• The complaint
• What I have investigated
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• My findings
• Agreed action
• Final decision
• Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to provide her with suitable accommodation which met her medical needs. We have found the Council failed to act on Miss X’s concerns that her then property was unsuitable, as well medical reports which evidenced this. Further, the Council failed to take action to secure Miss X alternative accommodation and did not consider whether it owed her a duty provide her immediate accommodation under housing legislation. These failings caused Miss X an injustice as she had no choice but to remain in accommodation which was not suitable for her medical circumstances. We have therefore recommended a number of remedies.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Miss X, was a social tenant of the Council. She is making a complaint that the Council failed to offer her a property for over seven years which was suitable for her medical needs. Miss X also says:

1. That she uses a wheelchair and could not access rooms in her property because of her physical impairment. Further, she adds that she could only access bathroom facilities once a week as she needed assistance with access. In addition, Miss X says she is not eligible for a house with a stair lift as these properties are reserved for applicants with children.
2. The Council reduced her preference for properties based on unsubstantiated allegations of her committing anti-social behaviour offences. Miss X has said she has never been charged with an offence and that court proceedings relating to the matter were dropped. As a result, Miss X feels she has missed out on being offered properties which were suitable for her needs.
3. The Council failed to consider her latest medical assessment which concluded her property was unsuitable for her needs.

2. Miss X has said she has been living in accommodation unsuitable for her medical needs for over seven years which has caused her hardship. As a desired outcome, she wants an investigation to ascertain why she has not been offered a property by the Council. Moreover, she wants the Council to provide accommodation suitable for her medical needs.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated the following matters:
   • 1. The reasoning as to why Miss X was not offered a property suitable for her needs over an extended period of time.
     2. The Council’s position that families are given priority for houses over Miss X’s needs as a disabled person with Band A+ priority.
     3. The Council’s decision to reduce Miss X’s preference on account of her alleged anti-social behaviour.
     4. Whether the Council should have known Miss X’s medical needs had changed following a medical assessment it organised in July 2020.
     5. Whether the Council properly considered whether Miss X was homeless by reason of her accommodation being unsuitable for her medical needs.
4. In circumstances where there is a conflict of evidence, I will make my findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that I will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base my findings on what I think was more likely to have happened than not.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. 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).
7. 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).
8. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I have reviewed Miss X’s complaint to the Council and Ombudsman. I have also had regard to the responses of the Council, supporting documents and applicable policy and legislation. I invited both Miss X and the Council to comment on my preliminary view before I make a final decision. Both their comments were considered before a final decision was made.

Back to top

My findings

Background and legislative framework

Preference for housing

10. All local housing authorities are required to have a published allocation scheme which sets out how they assess and prioritise applications for social housing. Councils must award “reasonable preference” to certain categories of people. These are set out in section 166A of the 1996 Housing Act and include:

• applicant has become homeless (for example, because it is no longer reasonable for the tenant to continue to reside at the property).
• applicant is occupying unsanitary/overcrowded housing, or living in unsatisfactory housing conditions.
• applicant needs to move on medical, welfare grounds or due to disability or needs to move to a particular area to avoid hardship.

11. The number of points or priority band a council will award depends on the individual allocations policy of that council. The Council has a housing allocations policy. This provides that the application will be placed on the Housing Register (if the applicant is eligible for housing and qualifies for inclusion) in one of four bands, based on the information provided. This includes Band A, Band B, Band C and Band D. Band A is given to customers who have the highest need for housing, such as disabled persons living in hardship. However, Band A+ can also be awarded to customers on account of their medical needs.

Reduced preference

12. The Council’s lettings policy allows it to take a customer’s behaviour, and that of any household member, into account when making offers of accommodation. A customer in Band A or Band B may be given less preference in the allocation of a given property than customers in Band B without a record of such behaviour. Reduced preference means that a customer will still be able to register interest in properties on the Leeds Homes Register, however they will be given less preference in the allocation of a given property than customers in Band B without a record of such behaviour.

Housing prevention duty

13. The ‘prevention duty’ is stated in s195 of the Housing Act 1996. This places a legal duty on housing authorities to work with people who are threatened with homelessness within 56 days to help prevent them from becoming homelessness. The first option to be explored with the applicant should be enabling them to remain in their current home, where suitable. Where this is not possible, the focus should be on helping to secure alternative accommodation that the applicant can move into in a planned way. This will often involve taking steps to extend an applicant’s stay in their existing accommodation until they can move.
14. If an applicant does not have accommodation (such as the accommodation is medically unsuitable) and all efforts to prevent homelessness during the 56-day prevention stage have failed, the housing authority will owe the ‘relief duty’.

Assessment and personalised housing plan (PHP)

15. Where the prevention duty is applied, an assessment should be undertaken to determine the circumstances that caused the applicant to become homeless or threatened with homelessness. It should identify the housing needs of the applicant and the support that would be necessary for them. Statutory guidance says in most circumstances assessments will require at least one face to face interview. However, where that is not possible or does not meet the applicant’s needs, assessments could be completed on the telephone or internet or with the assistance of a partner agency (11.14).
16. There is a duty to notify the applicant, in writing, of the assessment. There is also a requirement to keep the assessment under review and the appropriateness of any agreement reached until the authority ceases to be under any duty.
17. After carrying out the assessment the authority must prepare a PHP with the applicant to prevent or relieve their homelessness, depending upon the circumstances. The PHP sets out the steps both the authority and the applicant will take to try to resolve the applicant’s homelessness. If agreement about the steps to be undertaken by both parties cannot be reached, the authority must record in writing why not, but must still prepare a plan setting out any steps the authority consider it would be reasonable for the applicant to take, and what steps the authority will be taking.
18. There is a right of review under s202 of the Housing Act 1996 against the reasonable steps the housing authority has said it will take in the PHP.

Housing relief duty

19. The ‘relief duty’ is stated in s189B of the Housing Act 1996. This places a legal duty on housing authorities to help people who are homeless to secure accommodation. When the housing authority is satisfied an applicant is in priority need and is not intentionally homeless, the relief duty ends after 56 days. The Council must then complete inquiries promptly to decide what further duty is owed (the main housing duty). If a housing authority has “reason to believe” a person may be homeless, eligible and in priority need, this triggers the duty to provide interim accommodation.
20. The duty to arrange interim accommodation (s188 of the Housing Act 1996) during the ‘relief stage’ is triggered as soon as the authority has reason to believe that an applicant may be eligible, homeless and in priority need. This is a low threshold. It is an absolute duty and the authority cannot postpone it due to a lack of available resources. A person may be in priority need if they are vulnerable, for example, for medical reasons. The law does not say what type of accommodation the authority should provide. But there is a legal duty for authorities to ensure the accommodation is “suitable” for the applicant and household members (s206 of the Housing Act 1996).

Reasonable to occupy

21. In accordance with s175(3) of the Housing Act 1996, a person shall not be treated as having accommodation unless it is accommodation which it would be reasonable for them to continue to occupy. There are a number of provisions relating to whether or not it is reasonable for someone to continue to occupy accommodation and these are discussed below. There is no simple test of reasonableness. It is for the housing authority to make a judgement on the facts of each case, taking into account the circumstances of the applicant.
22. The ‘homelessness code of guidance for local authorities’ (2018) is statutory guidance. This means local authorities are required by law to have regard to this guidance when exercising their functions relating to people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. The code of guidance states (6.39) that a key factor to consider when determining whether it would be ‘reasonable’ for an applicant to continue to occupy accommodation include:

“Physical characteristics: it would not be reasonable for an applicant to continue to occupy accommodation if the physical characteristics of the accommodation were unsuitable for the applicant because, for example, they are a wheelchair user and access was limited”.

23. There is no simple test of reasonableness. It is for the housing authority to make a judgement on the facts of each case, taking into account all the circumstances.

Rights of review and appeal

24. Any decision that the ‘prevention duty’ or ‘relief duty’ has come to an end must be notified in writing giving the reasons why it has ended and notifying the applicant of their right to request a review of that decision. The right to review is set out in s202 of the Housing Act 1996. It provides a way so that decisions made by housing authorities relating to homelessness can be challenged by the complainant seeking a review and then exercising their right of appeal to the county court on a point of law. This includes decisions whether the applicant is homeless and a notice to end either the prevention duty or relief duty.

Chronology of events

25. In June 2018, the Council offered a one bedroom bungalow to Miss X which she bid for in accordance with the housing allocations policy. The Council say the property was assessed as suitable for Miss X’s needs by an occupational therapist (OT). However, the Council says Miss X declined the property on the basis the kitchen and bathroom would not be suitable if her medical needs were to change in the future.
26. For the year 2019, Miss X placed 44 bids for properties. Of these, 22 bids were withdrawn from Miss X and the remaining were bypassed by the Council on the grounds they were not suitable.
27. In December 2019, Miss X was banned from the Council’s office for alleged abusive and intimidating behaviour towards staff.
28. For the year 2020, Miss X placed 45 bids for properties. The Council said this comprised of 11 Council properties and 32 for housing association properties. It said of the 11 Council properties Miss X bid for, she withdrew from four, six were bypassed and one was awaiting shortlisting. The Council has not commented on the outcome of the bids for housing association properties.
29. In January 2020, the Council undertook a housing needs assessment for Miss X and awarded her additional priority points. This decision was made on the basis that Miss X considered her medical issues meant her current property was not suitable for her needs. Miss X was awarded a priority band of A+ on account of her housing needs. This was the highest level of priority the Council could offer.
30. In July 2020, Miss X received a visit from an OT to assess her medical needs and the suitability of her accommodation. This is because Miss X did not consider her then property was suitable for her needs. The OT later compiled a report which recommended major alterations to the property to make it wheelchair accessible.
31. In September 2020, Miss X contacted the Council to say she required temporary accommodation due to anti-social behaviour in her area. The Council said it had liaised with West Yorkshire Police as regards to allegations to assess the level of risk. It said the police advised the Council the risk was low and the incidents had been marked ‘no further action’. The Council said it found no emergency reason to move Miss X on the basis of the information available.
32. In early November 2020, the Council wrote to Miss X to explain that it had reduced her preference for housing. The decision to reduce Miss X’s preference was made because of allegations she was exhibiting anti-social behaviour. The Council said it would consider removing this restriction if Miss X refrained from any further antisocial behaviour for a period of six months. The Council also told Miss X she had the right to request a review of the decision.
33. In late November 2020, Miss X complained to the Council that her accommodation was not suitable for her medical needs. She also complained that she had not been provided a suitable property despite bidding on properties on the Council’s housing register for over seven years.
34. In December 2020, the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint. It said it allocated her greater priority points on account of her medical issues in January 2020, but was not aware her medical needs had since changed. The Council said Miss X could request a medical assessment so her needs could be considered.
35. The Council said that it had undertaken a review of why Miss X had been bypassed for a large number of properties she had bid on over the last seven years. The Council said this was because it did not consider the properties suitable due to her medical needs. In addition, the Council say it has informed Miss X to consider bidding for properties with level access and flats as this will increase the number of properties available to her. At this stage, the Council said Miss X has refused to move to a flat for mental health reasons. It also said preference will be given to families in the first instance for houses.
36. In mid-December 2020, Miss X escalated her complaint with the Council. In summary, Miss X rejected that the Council did not know her property was unsuitable for her needs. This is because she was last medically assessed in July 2020 so the Council could consider her needs.
37. Some days later, the Council responded to Miss X. The Council said that the medical assessment had likely been sub contracted to an external provider by its adult social care team. Moreover, it said as the Council had sub contracted the medical assessment, it did not have any records on its systems. The Council concluded that it was reasonable for it to uphold its comments that it was not aware Miss X’s medical needs had changed.
38. After the final complaint response, Miss X continued to bid for properties on the Council’s housing register in the normal way. However, her housing bids continued to be unsuccessful.
39. In July 2021, Miss X moved into a new house which she says she accepted in order to escape from the anti-social behaviour in her area. However, Miss X says the house is not suitable for her needs due to it being multiple levels. She said she would start to apply for bungalows using the Council’s housing register.
40. In October 2021, Miss X secured further accommodation. She decided to move as she felt the property she moved to in July 2021 was not suitable. She said she continuously had accidents at the property due to it being on multiple levels and was only able to use the access level. Miss X says there are some issues with the current property, but on the whole it is suitable for her medical requirements.

My assessment

Alleged antisocial behaviour

41. In late 2020, the Council reduced Miss X’s preference for housing due to allegations against her of antisocial behaviour. In response, Miss X says the Council was wrong to take this action as it had no evidence to demonstrate she was exhibiting antisocial behaviour. She also says this seriously affected her ability to bid for suitable properties on the Council’s housing register.
42. Importantly, this decision carried a right of review, meaning it could be re-examined by the Council should Miss X have grounds to challenge it. Our guidance states we should not investigate a complaint until the complainant has completed the review process. In this case, Miss X did not request a review of the decision. That said, the Council acknowledge its correspondence to Miss X on the issue of reduced preference was not of a high standard. Moreover, it accepts it delayed in sending the letter confirming the right of review. It should also be noted that during this period, Miss X was struggling with her medical needs which I have seen evidence of. On that basis, I consider it is fair and reasonable to exercise discretion in this respect and investigate the Council’s decision to reduce Miss X’s preference for housing, notwithstanding the right of review.
43. The Council reduced Miss X’s preference because of complaints by her then neighbours, an inquiry by the police and pending proceedings for an injunction. Importantly, the Council has a legal duty to investigate allegations of antisocial behaviour and to take preventative action. It therefore has a fundamental role in making decisions about whether anti-social behaviour has occurred.
44. I have been provided extensive case notes by the Council which demonstrate it has investigated allegations of anti-social behaviour against Miss X. The case notes record allegations from various individuals from February 2019 to July 2021. The Council interviewed those individuals, sought corroborating evidence and properly partnered with the police. The outcome of the Council’s investigation was that Miss X was engaging in anti-social behaviour which in turn led to it seeking a civil injunction against her to cease her conduct. I note Miss X was later convicted of offences and given a restraining order.
45. By law, I cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision to reduce Miss X’s preference for housing in the absence of fault. I am satisfied the Council properly investigated allegations of anti-social behaviour and as a result, made a sound decision to reduce her preference for housing. I cannot question the merits of this decision as it is properly a matter for the Council to decide upon exercising its professional judgement. There is no evidence of fault by the Council and restriction I describe at Paragraph 7 applies.

Offer of a suitable property

46. I cannot by law investigate any matters which occurred more than 12 months of the complainant becoming aware of the problem, unless there are good reasons.
47. In brief, Miss X is unhappy that she has not been offered a suitable property from the Council for a period of seven years. However, it is my view that Miss X could have complained to us sooner, noting that she has been active in bidding for properties unsuccessfully over this period. The restriction I describe in Paragraph 8 therefore applies and I will not investigate any bid Miss X placed prior to January 2020. The period after this date represents the time Miss X was awarded Band A+ medical priority for housing and which a majority of her issues relate to.
48. In the year 2020, Miss X placed 45 bids for properties. The Council said this comprised of 11 Council properties and 32 for housing associations. I have reviewed the Council listed properties that Miss X bid for and the evidence demonstrates that in the overwhelming majority of cases, these were not considered suitable for her medical needs. I have not been provided with any evidence from Miss X to suggest different and so absent a finding a fault, I cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision to not award her these properties.
49. I have also reviewed the housing association listed properties Miss X bid for on the Council’s housing register. Despite two requests, the Council has told me it is unable to confirm why Miss X was unsuccessful for the bids to 32 housing association listed properties. Miss X says this is because the Council reduced her preference for housing due to allegations of anti-social behaviour. Importantly, it should be noted that the Council’s lettings policy (2.1.2) says:

“Housing associations use the same application form and computer system for housing applications. They have access to data held on all applications, even if a customer has not applied directly to them. By making an application to join the housing register, the customer consents to their information being accessed by all our partner landlords.

50. On that basis, the housing associations will be aware of the anti-social behaviour allegations and reduced preference. Further, I have reviewed the Council’s complaint response to Miss X. This gives the reduced preference as a reason why her bids for properties may not have been successful. In my view, it is more likely than not that Miss X has been refused properties because of the reduced preference enacted by the Council. These properties were listed on the Council’s housing register and it is responsible for ensuring these are matched to customers in a fair way.
51. As identified, the Council’s decision to reduce Miss X’s preference for housing was properly made on the basis of its thorough investigation into anti-social behaviour allegations. For that reason, housing associations were entitled to consider the Council’s reduced preference decision and therefore make a decision as to whether to make Miss X an offer for housing. I do not consider the Council nor any housing association acting on its behalf was at fault for declining a housing bid for Miss X in these circumstances.

Prioritising families for houses

52. Miss X complains that she was bypassed for houses (as opposed to flatted developments) she bid for as families with less priority than her were prioritised by the Council. The Council’s records indicate there was one instance in 2020 where a family was prioritised for a house. The Council says this decision was made in accordance with its written policy (5.6.4):

Houses and maisonettes with two or more bedrooms will normally be allocated to households with primary care. Parents without primary care will normally be considered for an offer of a flat. Customers with a household member who has an appropriate medical recommendation from the council will also be considered for offers of houses and maisonettes (where the property is reasonably and practicably capable of being adapted to their needs).

53. In Miss X’s case, she bid for a two bedroom house on the Council’s housing register. However, the Council considered it could not reasonably adapt the property to meet Miss X’s medical needs. It therefore prioritised a family for the house in accordance with the above policy. In my view, this was a sound policy decision by the Council taken without any evidence of fault. By law, I cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision in the absence of fault. The restriction I describe at Paragraph 7 therefore applies.

Property’s suitability for medical needs

54. In November 2020, Miss X made a formal complaint to the Council. She said her then property was not fit for her medical needs. Specifically, she explained parts of the property were not suitable or accessible for wheelchair use. Further, Miss X said she was only able to access bathing and toilet facilities once a week. In December 2020, the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint. It said:

“Within housing we are aware that Miss X has access to use a wheelchair but have not been made aware of any change in Miss X’s circumstances of recent which indicate that she has been unable to access rooms within her property and is unable to use her bathing facilities.”

55. On Miss X’s request, the Council instructed an OT in July 2020 to complete a report into Miss X’s medical needs and whether her then property was suitable. In my view, the report which was shared with the Council showed that Miss X’s property was not suitable for her medical needs. Specifically, the report identified a number of recent medical changes to Miss X’s health. It also concluded there were large parts of Miss X’s property which were not compatible with wheelchair use. The OT recommended major adaptions to the property in order to make it wheelchair accessible and suitable for Miss X.
56. Importantly, I have seen evidence the Council did consider the OT report and its findings. However, this consideration was not properly explained to Miss X during the course of the Council’s complaints process. Rather, Miss X was told that the Council was unaware her medical needs had changed (see Paragraph 54). I have spoken with officers of the Council who have confirmed this was an oversight during the complaint process. The Council was therefore at fault in its complaint handling. Its correspondence should have recognised the OT report and Miss X’s changed needs because the Council did have knowledge of them.
57. In my view, Miss X’s then property was not suitable for her medical needs, and she therefore wanted to be placed in alternative accommodation. The Council do not dispute that Miss X was in unsuitable accommodation. In these circumstances, I would have expected the Council to adopt the recommendations by the OT to make the property suitable. Absent this, I believe the Council should have given consideration to whether it was reasonable for Miss X to continue to occupy her then property on the basis large parts were inaccessible. This latter point is discussed in further detail below under ‘Homelessness duties’.
58. In regard to the recommended home adaptations, the Council chose to not proceed with these. It says the decision was made on the basis that Miss X was actively looking for alternative housing by making bids on the housing register. The Council also reported that Miss X had stated she wanted to move rather than to remain at the property. I have verified this information and consider it would be unreasonable to expect the Council to go to the expense of making the recommended alternations in light of Miss X’s preference to move.
59. I believe Miss X was acting reasonably by bidding for other properties on the Council’s housing register. I believe it was natural for her to do so given she was in a property which she felt was not suitable for a wheelchair. The evidence suggests that despite knowing Miss X’s property was not suitable absent alterations being made, the Council failed to take any action to resolve her medical housing needs going forward. Instead, the Council allowed Miss X to engage in the normal bidding. Further, the Council ought reasonably to have known she would be unsuccessful in the normal bidding process due to her reduced preference for housing. This demonstrates poor administrative practice and so I consider the Council was at fault.

Homelessness duties

60. I have found the Council was aware that Miss X was in unsuitable accommodation due to her medical circumstances. It should also be said that Miss X was given Band A+ medical priority in January 2020, the highest priority a customer is given for housing in accordance with the Council lettings policy. That said, this was significantly reduced in November 2020 due to the decision to reduce Miss X’s preference. This is set out in the Council’s lettings policy (4.3.1):

“A customer’s behaviour, and that of any household member, will be taken into account when making offers of accommodation. A customer in Band A or Band B may be given less preference in the allocation of a given property than customers in Band B without a record of such behaviour.”

61. The Council knew Miss X’s property was unsuitable since July 2020 and it was not prepared to make it suitable due to her wishing to move. I would therefore expect the Council to consider whether Miss X was ‘homeless’ under the Housing Act 1996. As part of my inquiry, I asked the Council to detail what consideration it gave to this matter. The Council responded:

“A prevention duty was activated under the homelessness legislation in January 2020. A prevention duty should normally be closed within 56 days of activation. However, this was not closed within 56 days, and was closed in March 2021. Homelessness assistance could be considered regarding the new property, but we would first seek to determine whether the property can be adapted to assist Miss X. If not, we would carry out an assessment of Miss X’s medical needs at the current property. This would determine whether a priority award under Part VI should be made, or whether an assessment under the homelessness provisions should be activated.”

62. This particular duty concerns cases where a person is threatened or at risk of homelessness. Importantly, the ‘prevention duty’ was applied in January 2020 before Miss X had surgery and required the use of a wheelchair. I consider this was the appropriate duty to activate at the time, but following the OT report in July 2020, it became clear her then property was not suitable for her medical needs. In these circumstances, the statutory homelessness code says consideration should have been made as to whether Miss X was homeless. This means the ‘relief duty’ would have been the most appropriate duty to apply.
63. By the Council’s own admission, it did not end the ‘prevention duty’ in the correct way. The ‘prevention duty’ should last for a period of 56 days during which time the Council should have an assessment with Miss X and implement a PHP with her input (see Paragraphs 15 to 18). The evidence does suggest these important factors underpinning the ‘prevention duty’ took place. However, it allowed the ‘prevention duty’ to run over a year when it should not exceed 56 days. By failing to end the duty and provide Miss X with a written notice giving the reasons why, Miss X was denied a right of review and appeal rights (see Paragraph 24).
64. The Council has accepted that by allowing the ‘prevention duty’ to exceed the statutory time period, it did not make a consideration of the applicability of the ‘relief duty’. The Council told me had its housing officer decided that Miss X’s property was unreasonable for her continued occupation, the ‘relief duty’ would have been activated. As found, Miss X’s property was unsuitable for her continued occupation. There was therefore a failure by the Council to consider whether Miss X was homeless and whether it owed the ‘relief duty’ instead of the ‘prevention duty’. This is because it did not conduct an assessment into whether it was reasonable for Miss X to continue to occupy her then property following the conclusion of the OT report.
65. In summary, the Council failed to consider the statutory code and its legal obligations owed under the Housing Act 1996. Miss X was denied her rights of review and appeal and the opportunity to be provided suitable accommodation much earlier as the Council may have owed a duty to provide interim accommodation in light of her priority medical needs (see Paragraph 20).

Summary of fault

66. At this stage, I have a found a number of failings by the Council. These are detailed as follows:
    • 1. There was fault by the Council in its complaint handling as it did not provide accurate and up-to-date information concerning Miss X’s medical needs.
      2. The Council failed to end the ‘prevention duty’ (s195 of the Housing Act 1996) in the proper way and allowed this to exceed the statutory period. This meant the Council also did not give Miss X a right of review as she was entitled to.
      3. The Council failed to consider activating the ‘relief duty’ (s198B of the Housing Act 1996) by considering whether Miss X was homeless by reason of being in unsuitable accommodation. Further, it failed to consider the statutory code, namely with respect to whether it was reasonable for Miss X to continue to occupy her property (s175(3) of the Housing Act 1996). It also did not have regard to providing Miss X interim accommodation (see Paragraph 20).

Injustice to the complainant

67. The faults identified above have caused Miss X a serious and personal injustice. Miss X is a disabled person who uses a wheelchair and the Council had concerns her home was unsuitable in January 2020 when it applied the ‘prevention duty’. These concerns were supported when the OT report found her then property was not suitable in July 2020. The Council subsequently failed to consider the ‘relief duty’. This meant Miss X was left to apply for properties in the normal bidding process which should not have applied to her. Though she also had access to direct lets also, the result of this was that Miss X was not successful for property bids until July 2021. So, Miss X was in unsuitable accommodation for 12 months.
68. To a large extent, Miss X has remedied large parts of the injustice she suffered by securing alternative accommodation, both in July and October 2021. She says her current property is suitable for her medical needs. On this basis, I cannot make a recommendation that the Council now undertake a review and assess whether she is homeless and should be afforded interim accommodation under the provisions of the Housing Act 1996. That said, this does not negate the failings of the Council and the injustice Miss X suffered during this time.

Back to top

Agreed action

69. To remedy the faults and injustice identified in this statement, the Council will, within one month of this final decision, taking the following actions:
    • 1. Provide Miss X a written apology which acknowledges each of the faults identified and the injustice she has suffered.
      2. Pay Miss X £3,000 (£250 per month she remained in unsuitable accommodation) to acknowledge the hardship she suffered.
70. In addition, the Council will, within three months of a final decision, undertake a review of Miss X’s case. The review identify why the ‘relief duty’ and duty to provide suitable interim accommodation was not considered in Miss X’s case, as well as whether it was reasonable for her to continue to occupy her property. The purpose of the review will be to identify several service improvements in these areas. The Council will implement the improvements for the benefit of its customers in the future.

Back to top

Final decision

71. The Council was at fault in how it handled Miss X’s needs for housing. The Council failed to act on Miss X’s concerns that her then property was unsuitable for her medical needs, as well as medical reports which evidenced this. Further, the Council failed to take action to assist Miss X at the ‘prevention stage’ and did not consider whether it owed duties under the ‘relief stage’. These failings caused Miss X an injustice as she had no choice but to remain in unsuitable accommodation for a year. I have therefore recommended a number of remedies.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

72. I did not investigate the reasons why Miss X was unsuccessful for properties she bid for which predate 2020. This is because I cannot by law investigate any matters which occurred more than 12 months of the complainant becoming aware of the problem, unless there are good reasons.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page