The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We did not find fault with the way the Council responded when Mr X became homeless. Will also did not find fault with the Council’s decision that Mr X was not eligible to join its housing register.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the way the Council responded when he became homeless. He also complained about its decision not to allow him to join the housing register. He said the Council: Moved him out of area when he became homeless.
Failed to properly consider his medical issues.
Failed to recognise him as victim of domestic abuse.
Wrongly decided he could not join the housing register.
Mr X said this meant he had to move away from his family, friends, GP surgery and support network. He says this caused him distress. He also said he was denied the opportunity to bid on properties in the Council area.
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 considered the information Mr X provided with his complaint. I made enquiries with the Council and considered its response a long with relevant law and guidance.
Mr X 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
Law 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.
Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18) Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B) A council will apply four tests to decide what, if any, duty it owes to a homeless applicant. Councils will make inquiries to find out if the applicant is: eligible for assistance; homeless or threatened with homelessness; in priority need (e.g. is vulnerable, has dependent children etc.); not intentionally homeless.
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.
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) Allocations All councils are required to have a published allocation scheme which sets out how they assess and prioritise applications for housing. Councils are required to give ‘reasonable preference’ to certain categories of people.
Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons: that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation; that 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 notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9)) Section 206 says the authority may perform the main housing duty by: providing accommodation itself; or securing accommodation from someone else; or giving the applicant advice and assistance that enables them to secure accommodation.
In practice, this means the council may provide accommodation from its own stock, arrange housing from another provider such as a registered provider of social housing (e.g. a Housing Association) or a private landlord.
Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
What happened What follows is a summary of key events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
Mr X became homeless in September 2020 following a domestic abuse incident at his home address. He was arrested and his bail conditions meant he could not return to the family home.
The Council assessed his application and accepted the relief duty. It referred Mr X to its residential management service to help Mr X find suitable privately rented accommodation.
The Council provided Mr X with interim accommodation until he was matched with a privately rented flat in February 2021. The flat was not in the Council area.
In February the Council ended the relief duty and decided Mr X was not in priority need. It told Mr X of his right to request a review of these decisions in its letters.
In April 2021 Mr X applied to join the housing register. The Council decided he was not eligible. It told Mr X its decision in May.
Mr X was unhappy with the Councils decision. He complained to the Council. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint at stage one and two of its complaint process. It did not uphold his complaint.
Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s response and complained to the Ombudsman.
My findings
I have summarised my findings under the main parts of Mr X’s complaint The Council moved Mr X out of area when he became homeless I did not find fault with the Council. The Council did not move Mr X out of area. It put Mr X in touch with the organisation it uses to find privately rented accommodation for residents. Not all the accommodation is in the Council’s area.
Mr X chose to rent the property he moved to. The Council decided it did not owe Mr X the main housing duty because it found he was not in priority need. It told him this decision in February 2021. It also told Mr X about his right to request a review of its decision, but Mr X did not use this right. This would have been the correct way to challenge the decision.
The Council failed to properly consider Mr X’s medical issues I did not find fault with the Council. During its assessment of Mr X’s homeless application it considered the information Mr X provided from his GP and hospital reports. It sought advice from the Joint Homelessness Team (JAT), a multi-disciplinary community mental health service.
Based on the information and advice it received it decided Mr X was not in priority need. The Council was entitled to make this decision. Where there does not appear to be fault in the way the Council reached its decision we would not question the professional judgment of the decision maker.
Mr X also had the right to request a review of this decision and the Council told him of his review right in its decision letter in February 2021 but Mr X did not request a review. This would have been the correct way for Mr X to challenge the decision.
The Council failed to recognise Mr X as a victim of domestic abuse I did not find fault with the Council. In his complaint to us Mr X says he was a victim of domestic abuse. There was no evidence he told the Council this as part of his homelessness or housing application.
The Council wrongly decided Mr X was not eligible to join its housing register I did not find fault with the Council. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
The Council assessed Mr X’s housing application. It applied its allocations policy and decided Mr X was not eligible to join its housing register because: He did not meet the Council’s residency criteria.
He was not in one of the Council’s priority re-housing groups.
He was still on the tenancy with his ex-partner.
Where there does not appear to be fault with the way the Council reached its decision, we would not question the professional judgement of the decision maker.
Final decision
I did not find fault with the Council. I completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman