Summary: Mrs Q complained the Council failed to tell her the outcome of her housing medical assessment and rejected a successful bid for a property despite that decision leaving her family in unsuitable temporary accommodation, which caused distress. We found fault in the Council’s communication and decision making which caused injustice. To remedy the injustice the Council agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment, and make a direct offer for the next eligible property.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council:

• Failed to communicate her housing medical assessment outcome in April 2023 which limited the types of property she was eligible to bid for without her knowledge.
• Rejected her successful bid for a three-bedroom property despite that decision leaving her family of five in a one-bedroom property.
• Failed to properly respond to her complaints.

2. She says this put her at a disadvantage in bidding for properties and has left her family in unsuitable accommodation for longer than they would otherwise be, causing significant distress and frustration.

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 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)
4. 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)
5. An organisation should not adopt a blanket or uniform approach or policy that prevents it from considering the circumstances of a particular case. We may find fault in the actions of organisations that ‘fetter their discretion’ in this way.
6. 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.
7. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. Mrs Q first complained to the Ombudsman in June 2024. This is more than 12 months after April 2023 when the Council said it communicated the outcome of her housing medical assessment. I have considered whether this is a late complaint.
9. There is evidence the Council received the outcome of the medical assessment on 30 March 2023, but did not effectively communicate the outcome of the medical assessment until May 2024. I have decided this a good reason why Mrs Q did not complain to the Ombudsman sooner. Therefore I have decided to exercise my discretion to investigate matters from 30 March 2023.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I spoke to Mrs Q about her complaint and considered the information she sent and the Council’s response to my enquiries.
11. Mrs Q and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Housing duties and suitability of accommodation

12. If 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)
13. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
14. The council must therefore consider if the accommodation is:

• affordable
• in good enough condition
• in a suitable location
• the right size
• suitable for any health issues or disabilities.

15. A local authority must take into account the location of the accommodation, including the significance of any disruption to employment, caring responsibilities or education of the person and their household

Allocations

16. 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))
17. 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))

18. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.
19. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman 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.

The Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme

Medical, Welfare and Disability grounds

20. The Housing Act 1996 states that reasonable preference on the Housing Register should be given to applicants who have a need to move on medical or welfare grounds. (Housing Allocation Scheme 5.20.1)
21. If the Medical Advisor advises the Council that reasonable preference should be awarded then the Council will decide to award either:

• Severe medical award where it can be demonstrated that, due to an illness or disability, it is unacceptable for the applicant to remain in their current dwelling, or
• Moderate medical award where it can be demonstrated that due to an illness or disability the applicant finds living in their current dwelling difficult and it is clear that remaining in that dwelling will contribute to deterioration in their health. Or it would be beneficial for the applicant to move to alternative accommodation but, at present, the applicant can manage in their present dwelling, or
• Where appropriate, the medical advisor will also recommend the type of property most appropriate to the medical needs. (Housing Allocation Scheme 5.20.4)

The bidding and nomination process

22. Eligible applicants can make bids for properties up until the advertised deadline for that bidding round. Applicants can bid for up to three affordable properties each bidding cycle, and unlimited private rented properties. All bids for a property are checked against the eligibility rules. Ineligible bids are excluded from consideration. So far as is possible the Council will use the banding system and waiting time within the band to allocate accommodation. The highest bidder is awarded priority in descending order between Band 1, Band 2, Band 3 and Band 4 the Reduced Priority Band. Within bands, priority is awarded according to the existence and number of an applicant‘s priority stars and then registration date. However, there may be other reasons why it would be necessary or advisable to reject a bid that would otherwise have been successful: for example where the property would not be suitable for that particular applicant. (Housing Allocation Scheme 7.4.1 to 7.4.3)
23. On rare occasions, the Council may choose not to advertise a property through the Choice Based Lettings Scheme due to the serious nature and the high level of housing need of the applicants. In these cases, properties will be direct let and remain confidential to protect the applicant. (Housing Allocation Scheme 7.4.4)

Property Letting Criteria

24. The Council’s Scheme shows the type of property that an applicant can be eligible for. There may be some exceptions for example when an applicant requires an extra bedroom for medical equipment or a live in carer. Some properties will be advertised as only available to certain groups e.g. for pensioners. An applicant will be advised what type of property he/she can bid for when they receive their assessment letter. (Housing Allocation Scheme 7.14.1)

It says a three-child family can bid for a three-bedroom flat, maisonette or house. (Housing Allocation Scheme Appendix B)

25. The maximum number of bedrooms for which applicants are eligible to bid is determined by the size of their household but, as there is a shortage of large homes, applicants may be able to bid for smaller accommodation than they would prefer. (Housing Allocation Scheme 7.15.1)

What happened

26. Mrs Q and her family have been owed the main housing duty by the Council since 2016. They have been housed in different temporary accommodation. Mrs Q’s family has grown during the period. They became a family of five, and moved to their current temporary accommodation, a one-bedroom flat, in 2018. Mrs Q had three children aged 12 and under when she complained to the Ombudsman.
27. On 16 March 2023 Mrs Q submitted a “Housing Register Change of Circumstances Form” to the Council. She said her family needed a new home with more space. She explained her family of five were living in a home with one bedroom, her husband had suffered a serious medical episode resulting in long-term disabilities, one of her children had a disability and they required a ground or first floor home for medical reasons. The form also listed Mrs Q’s email address.
28. On 21 March the Council asked an independent medical assessor to establish Mrs Q’s household’s medical requirements for a new home.
29. On 30 March the assessor sent the Council their assessment of Mrs Q’s household’s needs. The assessor noted the difficulties in the current accommodation. They said the household’s assessment was Band 2 because of a severe medical requirement for a move. They made additional recommendations of an extra bedroom because one of the children needed their own, and maximum first floor. This meant Mrs Q was eligible to bid for four-bedroom properties on the first floor or below.
30. On 28 April the Council emailed a letter dated 30 March with the outcome of the medical assessment. It accurately reflected the medical assessor’s report.
31. However, the Council did not send the letter to Mrs Q’s email address.
32. On 4 May the Council emailed a second letter dated 28 April. This was nearly identical to the letter dated 30 March that the Council had emailed on 28 April. Again, the Council did not send the letter to Mrs Q’s email address.
33. Mrs Q was bidding for properties throughout this period. Between March 2023 and March 2024 she placed bids for more than 40 properties. She was unknowingly not eligible for the majority of the properties when she bid for them because they were three-bedroom or above the first floor.
34. At the end of November Mrs Q thought she had successfully bid for a property. The Council then wrote to Mrs Q and said her bid was rejected due to medical recommendations because the property was on the fourth floor.
35. At the end of March 2024 Mrs Q again thought she had successfully bid for another property. She did not receive a letter so phoned the Council on 8 April. The Council said her bid was rejected due to medical recommendations because it was a three-bedroom property. This was when she first discovered she was only eligible to bid for four-bedroom properties.
36. On 9 April Mrs Q complained to the Council about being rejected for the property. She complained the Council had not communicated the outcome of the medical assessment and her family had been housed in unsuitable temporary one-bedroom accommodation since 2018. She also said it was nonsensical that the Council rejected her successful bid for a three-bedroom property due to her family’s medical needs, but expected them to continue to live in a one-bedroom property that was significantly smaller and more unsuitable.
37. On 24 May the Council responded to Mrs Q’s complaint. It apologised for the lack of communication, re-sent the letter dated 30 March 2023 and set out steps its Placements Team and Application Team were taking to help her find a property.
38. On 30 May Mrs Q escalated her complaint to stage two of the complaint procedure. She said the Placements Team had not yet found anywhere suitable, the Applications Team had not contacted her and reiterated she had not received the email the Council sent on 28 April 2023 with the outcome of the medical assessment.
39. She asked the Council to provide her a direct offer of a four-bedroom property because it had put her at a disadvantage.
40. On 6 June the Council amended Mrs Q’s home search profile in error, so she was no longer eligible to bid for four-bedroom properties. The Council did not inform Mrs Q it had done this.
41. On 12 June the Council responded to Mrs Q’s stage two complaint. It upheld Mrs Q’s complaint and said:

• It should have amended Mrs Q’s home search profile to prevent her from being eligible to bid for properties that would be rejected. As examples it cited the two properties she had successfully bid for that were subsequently refused.
• It should not have removed eligibility to bid for four-bedroom properties. It apologised for that oversight and said the eligibility had been reinstated on 11 June.

42. The Council said it understood that Mrs Q was frustrated with her current living conditions. It explained due to limited housing stock, applicants were waiting longer to be rehoused regardless of their banding. It encouraged her to continue bidding for properties.
43. However, despite upholding the complaint and identifying failings, it did not provide any remedy for Mrs Q.
44. Mrs Q complained to us on 6 July 2024. I have not investigated events that occurred after that date. However, it is relevant to this complaint that the Council subsequently decided to relax the restrictions so Mrs Q is now eligible for both three and four-bedroom properties.

Analysis

The Council’s communication of the medical assessment outcome.

45. The Council attempted to email the outcome of Mrs Q’s medical assessment to her twice, in letters attached to emails sent on 28 April 2023 and 4 May 2023. Mrs Q said she did not receive the letters.
46. Neither email was sent to Mrs Q’s correct email address. She used her correct email address for correspondence with the Council and had listed it on the change of circumstances form that led to the medical assessment.
47. The Council has subsequently identified the source of the incorrect email address it used. It was Mrs Q’s husband’s email address. Mrs Q had recorded it against his name in a form she submitted to the Council in September 2016. The form lists her correct email address as the primary contact.
48. I can see no reason why the Council used Mrs Q’s husband’s email address. Mrs Q was the primary contact and applicant with the Council’s housing services. Mrs Q and the Council used her correct email address on all the other documents I have seen.
49. I also note the Council was aware that Mrs Q’s husband had suffered a significant medical episode that is likely to have reduced his role in managing their housing needs.
50. I find it more likely than not that Mrs Q did not receive the full details of the outcome of the medical assessment until 24 May 2024, more than a year later, when the Council sent her one of the letters to her correct email address in response to her complaint.
51. The Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme (the allocation scheme) says applicants will be advised what type of property they can bid for when they receive their assessment letter. Due to the Council’s decision to use her husband’s email address, it failed to provide information to Mrs Q that she may not be eligible to bid for three-bedroom properties or properties above the first floor. This was not in line with its allocation scheme.
52. Mrs Q’s bidding history shows she continued to bid for three-bedroom properties, and properties above the first floor, between April 2023 and March 2024, for which she was unknowingly ineligible. Her bidding history also shows she did not bid for approximately 20 four-bedroom properties that became available in that period that she would have been eligible for.
53. Had the Council sent the medical assessment letter to Mrs Q’s correct email address, she is more likely than not to have focused her bids on the eligible four-bedroom properties. She therefore missed opportunities to bid for eligible properties because of the Council’s fault.
54. I find the Council at fault for failing to tell Mrs Q the outcome of her family’s medical assessment. This caused her injustice in the form of distress, and lost opportunity.

The Council’s decisions to leave Mrs Q in unsuitable temporary accommodation and reject successful bids.

55. The Council was aware Mrs Q and her household were in unsuitable temporary accommodation from at least 30 March 2023 when the medical assessor said there was a severe medical requirement for a move. I find the Council at fault for failing to ensure the accommodation it provided to Mrs Q was suitable for the needs of her household. The fault caused injustice because her household remained in unsuitable accommodation.
56. Mrs Q successfully bid for two properties, in November 2023 and March 2024. The Council decided to reject those bids because they were not in line with the medical assessor’s recommendations. The first was above the first floor, and the second had three bedrooms, not four.
57. The allocation scheme does not refer to a shortage of properties at ground and first floors, nor indicate any additional discretion on this point. I do not find the Council at fault for deciding to reject Mrs Q’s successful bid for this reason in November 2023.
58. However, it was fault for the Council not to apply its allocations scheme, which says, given the shortage of large homes, applicants may be able to bid for smaller accommodation than they would prefer.
59. I note the Council subsequently decided to make both three and four-bedroom properties eligible after Mrs Q complained to the Ombudsman. I find this is further evidence that the Council can use its discretion when considering medical recommendations.
60. I find the Council at fault for strictly limiting the size of eligible properties, and therefore reject an otherwise successful bid in March 2024, without having due regard to the overall circumstances of Mrs Q’s household or its allocation scheme.
61. This caused Mrs Q injustice as she has lost out on a property that she successfully bid for.

The Council’s complaint handling

62. The Council said its stage two complaint response would establish whether Mrs Q suffered injustice and restore her to the position she would have been in had the injustice not occurred. However, despite upholding her complaint, it did not refer to injustice or restoring her position.
63. Mrs Q raised the apparent lack of resolution with the Council. However, the Council referred Mrs Q back to the housing service.
64. I find the Council at fault for failing to resolve Mrs Q’s complaint when it did not identify injustice or seek to restore her to the position she would have been in. This caused Mrs Q injustice in the form of distress; specifically, frustration and stress.
65. When we have evidence of fault causing injustice, we will seek a remedy for that injustice which aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. When this is not possible, we will normally consider asking for a symbolic payment to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive, and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might. Our guidance on remedies says that where a complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation during what would inevitably have been a stressful period in their life, our recommendation for financial redress is likely to be in the range of £150 to £350 a month. I consider a payment of £250 per month to be proportionate. In considering an appropriate amount, I have taken into account that Mrs X has three dependent children, one has a disability, and her husband has medical needs.

Back to top

Action

66. Within four weeks of the final decision, the Council will:
67. Apologise to Mrs Q for distress caused by:

• Its failure to communicate the outcome of the medical assessment, causing her missed opportunity.
• Its decision to reject the successful bid for a home without having due regard to her household’s circumstances and its allocation scheme.
• Its failure to properly respond to her stage two complaint.

We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.

68. Make a symbolic payment to Mrs Q of:

• £250 per month for every month she remains in unsuitable temporary accommodation since 30 March 2023. The total to the date of this decision is £5,750 and further payment should be made for the period between now and when the recommendation in paragraph 69 is completed.
• £150 for the distress caused by its failure to properly respond to her stage two complaint.

69. Make a direct offer to Mrs Q for the next available and eligible three or four-bedroom property.
70. The Council has agreed to develop action plans and deliver staff training in response to recent decisions we have made. I therefore make no further service improvement recommendations.
71. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

72. There was fault causing injustice. The Council agreed agrees to the recommended action to remedy the injustice and I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman