The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his application to join the housing register. He says the Council assessed him as having no medical need to move. He also complains the Council failed to acknowledge his disability and failed to make reasonable adjustments. We find some fault with the Council’s actions. However, we do not consider the faults identified caused Mr X any significant injustice.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his application to join the housing register. He says the Council assessed him as having no medical needs to move. Mr X says the Council’s decision has caused him distress as his current accommodation is not suitable for his medical needs. Mr X also complains the Council failed to acknowledge his disability and failed to make the reasonable adjustments he requested.
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 cannot question whether an organisation’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 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 Mr X and considered the information he provided.
I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
I sent a draft decision to Mr X and the Council and considered their comments.
What I found
Legislation, guidance, and policy 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 assistance 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)) 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.
The Council may give notice to bring the relief duty to an end when the applicant has refused an offer of suitable accommodation that would have been available for at least six months.
Council’s housing allocation policy This policy details how the Council will assess applications for housing and how applications are prioritised. The policy also details how applicants will qualify to go on the housing register.
Part of the qualification criteria to join the housing register is that applicants must demonstrate they have continuously lived in the borough for at least 10 years. This is referred to as the 10-year qualification rule within the policy.
When applicants are placed on the housing register, the Council allocates them a band to determine their priority. Where the Council has not been able to prevent homelessness, applicants who do not satisfy the 10-year qualification rule will be placed in Band D.
Section 2.2.5 of the policy details an exception to the 10-year qualification rule for non-UK national with refugee status in the UK. It details that if the Council is satisfied the applicant’s inability to show at least 10 years residence in the borough is due to the result of their racial origins, the residence requirement will be reduced from 10 years to five years. However, the applicant must demonstrate to the Council’s reasonable satisfaction that they have for the whole or substantial part of that period made a community contribution (helping borough residents, undertaking paid, unpaid or voluntary work in the borough or being a recognised carer for an elderly or disabled adult or child), or other special reason to be decided on a case by case basis by the Council.
What happened From 2018, Mr X lived in shared accommodation provided by a charity. In February 2021, Mr X approached the Council for support as he felt his shared accommodation was not suitable for his medical needs.
In March 2021, Mr X attended a housing appointment with the Council and provided medical information. The Council sent Mr X’s medical information to its medical advisor to assess.
The Council received the medical advice in mid-March. The medical advisor concluded Mr X's stated medical conditions were not of particular significance compared to an ordinary person. The advisor also noted the primary reason Mr X considered the property to be unsuitable was due to struggling with the other residents within the shared accommodation. The advisor noted this was not a medical matter and so the current accommodation was suitable on medical grounds. The Council also confirmed with Mr X’s landlord it had not served any notice on Mr X.
The Council wrote to Mr X to advise him it did not consider him to be homeless and that his accommodation was suitable for him.
In July 2021, Mr X approached the Council again for support. Mr X provided the Council with a copy of the section 21 notice served by his landlord. The notice required Mr X to leave his accommodation by the end of October 2021.
In August 2021, the Council completed an assessment with Mr X. Mr X told the Council he did not want to be placed into another shared accommodation. Mr X chased the Council for an update on his housing application twice in August.
Mr X also highlighted section 2.2.5 of the Council’s housing allocations policy and asked the Council to consider this when assessing his homelessness application. The Council told Mr X he had to challenge his banding decision with a specific department.
In September 2021, Mr X again chased the Council for an update. Mr X’s housing officer told Mr X he was looking for a room in shared accommodation for him. The Council confirmed Mr X was not entitled to anything other than shared accommodation. The Council sent Mr X a letter accepting the prevention duty and a copy of his personalised housing plan.
Near the end of September 2021, Mr X provided the Council with further medical information to support his claim shared accommodation was unsuitable for his medical needs. The Council sent all the medical information provided by Mr X to its medical advisor to consider.
The medical advisor assessed Mr X’s information in September 2021. The medical advisor decided medical priority did not apply and noted: The issues raised at Mr X’s accommodation was not medical and that he had use of an exclusive room which provided him with independent space.
They could not find a confirmed medical condition to preclude sharing accommodation.
There was nothing specifically medically amiss with the accommodation.
They considered Mr X to be vulnerable due to his medical issues and the risk of relapse if he were to be homeless.
In October 2021, Mr X again asked the Council to consider section 2.2.5 of the Council’s housing allocations policy and asked to be placed on the housing register. The Council accepted Mr X onto the housing register in mid-October 2021. The Council awarded Mr X Band D as he was homeless and did not meet the 10-year qualification rule.
In December 2021, Mr X chased the Council twice about his request for a review of his housing register banding. The Council sent a response at the end of December 2021. In its letter, the Council noted Mr X asked the Council to provide him with Band B as he had a medical need to move and because he was exempt from the 10-year rule as he was a refugee.
The Council confirmed its decision to award Band D was correct as Mr X had no medical need to move. The Council did not explain why it considered Mr X was not eligible for exemption from the 10-year qualification rule.
In response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed there was no evidence Mr X met the exemption as he had not provided any documents to show to the Council’s reasonable satisfaction that he has made a community contribution. The Council said it would review this position if Mr X provided evidence he met the criteria for the exemption as outlined in section 2.2.5 of the allocations policy.
In January 2022, the Council was contacted by an advocate from a charity. The advocate told the Council Mr X had recently been assaulted by a neighbour and that it was currently funding a hotel room for Mr X to say in as he did not feel safe returning to his accommodation. The charity said it could only fund the hotel for another day and asked the Council to assess Mr X for emergency accommodation.
The Council contacted Mr X and confirmed it was continuing to look for shared accommodation for him. The Council confirmed it would provide Mr X with interim accommodation once the charity stops funding his hotel room.
In mid-January 2022, the Council spoke with Mr X who confirmed the charity had stopped paying for his hotel. The Council said it would provide temporary accommodation, but this was likely to be shared accommodation. Records showed Mr X told the Council he wanted to speak with his social worker to confirm the accommodation was safe for him to move into.
The following day, the Council sent Mr X two letters which confirmed the end of its prevention duty, and acceptance of the relief duty. The Council also confirmed it considered Mr X was in priority need due to his medical conditions and so had secured him interim temporary accommodation.
In March 2022, the Council arranged for Mr X to view a ground floor council property. Mr X did not attend the viewing and told the Council he did not feel safe in the area the property was in due to previous harassment. Mr X also asked the Council to review his banding award.
The Council contacted Mr X to ask him if he was going to accept the property it had offered him. Mr X told the Council he did not feel safe in the area the property was in and so was refusing the offer. The Council told Mr X he had not previously told the Council that area was unsafe for him.
As Mr X refused the offer of the ground floor council property, the Council closed the case. The Council confirmed to us it had not accepted any housing duty towards Mr X as he had declined its final offer of accommodation during the relief stage.
After making his complaint to the Ombudsman, the Council said Mr X asked it to complete a section 202 review of its decision. The Council confirmed Mr X would remain on the housing register while it completed the review.
Reasonable adjustments Mr X asked the Council to provide more time to provide the requested information and to respond to the Council.
The records showed Mr X was provided with extra time to respond and provide information.
Analysis Homelessness February – March 2021 Mr X approached the Council as he considered his accommodation to be unsuitable for him on medical grounds.
The Council considered Mr X’s medical information and sent it to its medical advisor to assess. The Council’s medical advisor did not consider Mr X’s accommodation to be unsuitable for him on medical grounds.
It is for the Council to decide whether a property is unsuitable for an applicant. In this case, the evidence shows the Council properly considered the information provided and appropriately sought advice from its medical advisors. As the Council made its decision properly, we cannot criticise or find fault with the decision itself just because Mr X is unhappy with the decision.
Further, as Mr X was not threatened with homelessness or homeless during this period, there was nothing further the Council should have done in the circumstances.
July 2021 – March 2022 During this period, Mr X was threatened with homelessness as he had received a section 21 notice from his landlord. As he was threatened with homelessness, the Council owed Mr X the prevention duty.
However, the Council did not tell Mr X it owed him the prevention duty until mid-September 2021, one and half months after Mr X first approached with evidence he was threatened with homelessness. Further, there is no evidence the Council took any action to support Mr X to secure that his accommodation did not stop to be available for him to occupy between July and August 2021. This is service failure and amounts to fault.
However, we do not consider the fault identified caused any injustice. This is because Mr X told the Council he did not want to stay in his shared accommodation as he felt it was unsuitable for him. Mr X also told the Council he wanted alternative accommodation. Therefore, even if the Council had supported Mr X, it is more likely than not Mr X would have declined the support.
In September 2021, the Council told Mr X it was looking for another room in shared accommodation for him. The Council also sent Mr X’s medical information to a medical advisor for reconsideration. The Council’s medical advisor’s decision was that Mr X had no medical need to move and there was no reason shared accommodation was unsuitable for him. Therefore, we are satisfied the Council acted in line with the law during this period.
The Council provided Mr X with interim temporary accommodation in January 2022 during the relief stage. This was appropriate and in line with the Council’s duties as Mr X was in priority need.
The Council has offered Mr X long term suitable accommodation, which he declined. As Mr X declined an offer of long-term suitable accommodation, the Council ended the relief duty it owed to Mr X. There is no fault with the Council for this decision as it has acted in line with the law.
Housing register banding The Council accepted Mr X onto the housing register in October 2021 and awarded Band D as he was homeless but did not meet the 10-year qualification rule, as outlined in the Council’s allocations policy.
Mr X asked the Council to review its banding decision on the basis his current accommodation did not meet his medical needs. The evidence shows the Council appropriately sent Mr X’s medical evidence to its medical advisor to review. The Council’s medical advisors were satisfied there was no evidence Mr X’s accommodation was unsuitable on medical grounds. Therefore, the Council was satisfied with the Band D award. As the Council has showed it properly considered the matter, we cannot find fault with the decision itself.
Mr X also asked the Council to consider section 2.2.5 of its policy when he asked it to review its banding decision. The Council only told Mr X he did not qualify for a higher banding as he had no medical need to move. The Council did not address whether Mr X met the criteria for exemption from the 10-year qualification rule. This is fault. Given this was a specific request from Mr X, the Council should have addressed this and explained to Mr X why he did not qualify for the exemption.
However, I do not consider the fault caused any injustice. This is because, even if the fault had not occurred, Mr X would still be in the same position as the Council has explained it does not consider Mr X qualifies for the exemption. It is open to Mr X to provide the Council with evidence to show how he has made a community contribution for at least five years within the borough.
Reasonable adjustments Mr X said the Council failed to acknowledge his disability and to make the reasonable adjustments he requested.
We recognise Mr X’s view likely stems from the Council’s decision that he does not have a medical need to move and its decision not to award him a higher banding on the housing register. However, this does not mean the Council has failed to acknowledge his disability.
Indeed, there is evidence the Council has acknowledged Mr X’s stated disabilities as the Council has accepted him to be vulnerable and in priority need based on his disabilities and medical conditions. Therefore, we are satisfied the Council has acknowledged and considered Mr X’s stated disabilities and medical conditions.
On reasonable adjustments, the records showed Mr X asked the Council to let him have more time to provide any information or responses. There is no evidence Mr X asked for any other reasonable adjustments.
As the records show the Council did give Mr X extra time, we are satisfied the Council had put in place Mr X’s requested reasonable adjustment.
Final decision
We find some fault with the Council’s actions. However, the faults identified did not caused any significant injustice to Mr X. I have completed the investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman