The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss B complained the Council did not award her the correct housing priority and wrongly assessed her homelessness application. Miss B said the Council left her in unsuitable accommodation and this affected her health. We did not found fault with the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, who I shall refer to as Miss B, complained the Council did not award her the correct housing priority and wrongly assessed her homelessness application. Miss B said the Council left her in unsuitable accommodation and this affected her health.
What I have investigated Miss B also complained about the Council’s rent deposit scheme and disrepair to her private rented accommodation pre-dating 2020. I did not investigate this part of her complaint because Miss B has not raised this with the Council. Miss B can make a new complaint to the Council about these matters.
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) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5)) We cannot question whether a council’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 a council’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 considered: Miss B’s complaint and the information she provided; documents supplied by the Council; relevant legislation and guidelines; and the Council’s policies and procedures.
Miss B and the Council had the opportunity to comment on a draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Legislation and Guidance 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.
Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for help from the Council: he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)) If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5) After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33) Prevention duty: councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to help prevent any eligible person (regardless of priority need status, intentionality and whether they have a local connection) who is threatened with homelessness from becoming homeless. This means either helping them to stay in their current accommodation or helping them to find a new place to live before they become homeless. The prevention duty continues for 56 days unless it is brought to an end by an event such as accommodation being secured for the person, or by their becoming homeless.
Relief duty: If the applicant is already homeless, or becomes homeless despite activity during the prevention stage, the council’s reasonable steps will be focused on helping the applicant to secure accommodation. This relief duty lasts for 56 days unless ended in another way. If the council has reason to believe a homeless applicant may be eligible for assistance and have a priority need, they must be provided with interim accommodation.
Examples of applicants in priority need are: people with dependent children; pregnant women; people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age; care leavers; from 5 July 2021, victims of domestic abuse.
If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. Generally, the Council carries out the duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193) Councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39) Homeless applicants may request a review of the Council’s decision within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) 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)) Councils must tell applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons: the applicant is not eligible for an allocation; the applicant is not a qualifying person; a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
The Council must also tell the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9)) Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
Council’s allocations policy The Council has four priority bands: Band A: This Band is for cases of an exceptional level of need where there are compelling and urgent reasons for placing them in the top priority Band.
Band B: Members with an identified housing need. This is given where: there are statutory duties; there are high levels of housing need among tenants or homeseekers; tenants need to be decanted from regeneration schemes; it is in the Council’s interest to transfer; special transfer policies have been agreed; or, there are special needs for supported housing.
Band C: This Band is for households with an identified housing need who fall within the criteria set out in the 1996 Housing Act (as amended), which states that reasonable preference must be given to certain types of applicants.
Band D: All other members It can also award medical priority: Band A: The homeseeker, or a member of the household, has a life-threatening condition which is seriously affected by their housing; or homeless households in emergency temporary accommodation which is unsuitable due to a severe medical condition; or, where the housing conditions, and/or other circumstances, are having such a major adverse effect on the medical condition of the applicant or member of the applicant’s household as to warrant emergency priority.
Band B: Urgent Medical: the current housing conditions are having a major adverse effect on the medical condition of the homeseeker or a member of the household.
Band C: Medical Need: the current housing conditions are having an adverse effect on the medical condition of the homeseeker, or a member of the household, which creates a particular need for them to move.
What happened This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
Homelessness Miss B contacted the Council in September 2020 because her landlady was seeking possession of the property she was renting, and the property was in disrepair. She said the property was not habitable. The Council assessed Miss B and accepted the prevention duty. It asked the Property Regulation team to inspect Miss B’s property to decide if it was reasonable to occupy. In November 2020, the Property Regulation team advised it could not inspect Miss B’s property because of the COVID-19 lockdown. It recommended the Council provided Miss B with alternative accommodation because of the disrepair she reported.
In October 2020, Miss B was referred to a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC). A MARAC is a meeting where information is shared about high-risk domestic abuse cases. The Council’s Specialist Domestic Abuse Advisor spoke to Miss B in November 2020 about her housing choices and interim accommodation. She said the Council would look for suitable temporary accommodation for Miss B in the private sector. Miss B was unhappy with this. She said she wanted permanent social housing and did not want to move into private rented accommodation. The Council advised her to make a housing application so she could bid for houses on the housing register.
In November 2020, the Council wrote to Miss B and said it accepted the relief duty because she was eligible for assistance and had been served an eviction notice. It enclosed a copy of her personal housing plan. It gave her information about how to request a review of the decision.
Miss B provided the Council with an occupational therapy report from January 2020. The Council referred Miss B’s case to a medical advisor for advice about the type of accommodation she would need. The medical advisor recommended housing Miss B in self-contained accommodation where possible and said bed and breakfast accommodation would be suitable in the short term. He advised Miss B’s current accommodation was suitable on medical grounds and she was not eligible for medical priority.
The Council’s Environmental Health team inspected Miss B’s property in December 2020. It found five low scoring Category 2 hazards. It found the property fit for habitation.
In February 2021, the Council ended its relief duty because 56 days had passed since it accepted the duty. It decided Miss B was homeless or threatened with homelessness, had a priority need for help with housing and was not intentionally homeless or threatened with homelessness.
The Council wrote to Miss B to tell her it accepted the full rehousing duty and had awarded her Band C housing priority. It told her it intended to arrange for a private landlord to make her an offer of an assured short-hold tenancy in the private rented sector for at least 12 months. It advised her if she refused a suitable offer of accommodation, it would have no duty to make any further offers and she would have to make her own housing arrangements. It gave her information about how to request a review of the decision.
The Council said it would provide her with emergency accommodation if she was evicted from her private rented property in the interim.
Housing application In November 2020, Miss B made a housing application. Miss B said she needed to move because of disrepair at her private rented accommodation. She stated she had a permanent disability and was suffering domestic abuse. She did not identify herself as having any support needs.
The Council initially thought Miss B was not an EU citizen and therefore ineligible to join the housing register. The Council resolved it’s misunderstanding the same day and accepted her housing application. The Council assessed her as adequately housed and placed her in Band D. It sent her a letter explaining its decision and how to request a review.
The Council contacted Miss B twice in January 2021 to explain why it had awarded her Band D housing priority. The Council told her she needed to complete a medical form if she wanted it to consider whether she met the criteria for medical priority.
In February 2021, the Council accepted a full rehousing duty for Miss B and awarded her Band C housing priority. It told her she could start bidding on properties. It also sent her an auto-bidding form so it could assist her if she could not bid herself.
Miss B completed a medical form for her housing application and sent the Council supporting documents. The Council assessed her medical needs and decided she was eligible for Band C medical priority. The Council made no changes to her housing priority. She remained in Band C. It gave her information about how to request a review of the decision.
As of March 2022, Miss B had not made any bids and is still living in her private rented accommodation.
Analysis The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide what housing priority Miss B should be given; that is the Council’s job. We can only consider whether the Council assessed her application correctly. We cannot criticise a council where officers have followed the correct procedures and reached a reasoned decision.
In this case, the Council followed legislation and guidance and its own policies when assessing Miss B’s housing application. It considered the information available to it at the time and sought medical advice. When it wrongly thought she was not an EU citizen, it resolved it’s misunderstanding the same day and therefore it had no impact on her housing application. I do not consider this mistake serious enough to make a formal finding of fault, especially as the Council corrected its mistake the same day and apologised for it in its stage one complaint response. The Council reassessed her priority when her circumstances changed, or new information came to light. I am satisfied the Council took account of all the relevant evidence when deciding her priority band.
The Council also followed legislation and guidance when it assessed her homelessness application. It accepted her application and made enquiries. It decided it owed her duties under the Housing Act 1996 and offered to secure interim accommodation for her. Miss B declined and chose to stay in her current accommodation. Miss B wants to move into social housing, the Council has accepted a duty to secure accommodation for Miss B, but this does not have to be social housing.
The Council’s letters to Miss B about its housing duties included details of how Miss B could request a review of its decisions. Miss B had the option to ask the Council to review its homelessness and priority need decisions, but she did not.
I found no fault with the actions of the Council.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr B’s complaint.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate I did not investigate Miss B’s complaint about the Council’s rent deposit scheme and disrepair predating 2020 because Miss B has not raised it with the Council. Miss B can make a new complaint to the Council about these matters.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman