 2 medical award. It said that the medical evidence submitted did not show that Mrs B’s life was at risk or that she was housebound and she therefore did not meet the criteria for a Band 1 medical award.
Mobility: The Council upheld its decision that Mrs B did not qualify for a mobility award. It said that an occupational therapy assessment had been carried out and it had concluded that Mrs B required a standard property without any adaptations.
Homelessness: The Council upheld its decision that Mrs B met the criteria for a Band 2 homelessness award. The Council explained that it could not award a higher band for this housing need.
Care and support: The Council upheld its decision that Mrs B did not qualify for a care and support award. It explained that a care and support award can only be made following a social care needs assessment. It said that as Mrs B had not had such an assessment, she was not entitled to an award at that time.
Insanitary and unfit conditions: The Council upheld its decision that Mrs B did not qualify for this award. This is because Mrs B is not a private tenant, and the award is only for private tenants.
Exceptional circumstances (abuse, violence or harassment): The Council upheld its decision that Mrs B met the criteria for a Band 2 award.
The Council explained that the tier one forms completed by the police indicated a risk assessment score which equated to a Band 2 award.
The police gave a score of 15 when it completed the first tier one form and a score of 16 when it completed the second form. The Council awards Band 1 for a score of 17 or more, and Band 2 for a score of 12 to 16. The risk assessment score did not indicate that Mrs B should be awarded Band 1.
I am satisfied that the Council’s banding decision was made in accordance with the Council’s allocations scheme and after properly considering all the evidence. I have found no evidence of fault here.
Temporary accommodation When the Council accepted the main housing duty to Mrs B, its letter explained that the Council had a duty to provide her with suitable temporary accommodation, but that Mrs B had chosen to stay elsewhere. It said that she should contact the Council immediately if her circumstances changed or she was asked to leave her accommodation so that it could make arrangements to provide her with temporary accommodation.
The Council can place homeless families in bed and breakfast accommodation where no other type of accommodation is available, for a maximum of six weeks. I am satisfied that the Council made Mrs B aware of its duty to provide suitable temporary accommodation, but she chose to remain living with her parents. I have found no evidence of fault by the Council here.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mrs B’s complaint. There was no fault by the Council.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate When the Council offered Mrs B temporary accommodation in a hotel in October 2021, its letter explained that she had the right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation, whether she accepted or refused the offer. I have decided that we should not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the accommodation was unsuitable because it would have been reasonable for Mrs B to request a review and appeal to the court if her review was unsuccessful.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman