The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms B complained that she was forced to leave her previous temporary accommodation and placed in unsuitable temporary accommodation away from her work, support network and her daughter’s school causing distress and inconvenience. She also complained about her priority on the housing register. We found no fault on the Council’s part.
The complaint
Ms B complains that she was forced to leave her previous temporary accommodation and placed in unsuitable temporary accommodation away from her work, support network and her daughter’s school. As a result, she and her daughter have to travel for lengthy periods each day causing distress and inconvenience. She also complains about her priority on the housing register.
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) 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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered all the information provided by Ms B, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
Ms B 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
Legal and administrative background 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)) 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)) The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.
The Ombudsman recognises the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. He 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 Homelessness and temporary accommodation 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 a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39) The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2) When deciding if accommodation is suitable, the law says councils must consider several factors, including: the size of the property and whether it is legally overcrowded; affordability for the applicant; the location of the accommodation; the Council’s duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of any children living in the accommodation and their rights to an education; the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities; and any relevant parts of the Council’s homelessness strategy.
The duty to ensure accommodation is suitable is an ongoing duty. Councils must keep the suitability of accommodation under review and respond to any relevant change in circumstances which may affect suitability, until such time as the accommodation duty is brought to an end. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.8) Right to request a review The 1996 Housing Act gives homeless applicants rights to request a review of various decisions made by councils on their case. This includes the suitability of accommodation offered to discharge the full housing duty. If a person is unhappy with the outcome of the review decision, they may appeal to County Court on a point of law.
The Council’s Temporary Accommodation Placement Policy The Council has a policy which sets out how it decides which homeless households to place within its area and which to place outside its area. The Council adopted the policy because there is a severe shortage of temporary accommodation in its own area. The policy sets out which households will be prioritised for temporary accommodation in: ‘the local area’ which is defined as “the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the surrounding local areas”; the Greater London area; and outside London.
Key facts Ms B made a homeless application to the Council in 2016 as she had fled domestic violence. The Council accepted the main housing duty to her and placed her in temporary accommodation. She was then moved to different temporary accommodation three times.
In October 2020 Ms B was moved again to private rented temporary accommodation in the Council’s area.
In October 2021 the landlord issued a notice to quit as he required possession of the property. The Council assessed Ms B under its Temporary Accommodation Placement Policy as requiring accommodation in ‘the Greater London area’ rather than the local area. However, it offered her accommodation in a neighbouring borough which falls within ‘the local area’ under its policy. Ms B moved there in March 2022.
Ms B requested a statutory review of the suitability of this accommodation under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996. The review decided that the accommodation was suitable for Ms B.
Ms B remains of the view that the property is unsuitable because it is too far from her daughter’s school, her work and their support networks. She says they are having to spend a significant amount of time each day travelling to and from school as she does not wish her daughter to have to move schools again. Ms B says she has had to give up her job and her training for a professional qualification as a result. She says the situation is causing her extreme stress and is affecting her health.
Analysis Temporary accommodation Ms B was forced to leave her temporary accommodation in the Council’s area in October 2021 because the landlord issued a notice to quit. But she says that, after she left the property, it was let by the Council as temporary accommodation to other tenants.
The Council has explained that it tried to keep Ms B in the property, but the landlord was adamant he wanted vacant possession. It says it has not used the property as temporary accommodation since Ms B left and it is no longer on its temporary accommodation portfolio.
I am satisfied there was nothing further the Council could do in the circumstances. It could not force the landlord to continue renting the property to Ms B and it complied with its duty to provide her with alternative temporary accommodation.
It is possible that the landlord has let the property out as temporary accommodation via another local authority but this is not evidence of fault by the Council.
Suitability of Ms B’s current temporary accommodation Ms B requested a review of her temporary accommodation shortly after she moved in. The Council completed a review and explained in some detail the reasons for its decision that the accommodation was suitable for Ms B and her daughter. As part of the review it considered issues including: distance from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; medical issues; Ms B’s employment and her daughter’s educational needs; and the distance from their support networks. The Council considered medical evidence and other supporting evidence provided by Ms B in reaching its decision.
Ms B had a right to challenge the Council’s review decision in the County Court if she believed it was incorrect. The Council informed her of this right of appeal in its review decision letter. I consider it would have been reasonable for Ms B to have exercised her right of appeal. But, in any event, I am satisfied the Council completed a thorough review and considered all relevant information in reaching its decision. In the absence of administrative fault in the way the decision was reached, the Ombudsman has no power to question the merits of that decision.
Priority on the housing register The Council has explained that Ms B has been awarded 100 points on the housing register because it has accepted the main homeless duty towards her.
Ms B says the Council should have awarded her maximum points or at least additional medical points.
Under the Council’s housing allocations policy, 2000 points is awarded for applicants who meet the criteria for the categories of “exceptional priority” or “emergency health and independence”.
‘Exceptional priority’ is only awarded in exceptional and compelling circumstances and is at the Council’s discretion. ‘Emergency health and independence’ is for applicants who have a medical condition or disability that the Council considers affects their health very seriously and where it is satisfied their accommodation is totally unsuitable for their needs and no other housing options are available.
1900 points can be awarded for applicants assessed as being “at serious risk of harm”. These points can only be applied for by the Council’s Children’s Services or Adult Services or by the police. A referral is considered by the panel and points will be awarded if there is a serious and immediate risk of harm from another person to a person in the household unless a move can be obtained. This situation covers applicants at risk of domestic violence. The Council is satisfied this did not apply in this case because Ms B is no longer at immediate risk of violence having been moved from the source of danger in 2016 when the Council accepted a homeless duty to her and placed her in temporary accommodation.
‘Supporting health and independence priority’ is awarded to households where a disability or long-term health condition has a substantial impact on the independence of a member of the household. Priority is not awarded simply because a member of the household has ill-health. Households are only offered this priority where it can be demonstrated that a move to a more suitable home will have a substantial positive impact on their ability to enter and leave their home or access essential facilities within the home.
In addition, the Council’s housing allocations policy states that generally homeless applicants to whom it has accepted a duty (such as Ms B) will only be awarded homeless duty points. The Council will only award additional health and independence points if it considers the household’s temporary accommodation is unsuitable on health grounds and having a substantial impact on independence.
I am satisfied the Council has correctly applied its policy when deciding how much priority Ms B should be awarded.
Permanent housing Ms B says the Council should provide her with permanent housing as she has been waiting for five years and has been moved six times during this period, with her daughter having to change schools four times.
The law does not require councils to provide a permanent home for people to whom they owe the main housing duty. Councils can meet this duty by providing temporary accommodation. There is no limit on how long councils can provide someone with temporary accommodation, but most councils will seek to rehouse people in permanent accommodation as soon as possible.
We recognise the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We will not usually find fault with a council for failing to rehouse someone if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme.
Final decision
I do not uphold Ms B’s complaint.
I have completed my investigation on the basis that I am satisfied with the Council’s actions.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman