Summary: Mr P complained about the lack of support he received from the Council when he was threatened with homelessness. We upheld the complaint, finding the Council failed to always follow the law and Government guidance, communicated poorly, and made mistakes in its handling of Mr P’s case. We consider this caused Mr P avoidable distress. The Council has accepted these findings and agreed to remedy Mr P’s injustice, with actions detailed at the end of this decision statement.

The complaint

1. Mr P complained about the lack of support he received from the Council when he was threatened with homelessness. He said it communicated poorly with him, including closing his case without telling him. Mr P also did not understand why the Council did not give him priority for rehousing on medical grounds.
2. Mr P said the Council’s poor handling of his case worsened existing mental health conditions. He felt more vulnerable not knowing what was happening with his case.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Mr P’s complaint to the Ombudsman and any supporting information he provided;
• correspondence between Mr P and the Council pre-dating our investigation, about the matters covered by the complaint;
• information provided by the Council in reply to written enquiries;
• any relevant law, Government guidance or Council policy referred to below;
• any relevant guidance issued by this office including our published guidance on remedies Guidance on remedies - Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

7. I gave Mr P and the Council a chance to comment on a draft version of this decision statement. I took account of any comments they made, or further evidence they provided, before finalising the statement.

Back to top

What I found

Key law and guidance

Relevant law on homelessness

General

8. 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.
9. The Council should treat someone as threatened with homelessness if, when they ask for assistance:

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

10. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

Assessments and personal housing plans

11. Councils must complete an assessment when satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says 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. The specific steps should follow from the assessment. The applicant must receive a copy in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

The prevention duty

12. If satisfied the applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, the Council must help the applicant to secure accommodation that does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must take account of their assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

13. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has ended, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The main housing duty

14. If satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council must usually secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Relevant law on housing allocations

15. Every local housing authority must keep a housing register – or list of households needing re-housing. It must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it will prioritise applications and allocate available housing.  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
16. 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))

17. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

The Council’s housing allocation scheme

18. The Council maintains a housing register, or waiting list, of all those in its area eligible for help with rehousing. The Council’s allocation policy prioritises applicants on the register by awarding points dependent on need. Anyone whom the Council considers it owes the main housing duty to, will receive 10 points. The Council may then award more points for homelessness dependent on individual circumstances.
19. The Council will also award points for medical need where it considers an existing property unsuitable, because of its impact on applicant’s medical condition. The number of points will vary dependent on the degree of impact.
20. The policy says that where parents share residency of children, it considers those children “need one home of adequate size”. So, if one parent has a home of adequate size the remaining parent will not need a property with extra bedrooms to accommodate them.

Key facts

21. Mr P lives in a private rented flat in the Council’s area and has done so for several years. He is a single man with two children of school age. They stay with him often over weekends and holidays. Mr P has various mental health diagnoses.
22. Mr P has been on the Council’s housing register since March 2022. In April 2022 the Council made a referral to an independent medical adviser. It asked for an opinion on whether Mr P should receive extra priority points on health grounds.
23. In September 2022 the Council chased that referral as it had either not received the adviser’s opinion or mislaid it. The Adviser sent a copy of their opinion dated April 2022. They recommended Mr P should not receive any medical priority points. This was because they saw no link between his housing and health conditions.
24. The Council then wrote to Mr P and awarded his housing application 100 points for his continuous residency in the Borough for five years. It said he needed 120 points to bid for social housing.
25. In November 2022 Mr P’s landlord served a Section 21 notice, the first step in repossessing Mr P’s flat. The Council says that it accepted it owed the ‘relief duty’ to Mr P.
26. In January 2023 the Council says it negotiated with Mr P’s landlord that they would delay any repossession proceedings. This was to enable the Council to find Mr P alternative accommodation. Mr P says he received some limited advice on searching for property in the private rented sector. But that he is unaware of the Council’s assessment of his case and he never had a personalised housing plan.
27. By May 2023, the Section 21 notice had lapsed. But the landlord went on to serve a second Section 21 notice.
28. In August 2023 the Council sent Mr P details of private rented properties he could potentially rent. He visited one but he considered it unsuitable because of its small size and disrepair.
29. In early September 2023 the Council then told Mr P it had closed his file. Later that same month Mr P received notice of a Court hearing for repossession of his flat, scheduled for October. Mr P got in touch with the Council but heard nothing further. So, at the end of October 2023, he complained.
30. In mid-November 2023 the Council replied to Mr P’s complaint at the first stage of its complaint procedure. The letter:

• explained the Council closed Mr P’s case in September after “56 days of inactivity”. It said it had failed to provide reasons at the time and that, in any event its decision was wrong;
• so, the Council said it would continue to support Mr P under the ‘relief duty’;
• it also promised to reconsider Mr P’s medical priority under the housing allocation scheme;
• explained the Council’s policy towards allocating housing to meet the needs of children who spend time with separate parents;
• offered Mr P an apology and symbolic payment of £75.

31. Around the same time, Mr P completed a homeless application form. I note this did not state Mr P thought his flat unsuitable for health reasons.
32. Next, the Council asked Mr P to complete another medical assessment form. He did so providing supporting evidence of his mental health diagnoses and their impact on his day-to-day life. On the form, Mr F said he got chest pains climbing the stairs to his flat (on the third floor).
33. The Council sent this to its medical adviser and asked them for a view on whether Mr P was vulnerable and therefore if it would owe him the full housing duty. It did not ask for a view on his housing priority under the allocation scheme.
34. While waiting for the outcome of that referral, in early December 2023, Mr P escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaint procedure. He questioned why the Council had closed his case and said he had not received proper notice of its actions. He also challenged the Council’s view his children were not part of his household.
35. The Council says in December 2023 it sent Mr P another medical assessment form which he did not complete. It has not explained why it sent this form to him.
36. In January 2024 the Council gave its second and final reply to Mr P’s complaint. I summarise its response as follows:

• it explained its actions after Mr P first approached it for help in November 2022;
• it explained that after May 2023 it tried to help Mr P secure housing in the private rented sector. That is why it arranged for him to see the property in August. It said it should not have closed his case after that but did so because of an administrative error. It had re-opened his case when he complained;
• it clarified what information it knew about Mr P’s health. It said the points he received under its housing allocation policy did not include anything for medical priority. This was because Mr P did not experience “substantial and persistent problems” in his home arising from his health needs;
• it confirmed he had 110 points under the allocation scheme, but would need 120 points to bid for social housing;
• it said its decision not to consider Mr P’s children as part of his household, was in line with its allocation policy;
• it apologised for a slight delay in its reply to Mr P’s complaint at stage one of the complaint procedure and offered him £50 in recognition of the frustration caused.

37. After that, the Council sent Mr P a letter saying it was ending the relief duty it owed to him. The letter contained no reasons.
38. At the end of the month the Council wrote to Mr P saying it did not think he was homeless. It made this decision under Section 184 of the Housing Act. It explained that was because Mr P’s landlord had not enforced the May 2023 Section 21 notice. Its letter referred to Mr P’s partner asking him to leave his accommodation. It referred to both his children living with their mother, which is incorrect.
39. The letter offered Mr P a right of review and his representative requested a review at the beginning of February. They explained at the October hearing the Court adjourned the claim for repossession as the landlord did not appear. But the landlord had the right to restore their claim before mid-April 2024. After that, if the landlord made no such claim, the Court would strike out the repossession claim. They also pointed out Mr P had no partner and the mention of this suggested inattention.
40. Having considered this information, the Council withdrew its Section 184 decision.
41. At the end of April, Mr P’s representative contacted the Council saying Mr P had heard nothing further. The Council had information at this point that Mr P’s landlord said they would not be pursuing repossession.
42. Mr P went on to complete another homelessness application in May 2024. The Council went on to make an offer of temporary accommodation to Mr P in early June. He declined this as he could not have his children stay over at that accommodation.
43. In mid-June the Council issued a further decision under Section 184 of the Housing Act. It said that it did not consider Mr P homeless as the Section 21 notice served by his landlord had now expired. The letter again offered Mr P the right of review.

My findings

Considerations about homelessness

44. I asked the Council to provide me with all the details of the communications it sent to Mr P from when his landlord served their first Section 21 notice in November 2022. While the Council provided some information, it did not provide:

• details of any assessment or personal housing plan it completed with Mr P in or around November 2022;
• information about when or how it communicated with Mr P in January 2023, when it negotiated with his landlord for Mr P to remain in his home;
• details of what the Council said to Mr P therefore about when the ‘prevention duty’ applied in his case;
• details of what the Council said to Mr P about when the ‘relief duty’ applied in his case (before it answered his complaint in November 2023).

45. I note Mr P’s comments confirm he received no information about these matters.
46. Meanwhile, of that information the Council provided me, I noted:

• that its letter ending the relief duty in January 2024 contained no reasons;
• that its letter sent later that month under Section 184 of the Housing Act, contained a clear factual mistake (referring to Mr P having a partner, when he is single).

47. In addition, the Council has acknowledged:

• it wrongly closed Mr P’s case in September 2023 despite knowing he remained threatened with homelessness following his landlord serving a second Section 21 notice.

48. I am also confused by the Council’s offer of temporary accommodation to Mr P in May 2024. Because by then it had the information suggesting Mr P was no longer threatened with homelessness as the second Section 21 notice had lapsed.
49. Mr P is no longer under threat of homelessness as his landlord has chosen to let possession proceedings lapse. I also note the Council’s final decision in June 2024, that Mr P was not homeless, contained a right of review, which I understand he did not use.
50. But taking account of the factors listed between paragraphs 42 and 48 I find the Council failed to consider Mr P’s housing need in line with the law or Government guidance. Inevitably, this meant its communications with Mr P were flawed. It did not clearly explain its responsibilities to him when he was threatened with homelessness or when deciding about what support or duty it owed him. This justifies a finding of fault.
51. I consider the injustice caused to Mr P is that of distress. Because the Council’s failings added uncertainty for Mr P at a stressful time in his life. The Council has accepted this finding and at the end of this statement I detail the action it has agreed to remedy this injustice.

Considerations about application of the housing allocation policy

52. I do not find the Council at fault for its decision in September 2022 not to award medical priority points to Mr P’s housing application. Before deciding this, the Council took independent medical advice. It also noted what Mr P said about his health needs and any supporting evidence. Its decision hinged on the judgement there was no evidence showing Mr P’s living conditions worsened his health conditions. I cannot see in reaching this view, the Council ignored any evidence to the contrary nor that it took anything irrelevant into account. So, I consider this a properly made decision.
53. However, I note Mr P received the decision six months after he applied to join the housing register. This delay arose because the Council failed to secure timely advice from its medical adviser. I do not know if this was because the adviser failed to send their advice in April 2022. Or because the Council received the advice but did not act on it. But in any event, the Council should have been checking to ensure it had received the advice. It should not have waited several months to follow up its initial enquiry.
54. As a benchmark, I would expect the Council to decide what priority to award housing applications within four to six weeks (including when asking for advice on medical priority). So, the Council’s delay kept Mr P waiting around four to five months longer than he should have to know if he would receive medical priority. That was a fault.
55. This fault caused Mr P injustice because he had an avoidable period of frustration and uncertainty, something we consider a form of distress.
56. I also note in November 2023, in answer to his complaint, the Council said it would reassess Mr P’s medical priority. I do not find this happened. It did refer his case back to its medical adviser. But this was for advice to inform its decision on its homeless duty. The Council did not ask the medical adviser to reconsider the priority given to Mr P’s housing application. The Council’s failure to reconsider this matter was also a fault given what it said to Mr P.
57. This too will have caused uncertainty for Mr P, which I reiterate we consider an injustice. However, I think it unlikely the medical advice would change and so nor would Mr P’s priority. Because while he provided evidence of his mental health diagnoses there was nothing in that, as far as I can see, that showed a connection between these and Mr P’s living conditions.
58. That said, if following this decision, Mr P asks again for the Council to review the priority given to his housing application, the Council should consider that with an open mind. I note here that Mr P’s medical evidence only referred to his mental health diagnoses. But his medical assessment form said he suffered chest pains from climbing stairs in his property. I do not know if Mr P has any diagnosis resulting from these pains, but if so, such information could be relevant to a future decision on medical priority. Therefore, he may want to provide this.
59. Finally, I find no fault in the explanations the Council has provided Mr P on why it will not consider a need for his children to have an additional bedroom(s) under its allocation policy. I am satisfied the policy it has here is lawful and it has applied it fairly to Mr P’s case.

Back to top

Agreed action

60. The Council has accepted the findings set out above. To remedy the injustice its faults have caused Mr P it has agreed that within 20 working days of this decision, it will provide:
1. an apology to Mr P recognising the findings of this investigation and following the best practice guidance set out in section 3.2 of our guidance on remedies;
2. a symbolic payment to Mr P of £400.
61. My start point in calculating the symbolic payment was to recommend Mr P receive £350 made up as follows:

• £150 for distress caused by the fault in the Council’s consideration and communications around homelessness;
• £100 for its delay in deciding on the medical priority to give his housing application; and
• £100 for the uncertainty caused by failing to review his medical priority as promised following its reply to his complaint in November 2023.

62. I then considered the offers made previously to Mr P by the Council of £75 and £50 which I understand he did not accept. The £50 offer arose because of delay in the Council’s complaint handling. This is not an injustice I have identified. So, I consider this offer additional to my calculation above. Consequently, the Council should now pay £400.
63. I also considered what wider lessons the Council could learn from this complaint. It agreed that within three months of a decision on this complaint, it would:
1. issue a reminder to all relevant staff on the importance of proof-reading letters sent to homeless applicants to stress the importance of including reasons for decisions and to try and avoid basic factual errors;
2. ensure it would put a procedure or protocol in place to follow up with its medical adviser when it is waiting for their advice on a case and remind relevant staff of the need to follow such procedure or protocol. This is so ideally housing applicants do not have to wait more than four weeks to know the outcome of their application or any request for medical priority.
64. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

65. For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council caused injustice to Mr P. The Council accepted these findings and agreed action to remedy that injustice. Consequently, I completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman