Summary: Mr Y complains on behalf of Mr X about the way the Council dealt with his homelessness and housing applications. On the evidence seen so far, we find the Council was at fault in that it delayed in reaching a decision on whether it owed Mr X the main housing duty. It also failed to accept review requests from Mr X in relation to the suitability of his temporary accommodation and its decision on medical priority. We have recommended a remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains on behalf of Mr X about the way the Council dealt with his homelessness and housing applications. In particular, he says:
• a medical assessment was completed on 18 February 2022 but Mr X was not informed of the outcome until he contacted his caseworker on 1 March 2022;
• the temporary accommodation provided to Mr X is not suitable and is detrimental to his health;
• the Council has not provided Mr X with a permanent home; and
• the Council has failed to award priority to Mr X’s housing application.
2. Mr Y says the Council’s failings have caused Mr X distress.

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. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. 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. 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

5. I have considered all the information provided by Mr Y together with documents provided by the Council.
6. Mr Y and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Legislation and statutory guidance

7. 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.

Homelessness

8. A person is considered homeless if they do not have accommodation that they have a legal right to occupy, which is accessible and physically available to them and which it would be reasonable for them to continue to live in.
9. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 places duties on councils to intervene at an early stage and take reasonable steps to prevent and relieve homelessness for all eligible applicants.
10. The Homelessness Code of Guidance (‘the Guidance’) says councils must properly consider all applications for housing assistance and, if they have reason to believe an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, they must make enquiries to see whether they owe them any duty.
11. A council must take a homeless application from a person if it has reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days. The Ombudsman has criticised councils for ‘gatekeeping’ practices, for example, failing to take a homelessness application at the earliest opportunity.
12. The Guidance says that, 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.
13. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. They should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help them 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.
14. Where a council is satisfied an applicant is already homeless and eligible for assistance, it must take ‘reasonable steps’ to help ensure the applicant secures accommodation which is available for at least six months. This is called the relief duty.
15. 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.

Suitability of accommodation

16. 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.

Decision letters

17. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)

Review rights

18. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:
• their eligibility for assistance
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.
19. If a person is unhappy with the outcome of the review decision, they may appeal to the County Court on a point of law.

Housing allocations

20. 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))
21. 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))

22. We recognise 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.
23. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.

Key facts

24. In June 2021 Mr X asked the Council for assistance with homelessness because his landlord had served an eviction notice on him. The Council accepted a homeless application.
25. On 2 July 2021 an initial assessment of Mr X’s medical priority was carried out. No medical recommendation was made.
26. On 9 July 2021 the Council decided Mr X was not homeless or threatened with homelessness within the next 56 days because the eviction notice was invalid. It provided him with information but explained that no further action would be taken.
27. In August 2021 the Council wrote to Mr X explaining the documents the landlord would need to provide to ensure the eviction notice was valid. It advised Mr X to contact the Council when the landlord had provided them.
28. On 29 September 2021 the Council accepted a prevention duty because Mr X’s landlord had served a valid eviction notice which was due to expire on 21 October 2021. The Council completed a personalised housing plan which stated: it would help Mr X look for private rented accommodation and provide him with information; and Mr X would start looking for private rented properties and use the information provided to help him do so. It was agreed the plan would be reviewed on 11 October 2021.
29. On 1 November 2021 the Council wrote to Mr X explaining the prevention duty had ended because he had now become homeless. It accepted a relief duty and offered him temporary accommodation. The letter explained that, if Mr X did not agree that the offer was suitable as temporary accommodation for him, it could reconsider the offer.
30. On 10 January 2022 Mr Y complained to the Council on Mr X’s behalf. He raised concerns about the suitability of the temporary accommodation saying it was detrimental to Mr X’s health. He also argued that Mr X’s housing application should be given priority.
31. On 21 January 2022 the Council wrote to Mr X explaining it had accepted a main duty to him. It said that he had been placed on the housing register in Band B (homeless) and could bid for suitable properties. However, it was unable to provide him with a bidding number because it had recently implemented a new lettings scheme following a cyber-attack in October 2020. It explained the delay would not impact his position on the waiting list given the number of people before him on that list.
32. On 7 February 2022 the Council responded to Mr Y’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. It said that, if Mr X considered his current accommodation was unsuitable as temporary accommodation, he would “need to explain exactly what is wrong with it and how this is affecting your health and provide the Council with medical evidence of this”. The officer explained that Mr X was entitled to request a suitability review of the accommodation and provided an email address to which “any request for a review must be sent”.
33. On 22 February 2022 Mr X requested a further medical assessment. The Council’s medical assessors advised the following day that no recommendation had been made.
34. On 1 March 2022 Mr X contacted his caseworker who advised him of outcome of the medical assessment.
35. On 23 March 2022 Mr Y complained to us. We referred the complaint back to the Council to respond at stage 2 of its complaints procedure.
36. On 14 April 2022 Mr Y spoke to a housing officer about Mr X’s situation. Mr Y said Mr X’s temporary accommodation was having a detrimental effect on his mental health. The officer explained that, if Mr X considered the property was not suitable, he could request a suitability review. But, if he was moved, this would not be a permanent property, but further temporary accommodation.
37. On 15 August 2022 the Council responded to Mr Y’s complaint at stage 2. It did not uphold the complaint. Mr Y was dissatisfied with the response and complained to us.

Analysis

The Council’s handling of Mr X’s homelessness application

38. The relief duty ended on 26 December 2021.
39. Paragraph 14.16 of the homelessness code of guidance says “housing authorities should not delay completing their inquiries as to what further duties will be owed after the relief duty. Where the housing authority has the information it requires to make a decision as to whether the applicant is in priority need and became homeless intentionally, it should be possible to notify the applicant on or around day 57. In cases where significant further investigations are required it is recommended that housing authorities aim to complete their inquiries and notify the applicant of their decision within a maximum of 15 working days after 56 days have passed”
40. I consider, the Council should have reached a decision on whether it owed Mr X the main housing duty by 11 January 2022 at the latest. It did not do so until 21 January. Although this was not a significant delay, it caused Mr X some uncertainty about his housing situation.

Suitability Review requests

41. I find the Council failed to accept a review request from Mr X regarding the suitability of his temporary accommodation.
42. Mr Y first raised concerns about the suitability of Mr X’s temporary accommodation on 10 January 2022. The Council signposted Mr X and Mr Y to the review process in both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. But the Council should have accepted the stage 1 and stage 2 complaints as review requests rather than requiring them to submit separate requests for a review. The law does not require a review request to be in a prescribed form or submitted to a specific officer or team within the Council.
43. If the Council had not delayed in reaching a decision on Mr X’s homelessness, he would have had a right to request a review of the suitability of his temporary accommodation sooner. Mr Y first raised concerns about the suitability of the accommodation on 10 January 2021 but the Council did not accept the main duty until 21 January. Had the Council reached a decision on Mr X’s homelessness when it should have done, the request would have been valid.
44. Mr X has been caused further uncertainty and distress by the Council’s failure to accept his requests for a review of the suitability of his temporary accommodation.

The Council’s handling of Mr X’s housing application

45. I find no grounds to criticise the Council’s decision to place Mr X in Band B. Applicants are placed in Band B where they have demonstrated that they have a significant housing need.
46. I find there was a service failure as the Council was unable to provide Mr X with a bidding number when it placed his application on the housing register in January 2022. He was without a bidding number for almost a year. As a result, Mr X suffered distress and anxiety and was denied the opportunity to bid on permanent housing during this time. However, I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that he did not miss out on suitable permanent housing as a result. This is because it is unlikely he would have successfully bid for a property during that timeframe as there were over 780 applicants ahead of him with Band B priority. The Council has confirmed that the average waiting time to secure accommodation in Band B is three to four years.

Permanent housing

47. Mr Y says the Council should provide Mr X with permanent accommodation because living in temporary accommodation is affecting his mental health.
48. The law does not require councils to provide a permanent home for people to whom they owe the main housing duty. Councils can meet this duty by providing temporary accommodation. There is no limit on how long councils can provide someone with temporary accommodation, but most councils will seek to rehouse people in permanent accommodation as soon as possible.
49. The demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. There are no grounds to criticise the Council for failing to provide Mr X with permanent accommodation given the number of applicants ahead of him with Band B priority. The Council is required to prioritise applicants and allocate properties in accordance with its published lettings scheme. In addition, the Council has no obligation to offer social housing and may discharge its duty by offering a suitable private rented property. Mr X should also continue to search for private rented accommodation in accordance with his personal housing plan.

Medical priority

50. Mr Y says Mr X should be given a higher priority branding based on his medical needs.
51. The Council completed an initial medical assessment on 2 July 2021 and no medical recommendation was made. A further medical assessment was completed on 23 February 2022. No recommendation was made.
52. Mr Y says the Council delayed in informing Mr X of the outcome of the medical assessment on 23 February 2022. Mr X contacted his caseworker and she informed him of the outcome on 1 March 2022. This was only a week after the decision was made. I find no fault here.
53. I find the Council was at fault in failing to accept a review request of its decision about Mr X’s medical priority for his housing application. Mr X has a right to a review of any decision on his housing application and, as set out above, his complaints should have been identified as such a request. Given that Mr X already has Band B priority as a homeless applicant, it is unlikely a medical assessment will increase his priority on the housing register. However, the failure to accept a review request caused him uncertainty.

Back to top

Agreed action

54. The Council has agreed that, within one month, it will:
• write to Mr X apologising for the delay in reaching a decision on his homelessness application, the failure to accept his requests for a review of the suitability of his current accommodation and medical priority, and the delay in providing him with a bidding number;
• complete a review of the suitability of Mr X’s current accommodation;
• complete a review of the decision on Mr X’s medical priority;
• pay Mr X £250 in recognition of the distress caused by the faults identified above; and
• pay Mr X £150 for the unnecessary time and trouble he has been caused in having to complain to the Ombudsman.
55. The Council has also agreed that, within three months, it will issue a reminder to relevant staff that possible review requests for both homelessness and housing applications contained within complaints should be identified as such and actioned accordingly.

Back to top

Final decision

56. I find the Council was at fault in that it delayed in reaching a decision on whether it owed Mr X the main duty and failed to accept his requests for a review of the suitability of his current accommodation and his requests for a review of the decision on medical priority. These failings caused Mr B a significant injustice.
57. I find there was service failure when the Council was unable to provide Mr B with a bidding number for several months. This caused him distress and anxiety.
58. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman