Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide him with suitable accommodation for four years. We have found fault because the Council took too long to consider his request for additional priority on medical grounds. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X to acknowledge his distress, time and trouble. We found no fault with how the Council dealt with Mr X’s homelessness application and its decision to make a direct offer of accommodation. We did not investigate part of Mr X’s complaint because it was late.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council took too long to find him suitable accommodation since 2018.
2. He also says the Council failed to properly consider medical information he provided about his mental health. Because of this, he says his mental health has suffered due to living in unsuitable accommodation for longer than he should have.
3. Mr X has now been made a direct offer of accommodation. Mr X says this was only made as a result of a complaint to his MP.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. Part of Mr X’s complaint relate to events that took place several years ago. Mr X says he was told by the Council that the hostel accommodation was a temporary measure, for three months. This took place in 2018 and Mr X could have complained to us about this much sooner than he did. Therefore, paragraph 6 below relates to this part of his complaint, and I have seen no evidence to persuade me to exercise my discretion in this case.
5. However, I have exercised my discretion to consider what happened from February 2020 onwards. This was when Mr X’s homelessness application was decided, and he says he made his first request for additional medical priority via his support worker. This is because what since then directly relates to the matters that he complained to the Council about in December 2021.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
7. We cannot 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)
8. 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

9. As part of the investigation, I have:

• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council
• considered the Council’s response and documents provided;
• discussed the issues with Mr X;
• Mr 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 law and policy

Homelessness

10. When someone is eligible for assistance and they are either homeless (or threatened with homelessness), they may approach a council for help. A person is considered to be threatened with homelessness if they are likely to become homeless within 56 days or they have been served a valid notice seeking possession of their accommodation which expires within 56 days.

Housing register and allocations

11. All local housing authorities are required to have a published allocation scheme which sets out how they assess and prioritise applications for social housing.
12. The Council’s housing allocations scheme sets out the rules for qualifying to join the housing register, how applicants are prioritised and how the Council manages the allocation of available properties.
13. The Council gives what it refers to as “reasonable preference” to specific applicants including those who need to move on medical grounds.
14. The policy allows the Council to make a single direct offer to persons living in hostels where they need settled accommodation but are unable to secure it themselves. This is referred to in the policy as “hostel move on”.

Overview

15. Since 2018 Mr X was living in a hostel managed by a housing association. Mr X has several mental health conditions and says he is in urgent need of his own home. Mr X says the hostel was unsuitable because he was threatened by other occupants and the hostel placed unreasonable restrictions him.
16. Mr X says when he moved there in 2018 he was told this would be temporary, for a maximum of three months.
17. The Council received a homelessness application from Mr X in November 2019. In February 2020, he was informed the Council did not consider him homeless because he had somewhere suitable to live. He was advised of his right to appeal this decision. There is no evidence Mr X did so, although his support worker later told the Council she advised the housing department of his need to move on medical grounds, around this time.
18. Mr X had been on the Council’s housing register since September 2019, so was entitled to bid for properties. Mr X believed he was entitled to higher bidding priority because of his mental health. He says he sent information about this but was ignored by the Council. The Council says it did not receive this.
19. In December 2021, Mr X made a formal complaint about his living situation and the Council’s failure to respond to information he and others had supplied about his mental health. The Council has no record of this and so asked Mr X for more information. Mr X explained he had already completed the relevant forms back in May 2021. Mr X provided the Council with an email to confirm this. He also provided a chase up email from his psychiatrist and an email from his support worker from August 2021 stating she had contacted the Council about Mr X’s housing situation in February 2020. She said she did not receive a reply either. She resent a copy of his assessment form correctly addressed to the housing department. Mr X also provided a copy of his mental health diagnosis dated August 2020.
20. This information was forwarded to the Council’s medical assessor. He was told the decision would be made on 1 January 2022.
21. Mr X was not told the outcome of this assessment until 22 March 2022. This acknowledged Mr X had mental health problems but could only determine the hostel was unsuitable if made his health significantly worse. The assessment did not identify anything specifically “medically amiss with the accommodation itself”. For this reason, his priority banding remained the same. Mr X was advised of his right to appeal the decision.
22. Mr X was dissatisfied with this outcome and complained again.
23. Mr X received a stage two response in May 2022. Mr X also lodged a complaint with his MP who contacted the Council on his behalf.
24. The Council’s response:

• apologised for the delay;
• accepted it had not processed the documents sent by Mr X in May 2021;
• explained that while medical advice was received on 6 January 2021, but the decision not made until 22 March 2022. The Council explained this delay was due to excessive demand and service reform for which the Council apologised; and
• confirmed the outcome of the medical assessment remained the same.

25. Mr X was offered a property in June 2022 that Mr X accepted. This direct offer was made under its “hostel move-on” scheme. Mr X had made an application in February 2022.
26. In its response to the Ombudsman, the Council accepts it did not respond to the letter from his support worker in August 2020. He should have been sent a medical assessment form. This was not done until May 2021. The Council has since put measures in place to process medical assessments more quickly.

Analysis

Homelessness

27. I have not found fault with how the Council dealt with Mr X’s homelessness application in 2019/2020. It properly assessed Mr X’s circumstances and offered him a right to appeal this decision. I have seen no evidence that Mr X did so.

Housing application

28. Mr X was accepted onto the Council’s housing register in September 2019. From this time Mr X was entitled to bid for alternative accommodation. While I do not have details about Mr X’s bidding history, in the context of excessive demand for social housing in London, realistically, his only chance of being rehoused is if he was to be awarded additional priority on medical grounds. This explained why Mr X was keen for his mental health to be taken into consideration.
29. The Council’s records show it is likely Mr X asked the Council to reconsider his priority as early as February 2020. This was confirmed by his support worker who says she contacted the housing office but did not receive a response. She chased this up with the Council in August 2021, as well as providing details of Mr X’s mental health diagnosis.
30. I have also seen a copy of an email from Mr X’s doctor dated July 2021 requesting an update on his housing application. This was not responded to.
31. The Council has accepted it should have processed this request and invited Mr X to complete the relevant forms. This would have led to the medical assessment taking place much earlier. This did not happen until early 2022, prompted by Mr X’s formal complaint in December 2021. This delay is fault. There was further fault in the time taken by the Council to respond to Mr X’s complaint.
32. However, the decision was that Mr X was not entitled to additional priority. I have not found fault with the way this assessment was carried out. Nor have I seen evidence to suggest the outcome of this assessment would have been any different had it taken place at the correct time, either in February 2020 or August 2021. I am satisfied Mr X would not have been rehoused sooner had this fault not occurred. The injustice to Mr X is therefore limited to the frustration he experienced having to wait for the assessment and his time and trouble pursuing his complaint. I have made recommendations below to remedy this injustice.
33. It is not necessary for me to make service improvement recommendations because the Council has already explained the action it has taken to ensure similar delays do not occur. I am satisfied the Ombudsman could not add anything further to this.

The direct offer

34. Mr X says he was only rehoused once his MP became involved in May 2022. I do not agree. Mr X made an application under the Council’s “hostel move on” provision within its allocation scheme in February 2022, three months prior to the MP’s intervention. I have had sight of this application. I am therefore satisfied Mr X was rehoused in June 2022 under this part of the Council’s allocations policy. There was no fault here.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. The Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks from the date of my final decision.
1. Apologise to Mr X.
2. Pay Mr X £250 to acknowledge his distress, time and trouble arising from the significant delay in processing his request for additional housing priority.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have found the Council to be at fault and the Council has agreed with my recommendations to remedy the injustice that arose from that fault. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman