The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms D says the Council delayed reviewing her housing priority. The Council has already accepted one error in its handling of the case. We identified an additional fault and have upheld the complaint. However, we have not found an outstanding injustice and have completed the investigation.
The complaint
The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council delayed reviewing her housing band in 2023. In addition, she is dissatisfied that an Officer notified her landlord about contact with the Council before asking for her permission, this resulted in a strained relationship with her landlord.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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)
What I have and have not investigated Ms D referred to potential personal injury matters in her complaint. I have explained that is not something the Ombudsman will consider because she has the right to pursue court action.
How I considered this complaint
I have spoken to Ms D and considered the information she provided. I asked the Council questions and examined its response.
I shared my draft decision with both parties.
What I found
What happened On 8 November 2022 Ms D applied to the Council’s housing register but did not flag up a housing need. The Council started a pre-assessment of the application to clarify Ms D’s needs. It subsequently identified potential mobility issues caused by Ms D’s private rental home. On 17 November the Council received a completed housing register application from Ms D which it acknowledged and advised Ms D had 28 days to provide supporting documents. In December and early January 2023 Ms D provided the documentation required to support her housing register application. On 6 February the Council completed its housing register application assessment. It awarded Ms D “silver band, grade 2 medical” housing register status.
On 24 May Ms D’s representative (the Representative) contacted the Council. The housing band was incorrect because of Ms D’s deteriorating health caused by the state of her housing and its unsuitability. Ms D was living in a property with no windows. There was mould and the shower could not be accessed. The Council replied the same day that it was too late to ask for a standard review of the banding decision, but the Representative could send medical evidence to enable a reassessment of the medical and welfare band. On 6 July the Council received a letter from Ms D’s GP about her conditions.
On 18 July the Council referred the case to its Adult Social Care (ASC) Team for a housing needs assessment. It also made a referral to the Housing Options Team to assess if Ms D should receive assistance under homelessness reduction legislation. An update was sent to the Representative. Also, on that day the Housing Team asked the Private Sector Housing Team (PSH Team) to look at the case. It explained Ms D seemed to be in a flat without windows and asked if a home visit would be made. Soon afterwards a PSH Team Officer contacted Ms D's landlord stating contact had been received about the flat. On 28 July the Representative contacted the Council with a formal complaint. The PSH Team Officer had been in touch with Ms D’s landlord and wrongly stated Ms D had complained about the landlord. Ms D was unhappy about this because she had not made a complaint. The Representative felt matters were not being handled correctly.
On 4 August the Council asked the Housing Options Team to allocate Ms D’s case to a Support and Inclusion Officer (SI Officer) for advice and assistance. The SI Officer contacted Ms D and the Representative that day to explain the Council was waiting for the housing needs assessment. On 11 August a Senior PSH Team Officer contacted the Representative who said Ms D had wanted a review of her housing band and it was unclear why the PSH Team were involved. It was agreed, and confirmed in an email to the Representative, the Council would not continue with a PSH Team assessment of the housing standards at Ms D’s request. On 23 August the Council chased up the housing needs assessment. ASC said it might be complete by September as there was a backlog.
On 15 September the Council replied to the formal complaint. It said the PSH Team had received a referral on 18 July for the Housing Team advising Ms D’s property had no windows and she was possibly suffering from excess heat “which can be a very serious hazard”. It said the usual process would be to “make every effort to arrange a visit” and it would need to inform the landlord which is why the Officer contacted the landlord directly. It explained the PSH Team Officer had not been told the referral for Ms D did not relate to a wider property owned by the same person. The Officer had contacted the landlord thinking it related to properties they were already in contact with that person about. The Council said there had been an error in communication between departments and that contact with Ms D prior to contact with the landlord may have clarified the situation. It apologised and said lessons from the case had been “reaffirmed” with Officers. The next day the Representative asked the Council to escalate the complaint.
On 19 September the Council received an out of time part 6 review request from the Representative about the banding decision. The Council accepted it would consider the out of time request. On 5 October the Council received further medical evidence from Ms D’s health professionals. On 17 October the Council replied to the escalated formal complaint. It said that concerns about the housing priority awarded to Ms D was part of the review process and the Council was waiting for a housing needs assessment before it could complete the review. Where disrepair was reported to the Council it referred cases to the PSH Team to assess for hazards. On 3 November the Council’s Housing Register Assessing Officer reviewed the medical information and found no basis to change Ms D’s banding.
On 13 November Housing Options considered the out of time review request. It asked ASC for an update on the housing needs assessment. It also asked the Private Sector Enforcement Team to check if there had been a home visit to Ms D. Later that day the Council noted the housing needs assessment had not been completed and no home visit made to Ms D. An Officer then called the Representative and apologised for the delay responding to the review request. It was agreed the Council would visit Ms D the next day and extended the deadline to reply to the review request to 24 November.
On 14 November Housing Officers visited Ms D at her home. They considered the accommodation was unreasonable to remain in. They noted the Council should chase up the housing needs assessment as urgent and continue with the out of time review. On 15 November the Council allocated Ms D’s case to a Housing Options Officer to complete a homelessness assessment and accept a relief duty because it was unreasonable for Ms D to remain at her home. On 17 November the Council accepted a relief duty to Ms D. The housing needs assessment was also completed. It found Ms D’s accommodation was making her conditions worse and rehousing would significantly improve them. It also advised the current accommodation could not be improved.
On 8 December the Principal Housing Options Officer requested Ms D’s housing status be changed to “emergency band” because her current home was not suitable to occupy, and adaptations were required to alternative housing. On 12 December the Council notified Ms D about the change in her banding. It confirmed this in an email the next day and explained the review outcome. The original band it had awarded had been overturned and instead Ms D now had emergency band status. On 15 December the Council made a direct offer to Ms D of a social housing property which she accepted.
What should have happened When a housing applicant applies to the Council for a place on its housing register the Council will consider the information provided by the applicant to determine their eligibility and housing need. If the Council is satisfied the applicant is eligible it will then check all the required documentation is provided and award the applicant a housing band. The bands are: emergency, gold, silver and bronze. Emergency band is only awarded in exceptional cases. Where an applicant is given the emergency band, they will receive a direct offer of housing by the Council based on their specific housing need. Applicants awarded gold, silver or bronze bands must bid for advertised properties to secure new accommodation.
If an applicant says they have a medical need they must supply evidence from health professionals to the Council. The Council will assess that information. In order to award a medical band, the applicant must be able to evidence their medical condition is caused/ made worse by their housing and their property cannot be adapted and rehousing will significantly improve their condition. There are two groups for medical banding. Group one is for cases where there is extreme harm caused by the property and the applicant needs to be rehoused to resolve the problem. Group two includes applicants who are in an unsuitable home, for example they struggle to access their property.
Where an applicant reports they require accommodation because of medical or welfare reasons the Council can ask ASC to arrange for an Occupational Therapist to carry out a housing needs assessment. When ASC receive the request, it is “triaged” and ranked in order of urgency based on the initial information provided to ASC. It is then allocated to a queue and dealt with in date order. The Council can re-prioritise a referral if it receives information about a change in circumstances. An urgent case will be where the applicant is homeless/ going to be homeless/ there is a high risk to health and wellbeing. A non-urgent case is where a housing register applicant is not homeless but may need to move home and require adaptations. There is no set timeframe for completion of a housing needs assessment.
If an applicant says they risk becoming homeless the Council must consider this. It will award silver banding to applicants where it is not reasonable for them to live at their property. In addition, if an applicant appears at risk of becoming homeless the Council should notify the Housing Options Team and have a SI Officer assess the applicants “circumstances and needs” and advise on looking for alternative accommodation. The SI Officer can refer the case to the PSH Team to get an assessment of the applicant’s current housing. Where a housing needs assessment has already been requested the SI Officer may require the completed assessment in order to determine the applicant’s circumstances.
The PSH Team assess privately owned property for hazards using an assessment framework to decide if enforcement action against the property owner is needed. Usually, the PSH Team receive contact direct from a resident about issues with a property. In such cases the PSH Officer will advise the resident that standard practice is for the Officer to contact the landlord to discuss the case, arrange to visit the site and address any hazards. However, when a case is referred by another Council team the Council says it is “not always possible” to explain to the applicant that their landlord may be contacted. Once a case is logged with the PSH Team it will look to visit the property to assess the level of hazards. If the resident tells the PSH Team, they do want a visit or to have their case assessed the PSH Team will usually end their involvement.
An applicant can ask the Council to review its banding decision. They should make this request within 21 days of receiving the decision. However, there are circumstances where an out of time review request can be accepted by the Council. In either case the Council should respond to the review with its decision within 56 days. The Council can extend the deadline to reply if the applicant agrees.
Was there fault by the Council The initial consideration of the housing register application was handled in line with procedures. The Council reached a view on Ms D’s housing need based on the evidence she had provided. I do not see evidence of fault in how the initial decision was reached.
Ms D and her Representative then provided additional information to the Council about medical need and disrepair at Ms D’s home. The Council correctly followed its procedures by requesting a housing needs assessment to determine whether Ms D required re-housing due to her medical need. Because there were potential hazards and disrepair the case was also, correctly, referred to the PSH Team.
There is evidence of fault once the case was referred to the PSH Team. A PSH Team Officer contacted Ms D’s landlord before speaking to Ms D. This error has already been acknowledged by the Council in its complaint response. It explained why the fault occurred and apologised. It recognised it would have been better to contact Ms D in the first place before the landlord.
In August the Council confirmed the Representative did not want the PSH Team to visit the property. This meant the PSH Team case was closed in line with procedures. The Council will not pursue a hazard assessment without the consent of the resident. There is no fault in this matter by the Council.
I have considered whether the housing needs assessment was correctly prioritised. The evidence shows me the Council acted in line with procedures. The housing needs assessment was not initially logged as urgent because of the information supplied to the Council by Ms D. That information did not meet the criteria for an urgent assessment. It was only after a home visit by Housing Officers in November the Council became fully aware of the condition of Ms D’s home. The Council then quickly asked for an urgent housing needs assessment which was completed within days.
There was some delay responding to the out of time review. Usually, a decision will be issued within 56 days. In this case the Council received the review request on 19 September and issued its response in mid-December which was still later than the extended deadline it had set for 24 November. That said, I also see the Council took significant action in November and December to assist Ms D and find her suitable housing. It was reasonable for the Council to wait until that action was completed before issuing its review response.
Did the fault cause an injustice The Council has already accepted there were errors in how the PSH Team Officer contacted Ms D’s landlord. It offered its apologies for the distress this caused Ms D and spoken to Officers about the correct process.
Ms D also had to wait longer than usual for the outcome of the housing review. I do not see this caused a significant injustice because the Council were in contact with Ms D during November and December to move the case on, carry out the housing needs assessment and find alternative housing.
Final decision
I have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman