Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed considering the environmental health concerns she raised about her previous property. Ms X is also unhappy with how the Council considered her application for social housing and said it did not give her the correct priority points. Ms X said this impacted her mental and physical health. The Council did accept some fault and offered Ms X £250. There was fault in the way the Council delayed making decisions about Ms X's homelessness and did not suitably act to resolve the condition of the property. There was also fault in the priority points allocation and complaints process. Ms X was distressed and frustrated by the Council’s actions. Ms X and Y remained living in an insanitary property. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and train its staff in the Council’s responsibilities.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council delayed considering the environmental health concerns she raised about her previous property. Ms X is also unhappy with how the Council considered her application for social housing and said it did not give her the correct priority points. Ms X said this impacted her mental and physical health. The Council did accept some fault and offered Ms X £250.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
4. If we are satisfied with a Council’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)
5. 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)
6. I have exercised discretion to consider events in this case back to May 2022. I have seen Ms X communicated with the Council and it did not respond in a timely manner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I read Ms X’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the phone.
8. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
9. Ms 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

Background information

Allocations

10. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
11. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

Homelessness

12. 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.
13. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them and anyone who lives with them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
14. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)

15. 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)
16. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants to secure that accommodation 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
17. 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)
18. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
19. Chapter six of the homelessness code of guidance 6.37, states “housing authorities should not consider it reasonable for an applicant to remain in occupation up until the point at which a court issues a warrant or writ to enforce an order for possession”.
20. The Council’s housing allocations policy detailed the points awards included:
• 50 points for homelessness,
• 100 points if you are owed the main homelessness duty,
• 50 if you are in insanitary or unsuitable housing, and
• 5 points per year a person is on the housing register.
21. The policy also confirmed the Council should complete a review within 21 working days.
22. The Council complaint policy sets out the Council should issue a stage one response within 10 working days.
23. The policy sets out the Council should issue a stage two response in 20 working days.
24. The Deregulation Act 2015, section 33, protects tenants from retaliatory evictions for six months after a report to the Council.

What happened

25. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
26. Ms X lived in a private rented flat with her daughter, Y. She said she applied for social housing in 2003.
27. Ms X contacted the Council in May 2022. She explained her property was in an unfit state. She explained she did not want the Council to act as this may antagonise her landlord, B. She did say she wanted the Council to visit to assess the situation.
28. Ms X completed an updated housing application in May 2022. She also completed a health and disability questionnaire. In both these documents, and in communication, Ms X referenced her property was in an insanitary condition.
29. In June 2022, B issued a section 21 eviction notice. Ms X approached the Council for help on the same day. She completed a homeless referral.
30. The Council assessed the application in July 2022. The Council accepted a prevention duty to Ms X. It completed a personal housing plan. The plan said the Council would liaise with B. It also said if the Council had not been able to resolve Ms X’s homelessness within 56 days the application may be referred to the full homelessness duty. The Council started communication with B to prevent Ms X’s homelessness.
31. Ms X completed another health and disability questionnaire in August 2022. She asked the Council to review her priority points. Ms X started to provide picture and video evidence of the condition of her home.
32. The Council wrote to B in September 2022 to advise them it would visit Ms X’s home to assess the report of disrepair. The Council said it visited a week later. I have not seen evidence of this visit.
33. The Council completed the stage one review in October 2022. The Council did not award Ms X medical points but confirmed the disrepair and the possession order resulted in an award of 145 points. Ms X was not happy with the outcome and asked the Council to complete a stage two appeal.
34. In November 2022, Ms X told the Council of some more damage to the property caused by leaks and issues with a boiler. The Council contacted B to discuss these issues. B confirmed a contractor would fit a new boiler.
35. The Council wrote to B in December 2022. The letter set out category one and category two hazards. The Council gave B 21 days to complete the required work.
36. The Council wrote to B again in February 2023. It sent the same letter as December 2022, giving B another 21 days to complete the work.
37. A week later, a court dismissed the section 21 eviction notice and confirmed it was not satisfied B was entitled to possession under section 21. The Council wrote to Ms X and accepted the relief duty and provided an updated personalised housing plan.
38. The Council completed its stage two review at the end of February 2023. It repeated Ms X did not qualify for medical priority points. It increased the waiting time points, giving Ms X 150 points.
39. Ms X continued to send the Council pictures of the disrepair in her home. Ms X contacted a solicitor, who complained on her behalf in April 2023. The solicitor complained the Council failed to consider the medical evidence and about the length of time it took to make decisions.
40. The Council said it completed a visit to Ms X’s home in April 2023. The Council said B had completed the category one hazard work, with some small works remaining. It said it was happy with the work. The Council have provided some photographs it took on the visit. I have not seen any notes or records of the visit.
41. The Council communicated with the solicitor in May 2023. The solicitor asked the Council to escalate the complaint to stage two in the middle of May 2023 because the Council had not responded to the complaint.
42. The Council responded to the complaint in June 2023. The Council confirmed it reviewed the medical evidence and decided Ms X did not need to move for medical reasons. The Council accepted Ms X as homeless so included this in her points allocation. The Council accepted the review took too long and there were deficiencies in the process, but not the points award. The Council upheld the complaint, apologised and offered to pay Ms X £200.
43. Ms X asked the Council to escalate the complaint to stage two in July 2023. She confirmed she had a new possession order. Ms X said she did not understand the points allocation.
44. The Council issued its stage two response in October 2023. It explained the points allocation. The Council apologised for the confusion and accepted several administrative and quality errors in this matter. The Council partly upheld the complaint because of the errors, but said the points issue was decided without fault. The Council offered Ms X £50 for the delayed complaint process.
45. B evicted Ms X in February 2024. The Council placed Ms X in temporary accommodation.
46. Ms X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Ms X would like the Council to award more priority housing points and financially compensate her.
47. In response to my enquiries the Council stated Ms X contacted the Council after the eviction notice. The Council stated it completed visits to Ms X’s home and ensured the work was completed to a satisfactory standard.

My findings

Points allocation

48. Ms X is unhappy with the points allocation. There are many complicating factors in this matter, including not having evidence for some issues raised and the matters happening a number of years ago. I have only considered the Council's actions since May 2022.
49. The allocations points matter is complex, given the changing situation on eviction notices, the delays and different challenges to the points from Ms X and her support. The Council has only accepted Ms X was on the waiting list since 2016, when it changed the system and asked applicants to reapply. It said Ms X did not reapply, but when she later reapplied, it agreed to backdate the award. The Council applied disrepair points and waiting time points at first, then this changed to homelessness and waiting points when it accepted Ms X as homeless. The Council has applied its policy correctly in the period I have investigated.
50. However, the review should have taken 21 days. The Council took from when Ms X applied in May 2022 until February 2023 to complete the process, nearly 10 months. The Ombudsman has made other findings of fault about delays in the review process. The Council previously agreed to produce an action plan to identify ways of improving review response times, remind staff about the detail in its decisions and remind staff of the Council’s duties. The Council accepted its process was delayed, unclear and this frustrated Ms X, offering her £200. The Council did not follow its process. This is fault. £200 is a reasonable offer to remedy the injustice caused by this fault.

Disrepair and suitable accommodation

51. Ms X's accommodation was in a state of significant disrepair. Under the Housing Act 2004 the Council had a duty to act to address hazards.
52. The Council has stated Ms X only told it of the issues with her home after the eviction notice in June 2022. I have seen evidence in the application, medical questionnaire and in an email to the Council in May 2022, Ms X mentioned issues with her home. This should have prompted the Council to consider this further. This is fault.
53. The Council has evidenced Ms X contacted it and did not want the Council to act because it may antagonise B, and they may evict her. Ms X did report she wanted the Council to assess her situation and it did not. After the eviction notice in June 2022, she did request help.
54. The Housing Act 2004 section four details “if a local housing authority consider for any other reason that it would be appropriate for any residential premises in their district to be inspected with a view to determining whether any category one or two hazard exists on those premises, the authority must arrange for such an inspection to be carried out.” As the report in December 2022 and February 2023 detail category one and two hazards, it is reasonable to say, on balance, these existed when Ms X reported them in May 2022.
55. The Council said it visited Ms X’s home in September 2022, after she contacted the Council again in August 2022. I have seen no evidence of this visit. The Council should record all visits. Without this evidence, I cannot say the Council acted to examine the disrepair claims. This is fault. In any event, three months is too long to act on reports of such extensive disrepair.
56. The Council issued a report to B in December 2022 which set out hazards including two category one hazards. The Council gave B 21 days to act. If the Council did visit the property in September 2022, it took three months to issue a report setting out category one hazards. This delay is fault.
57. The Council sent the same report to B in February 2023. Again, the Council allowed 21 days to complete the work. The Council said it visited in April 2023 and was satisfied the work was completed to a satisfactory standard. I have seen pictures of the property in April 2023. However, the Council has not documented the visit and not evidenced it was satisfied with the repairs. The Council should record all action it takes. This is fault.

Homelessness action

58. The Council accepted the prevention duty to Ms X in July 2022. However, Ms X reported the issues with her property in May 2022. The reports in May 2022 should have prompted enquiries into the disrepair or if Ms X was homeless. The Council did not act. This is fault.
59. There is no evidence the Council considered the legislation in paragraph 24. Ms X was clearly worried about a retaliatory eviction if she asked the Council to act on the disrepair. The Council did not inform her of her rights as a private tenant or about protection from retaliatory eviction. Without this information, Ms X could not make an informed choice about if she wanted the Council's help. The Council should have provided this information. This is fault. I cannot say, even on balance, whether Ms X would have asked the Council to act on the disrepair had it explained this to her. This uncertainty is an injustice to Ms X.
60. After the eviction notice in June 2022, Ms X did approach the Council for support. There is no evidence the Council considered whether the condition of the property in June 2022 meant it was not reasonable for Ms X to continue to live there. This is fault.
61. The Council accepted the relief duty to Ms X in February 2023. This means it accepted she did not have accommodation it was reasonable for her to continue to occupy. The Council has a statutory duty to provide interim accommodation to those who are homeless and in priority need. The Council did not provide this accommodation despite accepting the relief duty. This is fault.
62. Instead, the Council left Ms X and Y in the property until they were evicted by bailiffs. This is fault. The Code of Guidance says a council should not require an applicant to remain in the property until a court issues a warrant or writ to enforce a possession order. The Council should have provided interim accommodation to Ms X and Y before this happened. Instead, Ms X and Y experienced the distress of eviction.
63. The Council should have made a decision about the main duty after 56 days. It did not end the relief duty and accept the main housing duty until February 2024. This delay of 10 months is fault. This meant Ms X did not have a right of review about the suitability of her accommodation. This delay also impacted Ms X’s priority points as the policy awards 100 points for those owed the main housing duty, 50 points more than to those owed the relief duty.

What should have happened and injustice

64. The Council should have inspected the property promptly in May 2022 or informed Ms X of her rights as a private tenant. The latest the Council should have inspected the property is June 2022, after the eviction notice. It should have identified the hazards, and made sure B did the works necessary to address them. Instead, Ms X and Y continued to live in unsafe, insanitary and unsuitable accommodation.
65. The Council issued a report to B to get them to complete work on the property in December 2023. This report did not result in any work. The Council issued the same report in February 2023. Following this report, B started work on the property. Ms X lived with serious category one and category two hazards from June 2022 to February 2023.
66. The Council accepted the relief duty to Ms X in February 2023, after B took the matter to court. This means it accepted Ms X was homeless because she did not have accommodation it was reasonable for her to continue to occupy. The Council should have provided interim accommodation. The Council stated Ms X chose to remain in the property. Legislation and case law sets out in order to meet the duty to provide interim accommodation, the accommodation must be available and suitable. For accommodation to be available, there must be an offer for Ms X to consider. The Council did not make any offer, so the Council did not discharge its duty under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996. Without any offer, Ms X could not make an informed decision about whether to remain in the property until she was evicted. This distressed Ms X and caused her uncertainty.
67. The Council should have accepted the main housing duty 56 days later, in April 2023, and provided temporary accommodation. It should have told Ms X about her statutory right to a review of the suitability of this accommodation.
68. The Court issued a possession order in July 2023. The Council still did not offer any accommodation. Instead, Ms X remained living in the property until she was evicted by bailiffs in February 2024.

Complaint handling

69. The Council’s complaint policy sets out the stage one process should take 10 days. The Council took 34 days. This is fault. This frustrated and distressed Ms X.
70. The policy says the stage two process should take 20 days. The Council took 66 days. This is fault. This frustrated and distressed Ms X.
71. The Council accepted this fault and offered Ms X £50. I decided this is not enough to remedy the injustice caused by this fault.
72. The Ombudsman has published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice because of fault by a Council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the Council had not occurred.
73. Sometimes we will recommend a financial payment to the person who brought their complaint to us. This might be to reimburse a person who has suffered a quantifiable financial loss, or it might be a symbolic payment which serves as an acknowledgement of the distress or difficulties they have been put through. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might. Nor do we calculate a financial remedy based on what the cost of the service would have been to the provider.

Back to top

Agreed action

74. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Ms X and Y by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Ms X and Y for not acting to prevent her homelessness, not taking appropriate action regarding property disrepair and not following its complaint process. This apology should be in accordance with the Ombudsman’s new guidance Making an effective apology.
• Pay Ms X the £200 it offered for the fault in the priority points allocation process.
• Pay Ms X £300 as an acknowledgement of the time and trouble she has spent pursuing this complaint.
• Pay £200 for each month Ms X and Y lived with significant disrepair from June 2022 until February 2023.
• Pay Ms X £500 for the distress and uncertainty the Council fault caused.
• If Miss X is still in temporary accommodation, award the 100 points for homelessness and backdate it to July 2022.
• Remind relevant staff of the importance of effective complaint handling.
• Remind staff of the importance of keeping records of all actions, including property inspections.
• Provide training or guidance to all relevant staff of the Council’s responsibilities to homeless applicants and those in insanitary private rented accommodation.
75. The Council should provide evidence of the actions taken to satisfy the recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

76. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Ms X and Y.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman