The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to properly consider its homeless duty and his housing allocation applications. Mr B said this has prevented him applying for housing near to his family, affected his mental and physical health and caused him delay, distress and anxiety. We do not find fault with how the Council considered Mr B’s homeless application. However, we do find fault with how the Council considered Mr B’s housing applications. This caused Mr B uncertainty. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.
The complaint
Mr B complains the Council did not properly consider his homeless or housing allocation applications. He says this has prevented him moving closer to his family and has affected his mental and physical health causing him anxiety, uncertainty, and distress.
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) 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 have spoken to Mr B and have considered all the documents he has sent in support of his complaint. I have also made enquiries with the Council and considered its response.
Mr B and the Council have an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I have considered the comments provided before making a final decision.
What I found
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.
If a council is satisfied someone is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance it must take reasonable steps to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. This is known as the council’s prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, Section 195) If a council is satisfied someone is homeless and eligible for assistance it must take reasonable steps to secure suitable accommodation for them. This is known as the council’s relief duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B) A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188) Social Housing Allocation Policy (July 2021) The Council’s allocations policy sets out the qualification and eligibility rules of whether an applicant is eligible to be considered to go onto its housing register.
An application that suggests current accommodation is affecting a medical condition or disability will be referred to a medical advisor or occupational therapy team depending on what is in the application.
Medical priority is awarded according to the extent the applicants health and welfare is affected by the current housing conditions. Applicants should complete a medical assessment form.
What Happened This decision statement sets out the key events and is not intended to be a full account of everything that happened.
Homeless application The Council was contacted for homelessness assistance in August 2021 by Mr B’s probation officer following his release from prison. His application noted that while he was willing to consider accommodation in neighbouring areas, his support network remained in the Council’s area, and he did not want to move too far away.
The Council wrote to Mr B in September 2021 and said it had accepted a relief duty. This letter said the duty would last for 56 days, following which the Council would decide if it owed him the main housing duty.
In October 2021, Mr B signed the Council’s Declaration for Housing Options and Homelessness Prevention and Relief. The Council provided interim accommodation and continued to look for permanent accommodation.
Around the same time the Council says it completed a personalised housing plan (PHP). This explained the steps the Council would take to help Mr B find permanent accommodation and the steps it expected Mr B to take. The Council say it shared this with Mr B at its first meeting.
Throughout September, October and November 2021, the Council’s case notes show it was in regular contact with Mr B and his probation officer. The Council Contacted Mr B’s probation worker who advised any potential accommodation would need to be checked.
Identified potential addresses.
Said Mr B had found some potential properties online, however, the Council said it could not negotiate on his behalf.
Said Mr B’s probation officer was also looking for suitable addresses.
Told Mr B that once he got a tenancy in his name, he would no longer have a housing need and would not be eligible for social housing. It confirmed that Mr B understood this.
In mid-November 2022 Mr B asked the Council to send the details of suitable properties to his probation officer as he said any selection would need approval.
Around a week later, Mr B contacted the Council and said his probation officer had found suitable privately rented accommodation with an assured shorthold tenancy. Mr B told the Council he had signed the tenancy agreement.
The Council wrote to Mr B the same day telling him the Council’s homelessness duty had ended and it would not provide further relief. It told Mr B he had 21 days to appeal the Council’s decision.
Allocation applications Mr B made four applications to join the Council’s housing register throughout October, November, and December 2021. In his first application Mr B ticked the box stating he had mental health issues.
The Council responded to two of Mr B’s applications. It said he did not qualify for housing allocation due to living outside of its area and that he was adequately housed in privately rented accommodation. In its replies the council explained that Mr B had 21 days to appeal the decision. However, I have seen no evidence the Council formally responded or considered Mr B’s applications from mid-October or December 2021.
In its December letter responding to Mr B’s application in November, the Council said he would need to submit a medical questionnaire if he felt his current accommodation was having an impact on his mental and physical health.
Mr B first complained to the Council in December 2021. The Council spoke to him and followed up his complaint with an email. It classed Mr B’s complaint as a service request and did not formally forward it to its complaint process. It said Mr B had no qualifying housing need and advised him to look for private rented accommodation in the borough. The email did not tell Mr B of his right to appeal or what to do if he remained dissatisfied.
Mr B complained again in April 2022. He said his current accommodation was affecting his physical and mental health and that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He said the Council had dismissed his applications without consideration for his mental health, family connection to the area and his overall circumstances.
The Council responded to Mr B’s complaint and told him it had reassessed his application from December 2021 and decided he had no identified housing need. It accepted that Mr B had said his current accommodation was causing anxiety and PTSD and having a damaging effect on his physical and mental health. It said Mr B could complete a medical questionnaire and provide supporting documentation so it could reconsider his medical and priority need.
Mr B complained to the Ombudsman in May 2022.
In June 2022, the Council said it received an incomplete medical form from Mr B with supporting evidence from his GP.
Mr B says he posted his completed medical form using recorded delivery and asked the Council to reconsider his housing application.
In response to my enquiries the Council confirmed it had now received Mr B’s completed medical form and a supporting letter. It said it had sent this to its medical advisor in late August 2022 for consideration. This is still ongoing, and no decision has been made.
Analysis Homelessness application The Council accepted it owed Mr B a relief duty and wrote to him to explain this. It issued a personalised housing plan with steps for Mr B and the Council to take. The Council’s notes show it was in regular contact with Mr B and his probation officer and made many suggestions for suitable accommodation. The notes also show that it told Mr B that its relief duty would stop if he found himself suitable private rented accommodation.
The Council wrote to Mr B to say it had ended its homeless duty on receiving Mr B’s notice he had signed a tenancy for privately rented accommodation outside of the Council’s area. The letter said Mr B could ask to appeal the decision if he disagreed with it. I have seen no evidence Mr B used his right to appeal.
I am satisfied the Council’s decision letters gave him appropriate information about his rights of review and appeal. In addition, since I am aware Mr B had some help from his probation officer, I consider it was reasonable for him to exercise his appeal rights.
Therefore, I do not find the Council to be at fault in how it has dealt with Mr B’s homeless application.
Allocations Mr B made four applications within approximately seven weeks to join the Council’s housing register. The Council replied to two of his applications and told him he had been unsuccessful in joining its housing register. It also told Mr B he had 21 days to appeal its decisions. However, on the evidence seen, the Council did not review Mr B’s October 2021 application at all and only reviewed the December 2021 application when he complained in April 2022. This was fault and caused Mr B uncertainty and delayed his right to a decision on his applications and his right to a review.
I have seen evidence the Council responded to two of Mr B’s requests and told him of his right to a review. However, each time the Council refused Mr B’s application he sent in another application within the 21 days allowed for an appeal request. I would have expected Mr B’s repeated applications to have alerted the Council to the possibility that he was attempting to ask for a review. A review request does not have to be in a set form of words. I have seen no evidence the Council considered this, and this was fault and caused Mr B uncertainty.
Considering Mr B’s mental health On his first application Mr B ticked the box to say he had mental health issues. I would have expected the Council to make enquiries about Mr B’s mental health following this application. The Council acknowledges Mr B raised health concerns in its reply to him in December and told him to fill out a medical questionnaire. However, I have seen no evidence the Council followed up Mr B’s mental health concerns until December 2022. The Council was at fault for not enquiring into Mr B’s mental health issues causing him the injustice of delay into the full consideration of his application. However, I am satisfied that on receiving a completed medical form in July 2022, the Council has now considered Mr B’s application.
Agreed action
By 25 October 2022 the Council will: Apologise to Mr B for the delay and not properly considering in full his housing applications.
Pay Mr B £100 for uncertainty.
Share this decision with staff members dealing with housing allocations to remind them of the need to consider applicants health issues and right of review.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation by finding there was no fault with how the Council considered Mr B’s homeless application. However, I do find the Council at fault for not responding to Mr B’s housing applications or considering his applications in full. This caused Mr B delay and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman