Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council handled her housing application. She said the Council failed to provide her with accommodation that met her needs since she became disabled and was diagnosed with a terminal illness in the summer of 2021. There was fault in how the Council considered Miss X’s housing needs and handled her application, which meant Miss X remained in an unsuitable property for 20 months. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X, pay her a symbolic amount of £11,000 and offer her the next suitable available property, as the evidence shows she is likely to have already missed out on at least one property due to fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the way the Council handled her housing application. She said the Council failed to provide her with accommodation that met her needs since she became disabled and was diagnosed with a terminal illness in the summer of 2021. Miss X said she was trapped in a bedroom of an upper floor flat which caused her significant distress. Miss X wanted the Council to take action to provide a property that met her needs.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

2. 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) I have investigated events that occurred in 2021 onwards. Miss X complained to the Council as soon as she became aware of the matter and has continued to pursue her complaint with the Council. I also consider that the injustice to Miss X is ongoing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have discussed the complaint with Miss X through email.
7. I considered the documents the Council sent in response to my enquiries.
8. I considered relevant law and guidance, as set out below, and our Guidance on Remedies, available on our website.
9. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

Homelessness

10. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
11. If a council has reason to believe an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness, it should complete an assessment to determine what duties, if any, it owes them. Councils must notify the applicant in writing of the outcome of the assessment.
12. If the council has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need, it must provide emergency accommodation until it has finished assessing the homelessness application if the applicant asks for it. Reason to believe is a low bar. Examples of priority need are:
• people with dependent children;
• people with serious health problems;
• some elderly people.
13. A person who has accommodation is to be treated as homeless where it would not be reasonable for them to continue to occupy that accommodation. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 6.4)
14. The Code says there is no simple test of reasonableness and authorities should judge each application on the facts of the case (paragraph 6.23). There are many factors which could be relevant to deciding what is reasonable to occupy. The Code specifically says that “it would not be suitable for an applicant to continue to occupy accommodation if the physical characteristics of the accommodation were unsuitable because, for example, they are a wheelchair user and access was limited”. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 6.39).
15. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants to secure accommodation that does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. This is the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
16. If a council is satisfied an applicant is eligible for assistance and homeless then the council will owe the ‘relief duty’. This requires the council to take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person for at least six months. The relief duty usually last for 56 days. The council should notify the applicant in writing when the duty ends.
17. 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 11.3 and 11.18)
18. If, at the end of the relief duty, a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
19. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

Allocations

20. The demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. To manage demand, every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in certain categories, but this is not restricted to those who are homeless. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))

This Council’s allocation policy

21. The Council is a partner in a local choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which are advertised. The Council may bypass a bid if the applicant is shortlisted for another property.
22. The policy awards priority to certain applicants. It awards medical priority where the health of an applicant is made significantly worse by their accommodation so that the circumstances are life threatening and would be demonstrably improved by a move to alternative accommodation. The Council may complete an occupational therapy (OT) assessment, and collect medical information from relevant third parties to assess a medical need.
23. The Council has a banding system to reflect the level of housing needs from ‘emergency’, then 1 to 4. The emergency band includes applications where failure to move would result in a severe and significant deterioration in physical or mental health as to be life threatening or would result in hospital admission.
24. The policy states that someone’s position within their band is determined by how long they have been waiting. This is called the effective date. If the Council reassesses the application based on new information, the effective date is the date the Council received the new information.
25. There are circumstances where needs are so complex or urgent that they warrant an offer of accommodation outside of the allocation system. This is called a direct offer. Such decisions will only be made in exceptional circumstances at the discretion of the Council. Where applicants refuse a direct offer, the Council would normally cancel their application. The Council can withdraw a direct offer if it is unsuitable.
26. The Council’s policy states that a manager will consider any complaint and respond within 20 working days. It directs the complainant to us if they remain unhappy after the Council’s response.

Human rights

27. The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to. It requires all councils - and other bodies carrying out public functions - to respect and protect individuals’ rights.
28. Article 8 of the Act sets out the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. This is a qualified right. Case law says that any housing a council provides should be in a condition such that it does not breach Article 8 rights. (Bernard v LB Enfield [2002] EWHC 2282 (Admin))
29. The Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to making decisions on whether a body in jurisdiction has breached the Human Rights Act – this can only be done by the courts. But the Ombudsman can make decisions about whether a body in jurisdiction has had due regard to an individual’s human rights in their treatment of them, as part of our consideration of a complaint.

What happened

30. Miss X has lived in her 2 bedroomed housing association property for several years. The property is a flat on an upper floor that is accessed by flights of stairs. It is not wheelchair accessible as the doorways are too narrow. Miss X was diagnosed with two terminal medical conditions in April 2021. Miss X reports that at that time her life expectancy was four months. Miss X needs chemotherapy and dialysis to treat her medical conditions and prolong her life. Miss X was discharged after a stay in hospital in August 2021.
31. Miss X’s medical condition meant that she needed to be always lying or sitting in a tilted back position. She could walk only a few steps with assistance from another person. When she was discharged from hospital Miss X’s partner provided most of her daily support, with one visit a day from a care worker at lunchtime to support with making and eating a meal.
32. The social worker at the hospital completed Miss X application to join the housing register in July 2021. They told the Council Miss X:
• had a terminal illness;
• needed two bedrooms; and
• was seeking older person’s accommodation.
33. The Council recorded Miss X used a wheelchair so needed a ground floor property, or a property with a lift, which was accessible or adaptable.
34. The Council considered Miss X’s application and awarded band 1 at the end of July 2021 as it considered Miss X was under-occupying her flat. It told her she had a right of appeal against the decision. The Council states it made this decision as quickly as possible as it recognised Miss X was terminally unwell.
35. The Council decided not to do an OT assessment of Miss X’s housing needs, as it was ‘unlikely to change her banding’ and it could ‘address anything else’ once she had been shortlisted for a property. The Council obtained a report from the hospital OT in August 2021 which said Miss X:
• had a permanent disability which affected her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities;
• needed assistance to move around her property, get washed and dressed, make and eat meals and drinks, do shopping and laundry;
• had a progressive condition which meant her care requirements would change;
• needed a wheelchair accessible, self-contained property on the ground floor or with an accessible lift; and
• would be reliant on support for all aspects of her physical care if she remained in her property.
36. Miss X contacted the Council at the end of August 2021 and said she had not received any information about her priority in relation to her medical needs. She said she was bedbound as a wheelchair would not fit through her doorways and she had to be carried out and down the stairs on a stretcher twice a week for dialysis. The Council told Miss X it was aware of her medical needs, but the banding was the same as under-occupying. It confirmed to Miss X’s social worker that it had rushed her application and was considering if it could make a direct offer rather than expecting Miss X to bid on properties.
37. The Council offered Miss X property A in September 2021. The heading of its letter said “Prevention of homelessness via Direct Offer of accommodation in accordance with the Housing Act 1996 Part VI (Allocations)”. It said she did not have a right to a review of the offer and if she declined it she would be removed from the housing register and the Council would consider her homelessness application as normal. The Council then wrote to Miss X and stated it had sent the letter to her in error. It did not specify what the error was.
38. Miss X stated she neither accepted nor declined the offer as the Council told her it was an error. The Council said Miss X refused the offer as it did not meet her needs. The Council did not update its records to show either that it had made the offer in error, or that Miss X refused the offer until six months later at the end of March 2022.
39. Miss X bid on properties B, C, D and E between September and the beginning of December 2021. The Council said her bids were placed 37, 19 and two at 7. Therefore, she was not successful for those properties.
40. Miss X’s MP contacted the Council on Miss X’s behalf in October and November 2021 and asked it to provide an overview of Miss X’s housing options. As a result the Council reassessed Miss X’s application at the end of December 2021 and increased her banding to the emergency band. It said she needed an emergency move to a property with one bedroom. It said the effective date was from July 2021. The Council told Miss X she had a right of appeal against the decision and it would review it in 12 weeks.
41. Miss X bid on properties F, G and H in February and March 2022 and was in position one for all three properties. The Council said the properties potentially met Miss X’s needs at the time. However, it discounted her bids because it recorded she had an active offer on property A.
42. Miss X’s doctor wrote to the Council explaining the severity of Miss X’s illnesses and treatments in March 2022. It stated her accommodation was significantly impacting her mental health as she was restricted to one room in the property.
43. The hospital social worker contacted the Council the same month and said that due to difficulties in Miss X getting in and out of her property her dialysis had been reduced to twice a week when it should be three times. They asked for an update about property F that Miss X had bid on. The Council replied and said due to an error ‘it would appear that [Miss X] was bypassed for properties that she should have been considered for’.
44. Miss X complained to the Council in April 2022. She said it should have treated her case outside the bidding process because she became suddenly disabled and was terminally ill. She said it had not offered her a property she was top priority for due to a Council mistake.
45. The Council responded the same day, apologised and proposed to direct offer Miss X a new build wheelchair adapted unit (property I) as an urgent priority.
46. The private ambulance service that transported Miss X to hospital contacted the Council. It said it had to use specialist equipment and manual handling to move Miss X twice a week, which added to her discomfort and risked injury. It said it would not have to do this if Miss X was in an appropriate property.
47. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint at the end of April 2022. It said:
• human error resulted in it bypassing her bid on a property;
• it only considered extreme cases outside of the allocations scheme and followed the correct procedure in this case in following the allocation scheme;
• it would now deal with her case outside of the allocation scheme;
• if she remained dissatisfied Miss X could complain to us, but it asked her to contact the Council first; and
• it would directly offer property I within the week and would arrange and pay for her to move.
48. Miss X responded and explained she was terminally ill and did not have time to spare. She said property I was too far from her family who provided her daily care, and therefore it would not be suitable.
49. Miss X contacted the Council in May and twice in June 2022 about her complaint. She asked for her complaint to be escalated. The Council did not respond.
50. The Council wrote to Miss X at the end of June 2022 and told her it had allocated her property I and had ended it homelessness duty to her. It told her if she did not accept the offer she would have to leave her current accommodation and it would close her homelessness application. It told her she had a right to a review of the suitability of the offer.
51. Miss X contacted the Council and asked why she was being treated under the homelessness duty. She said property I was too small and would not take the specialist equipment and medical equipment she needed, and did not have a bath. She explained she had a central line in her chest that could not get wet as it risked causing sepsis. She asked for an OT to assess the property. The Council states it used its discretion not to remove Miss X from the housing register after she declined this property.
52. The hospital wrote to the Council at the beginning of July and told it Miss X was due to join a new dialysis programme which would greatly benefit her health. It said to join the programme Miss X would need sufficient space in her property for the dialysis equipment.
53. The Council records note it offered Miss X an OT visit in August 2022 to complete a housing needs assessment which Miss X declined. Miss X states she did not decline the OT assessment but the Council had suggested obtaining a report from the Neuro Rehabilitation team, which she agreed to. Miss X states she has not seen the report.
54. The Neuro Rehabilitation team sent the Council an OT report for Miss X the same month. It said Miss X ‘requires a wheelchair accessible, ground floor property with sufficient space for a home dialysis machine. Due to having a dialysis line in which can't get wet she is unable to have showers and so requires a bath’.
55. A homeless charity made several attempts to contact the Council on Miss X’s behalf. They said ‘[the] main concern is that [Miss X] is currently living in accommodation that is not only completely unsuitable for her health needs but poses a risk to her life and risk of injury to the ambulance service every time she needs helped out of/into the property for medical treatment. Which can be several times a week given her condition. The council have been aware of this for sometime now, yet consistently delay the transfer of a terminally ill woman with inappropriate offers’.
56. Due to a change in Miss X’s care arrangements the Council started an assessment to identify Miss X’s care needs. It said Miss X needed support to meet all her needs. It said if she had a wheelchair accessible property she could meet a lot of her own needs independently. It decided she needed three care calls a day, two on the days she attended the hospital for dialysis.
57. The Council reassessed Miss X’s housing application in September 2022 and decided her banding should remain the same but she needed a property with two bedrooms. It said it considered several factors including that Miss X did not consider herself homeless or at risk of homelessness and needed to move for medical reasons.
58. Miss X’s MP wrote to the Council in October and November 2022 and asked it to provide an update, and to consider approaching a Council near to Miss X’s hospital for a reciprocal housing agreement. The Council did not respond.
59. Miss X again complained to the Council in November 2022. She said she wanted to live independently for the little time she had remaining and had been stuck in one room of her property since March 2021. She reiterated her complaint from April, complained the Council had failed to carry out the action it identified or respond to her, and repeated her request for her complaint to be escalated.
60. The Council offered Miss X property J in December 2022. Miss X asked the OT to assess if property J was suitable for her. She said the distance from the hospital she had dialysis at meant she would have to travel two hours a day, three times a week on a stretcher which she did not think she could physically cope with. The Council withdrew the offer the following day as it was unsuitable.
61. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint in December 2022. It said it was now exploring with two other Councils if they had any suitable properties closer to the hospital. It said it had offered Miss X properties which she had been unhappy with. It said it dealt with Miss X’s housing allocation correctly but did not have a suitable property to meet Miss X’s needs. It did not find any fault in its actions.
62. Miss X bid for property K in February 2023 and was in position one. The Council OT reviewed the property and decided it was not suitable from Miss X’s needs.
63. In the Council’s response to my enquiries it indicated that Miss X declined two properties it offered her on the basis they did not have a bath. It said there was no evidence a bath was a medical necessity. The Occupational Therapist report in August 2022 stated Miss X needed a bath. The records show Miss X declined those properties for other reasons, alongside there not being a bath including that there was insufficient room for her medical equipment.
64. The Council said it combined allowing Miss X to bid along with making her direct offers. It said it did not write a PHP for Miss X, as she did not make a homelessness application. It did not provide any evidence it had contacted other councils about appropriate housing for Miss X.
65. As a result of Miss X’s complaint, the Council said it has taken action to prevent applicants being incorrectly recorded as offered a property. An officer manually checks for applicants that are recorded as ‘under offer’ for too long and it has asked housing associations to provide weekly updates of tenancy start dates.
66. In response to a draft version of this decision the Council stated it did not accept that Miss X was homeless but imprecise wording on its template letters suggested it was preventing homelessness. It said it was not in Miss X’s best interests to be deemed homeless. It said it continued to offer Miss X properties after she had refused them, even though it could have removed her from the register at that point, as it believed it was acting in Miss X’s best interests.

My findings

67. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

Homelessness

68. The Council considered Miss X’s application to join the housing register. It said that it did not accept that she was homeless. However, its communications when it offered Miss X a property under the homelessness duty in September 2021, and told her it was ending its homelessness duty to her in June 2022, suggested it was preventing homelessness.
69. There is no record to show whether and how the Council considered Miss X was homeless, including whether she may be homeless on the basis it was not reasonable for her to continue to occupy her current property.
70. On balance, based on the information provided in September 2021, the Council had “reason to believe” Miss X may be homeless or at risk of homelessness. “Reason to believe” is a low bar. Therefore, it should have made enquiries before deciding whether it owed her a homeless duty. It should have written to her with its decision, including her right of review if it decided it did not owe a duty. If it accepted a prevention or relief duty it would also have issued a PHP setting out the steps Miss X and the Council could take to relieve her homelessness. With that information, Miss X could have made an informed choice about whether to pursue a homelessness application.
71. Given it had reason to believe she may be homeless or at risk of homelessness, the Council should also have considered if it had a duty to provide Miss X with interim accommodation. It would have owed this duty if it had decided she was in priority need based on her health. The failure to consider this was fault. On balance, I find that if it had properly considered this, it would have decided Miss X was in priority need and would therefore have had a duty to provide interim accommodation. I cannot say what accommodation would have been offered or whether Miss X would have accepted it, given that it was intended to be short-term whilst she waited for an alternative social tenancy meaning a second house move. Miss X is left with some uncertainty about whether the outcome would have been better but for the fault, which is an injustice.

Allocations

72. Miss X applied to the housing register because she had suddenly become disabled and terminally ill. This meant she fell into one of the categories that should be given reasonable preference in an allocations scheme.
73. The Council considered the information she provided and decided to award band 1 as she had an extra bedroom. There is no record of it considering her medical needs she informed it of until Miss X and her MP complained. That was fault.
74. When the Council did consider Miss X’s medical needs in December 2021, it increased Miss X’s banding to ‘emergency’ with the effective date of July 2021. It based this decision on information it had in August 2021. Therefore, had it properly considered it at the time Miss X would have had emergency banding when she bid for properties B, C, D and E. On balance, if she had been awarded the correct band when the medical evidence was first available she would have been successful in bidding on at least two of those properties. She has therefore missed out on suitable properties and this is an injustice.
75. The Council stated it did not remove Miss X from the register when she ‘declined’ suitable properties as it was trying to meet her needs. However, the Council’s records show that Miss X did not decline properties but asked the Council to complete OT assessments to see if the properties were suitable for her needs. The Council OT concluded at least three properties were not suitable for Miss X’s needs. In any case, this does not alter the fact that if the Council had assessed her medical needs sooner, she would have been successful in bidding on two properties between September and December 2021.

Housing needs

76. The Council said it twice offered Miss X a housing needs OT assessment and she declined. Miss X states she did not decline. Miss X wanted the Council to fully understand her housing needs and offer a suitable property. The Council records show it decided not to do an OT assessment in July 2021. However, its records show it did have a hospital OT report in August 2021 and August 2022, which set out her needs, including the need for a bath. On balance, the Council failed to properly assess Miss X’s housing needs. As a result of that failure, it repeatedly offered her properties, which it later accepted were not suitable for her. This has caused significant delay in rehousing her, causing significant inconvenience and distress.

Human rights

77. Under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, Miss X had a right to respect for her private and family life. Professionals stated that Miss X was unable to meet her own daily needs while she remained in the property. This engages her Article 8 rights. In failing to properly identify Miss X’s housing needs, the Council failed to have due regard for these rights. This was fault. I have considered the injustice this caused in paragraphs 79 to 80.

Council error

78. Miss X bid on and was in position one for three properties (F, G and H), but due to a Council error it discounted her bids. The Council said the properties were suitable for Miss X at the time. Therefore, but for the Council’s fault Miss X would have been allocated one of those properties.

Offers outside the allocations policy

79. The Council’s policy states it can offer properties outside the allocations policy in exceptional circumstances. It said it was considering whether it should in August 2021. There is no evidence it did so until after Miss X complained in April 2022. That was fault and leaves uncertainty about whether it would have offered a suitable property earlier had it properly considered Miss X’s circumstances.

Overall injustice in relation to housing

80. Based on the evidence seen so far, Miss X had to stay in a property the Council decided was not reasonable for her to occupy for 20 months longer than necessary because:
• the Council did not consider if it should offer Miss X temporary or interim accommodation;
• due to the Council failing to properly consider her medical needs Miss X missed out on properties B, C, D and E; and
• due to a Council error Miss X missed out on properties F, G or H.
81. Miss X had terminal illness that significantly impacted her life expectancy and her ability to meet her own needs. The Council records show if Miss X had an appropriate property she could have met most of her own daily living needs which would have provided her with a better quality of life. She would have been able to access dialysis, which was prolonging her life, on a more frequent basis. She would not have had to be carried in and out on a stretcher causing her further pain and putting her at risk of injury. Therefore, the faults caused Miss X significant distress, harm, risk of harm and affected her quality of life. In identifying a suitable remedy, I have considered Miss X’s vulnerability, the prolonged period she was affected, and the cumulative impact the injustice caused as the Council missed several opportunities to put this right sooner. Therefore, my recommendations are based at the higher end of our Guidance on Remedies.

Complaint handling

82. Miss X complained in April 2022. The Council responded and identified its fault and suggested a direct offer within the week to remedy that fault. The Council did not make the direct offer for two months and failed to keep Miss X updated on the matter. That was fault.
83. The complaint process and next steps should be clear to the complainant in the Council’s response. The Council directed Miss X to us, but also asked her to contact it first if she remained dissatisfied. The Council then failed to respond to Miss X, her MP and a homelessness charity on her behalf for seven months. That was fault and not in line with its own policy.
84. The Council’s final response did not find fault in its own actions, despite it finding fault at stage one. It said it had approached two other Councils for Miss X’s housing needs, but it has not provided any evidence that it has done so. It stated it had offered properties Miss X was ‘unhappy with’, but it had withdrawn the offers because they were unsuitable. All of which is fault.
85. The faults identified in the four paragraphs above have caused Miss X further frustration, delay and distress.

Back to top

Agreed action

86. Within one month of this decision the Council will:
• apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused to her by the faults identified;
• pay Miss X a symbolic amount of £1,000 to recognise the uncertainty, delay, distress, harm and risk of harm;
• pay Miss X a symbolic amount of £10,000 to recognise the 20 months she has remained in an unsuitable property. This is based on £500 per month and is in line with our Guidance on Remedies. It should pay her a further £500 per month until she is rehoused; and
• complete a full OT assessment to understand Miss X’s housing needs, including whether a bath or wet room is appropriate and what specialist equipment would be required.
87. The Council will offer Miss X the next suitable available property, having given proper consideration for adaptations where appropriate. If adaptations are necessary, they should be arranged and completed as soon as possible. The Council should provide us with monthly updates as to the progress of the adaptations and pay Miss X £250 for every month the adaptations remain incomplete (after the first full month of Miss X moving in).
88. Whilst it is seeking an appropriate property for Miss X, and to avoid any further delay, it will contact the two councils it said it had contacted and discuss a reciprocal offer of housing.
89. Within three months of this decision the Council will:
• remind staff dealing with housing register applications of the need to consider if there is "reason to believe" an applicant may be homeless or at risk of homelessness, and if so that the Council considers whether it owes a homeless duty and writes to the applicant with its decision and relevant rights of review and appeal;
• provide guidance to relevant staff about when an OT assessment to understand complex housing needs may be needed and remind them of the importance of recording how this is considered;
• remind relevant staff to consider, and document its consideration, whether a case should be dealt with outside of the allocations policy; and
• remind officers responding to complaints to clearly communicate what the next step in the complaint process is and to respond to all communications within the timescales set out in the complaints policy.
90. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

91. I have completed my investigation. I found fault leading to injustice and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman