Summary: Ms X complained about the support the Council provided with her housing. There was fault with how the Council took too long to decide Ms X’s priority under its housing allocation scheme, how it managed her homelessness application and communicated with her. The Council agree to review the duties it owes Ms X, apologise and pay her a financial remedy. It also agreed to review how it manages housing register reviews and issue reminders to its staff.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about how the Council manged her housing register and homelessness applications from November 2022. She says the Council failed to:
• properly review her priority for social housing when it should have done;
• take her health conditions and size of her property into account when making its decisions;
• promptly make decisions about her housing priority and homelessness;
• provide her the right support to prevent her from becoming homeless;
• keep her up to date with her application and the Council’s decisions.
2. As a result, she says she did not know what would happen during the eviction process and she is still living in unsuitable accommodation. She says this caused her significant distress and made her health conditions worse. She wants the Council to house her and properly recognise the impact its failures had on her and her children.

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. 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)
5. 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.
6. 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

7. I considered:
• the information Ms X provided and discussed the complaint with her;
• the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided; and
• relevant law, guidance and Council policy.
8. Ms X 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

Allocation of social housing

9. 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))
10. 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))

11. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
12. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:
• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.
13. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
14. The Council’s housing allocation policy divides applicants into three bands of priority 1-3, from highest to lowest priority. Applicants can be assigned to these bands for different reasons, including for medical needs, or because they are homeless.
15. Under its policy, the Council had different qualifying conditions for different bands. For medical needs, the Council assigns bands according to the following descriptions:
• Band 1 – Applicants who have a life expectancy of 12 months or less and rehousing is required to provide a basis for the provision of suitable care; whose health is so severely affected by the home they currently occupy that it is likely to become life threatening; or who are housebound in their current home and need to move to an alternative home suitable to their needs.
• Band 2 – Where an applicant’s housing is unsuitable due to severe medical reasons which significantly aggravate the medical condition of the applicant or a member of their household but is not life-threatening; or where the applicant’s current home is highly unsuitable for them or a member of their household but is not life-threatening.
• Band 3 – Where the home, currently occupied by an applicant or member of their household, aggravates their medical condition.
16. The Council’s policy does not set out how long it should take to decide a new application to join its housing register. It says the Council should complete reviews within 56 days.
17. We published guidance on “Medical assessments for housing applications” in July 2024. This guidance makes it clear that while councils may seek advice from external, independent medical advisers, the decision about whether an applicant qualifies for priority, and at what level, is for councils to make. We expect councils to keep a clear record of the advice they receive from medical advisers and how they assessed this against any other evidence.

Homelessness

18. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (‘the Code’) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
19. 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)
20. 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)

21. Councils must provide to anyone in their district information and advice free of charge on:
    preventing homelessness;

• securing accommodation when homeless;
• the rights of people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the duties of the authority;
• any help that is available from the authority or anyone else, for people in the council’s district who are homeless or may become homeless (whether or not they are threatened with homelessness); and
• how to access that help.

22. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
23. 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)
24. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible person who is homeless. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
25. 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)
26. 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, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.30)
27. Councils must provide to anyone in their district information and advice free of charge on:
• preventing homelessness;
• securing accommodation when homeless;
• the rights of people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the duties of the authority;
• any help that is available from the authority or anyone else, for people in the council’s district who are homeless or may become homeless (whether or not they are threatened with homelessness); and
• how to access that help.

What happened

28. This is a summary of the key events relating to Ms X’s housing register and homelessness applications. It is not intended to be a full account of everything that happened over the period I have investigated.
29. Ms X lives in private rented accommodation. Because of changes in Ms X’s circumstances, she applied to join the Council’s housing register in late 2022. Although the Council acknowledged her application, it did not send her a decision about her eligibility or priority until much later.
30. In spring 2024, Ms X’s landlord sent her notice to end her tenancy. Ms X contacted the Council’s homelessness service and sent them a copy of the notice. It appears the Council considered whether it owed Ms X any duties under homelessness law at that time, but it did not send her a decision about whether it considered her to be homeless or whether it owed her any of the housing duties.
31. Ms X complained to the Council in mid-2023 that it had not responded to her request for help or decided her housing register application.
32. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint at the end of July 2023. It apologised for both the delay in deciding her housing register application, and that it did send her a decision about her homelessness application. The Council explained the notice Ms X’s landlord had sent was not valid and, therefore, the Council did not consider Ms X to be either homeless or threatened with homelessness. It told Ms X she was entitled to advice about her situation and apologised for not having provided this. However, the Council did not take any steps to provide Ms X with that advice.
33. In late 2023, the Council processed Ms X’s housing register application. It sent the medical evidence Ms X had provided to its medical advisers. The adviser told the Council that Ms X did not have any medical priority under the Council’s allocation scheme. The Council sent Ms X its decision in early November 2023. It said she had Band 3 priority because she needed more bedrooms and backdated her application to when she applied in late 2022.
34. Ms X asked the Council to review its decision, as she felt the Council had not properly taken into account her health conditions when deciding her priority. She re-sent the Council the medical evidence she had previously provided, along with some more up-to-date evidence. The Council acknowledged Ms X’s request for a review, but did not make a decision about this until much later.
35. In late 2023, Ms X’s landlord sent her a further notice, which Ms X sent to the Council. The Council started a new homelessness application for Ms X and told her, around a week later, that she was threatened with homelessness and it owed her the prevention duty. The Council began negotiating with Ms X’s landlord to extend her tenancy and avoid her becoming homeless.
36. Those negotiations continued over several months. During that time, Ms X told the Council she did not want to stay in her current home, because of the affordability of the rent, the size of the property and that she struggled to access it because of her health conditions. Again, the Council asked its medical advisers for an opinion. The medical advisers told the Council their view was Ms X did not qualify for medical priority and could manage the stairs to her property.
37. In mid-2024, Ms X’s landlord obtained a possession order from the courts, giving Ms X a date by which she must leave the property. Ms X told the Council about the order and also began packing, as she believed she would need to leave her home by the date in the order. However, the Council has not provided any evidence to show it reviewed Ms X’s eligibility for homelessness assistance after her landlord obtained a possession order.
38. Around the same time, the Council made a decision about Ms X’s request for a review of her priority on its housing register. The Council told Ms X that, since she made a homelessness application, it did not intend to continue with reviewing her medical priority. This was because Ms X now had Band 2 priority based on her homelessness. However, it did not clearly explain this to Ms X at the time. In response to my enquiries, the Council said Ms X would not have been entitled to higher priority under its allocation scheme based on her health conditions.
39. Since Ms X complained to the Ombudsman, she says her landlord has told her they will be proceeding with an eviction.

My findings

40. It is not our role to decide whether Ms X is homeless, or what priority she should have under the Council’s allocation scheme; that is the Council’s responsibility. Our role is to assess whether the Council made its decision properly. We cannot question a decision the Council has made if it followed the right steps and considered relevant evidence. If there was fault with how the Council made a decision, we can consider what the likely outcome would have been had there been no fault.

Ms X’s housing register application

41. The Council accepted it took too long to decide Ms X’s housing register application and what priority she should have. The Council’s allocation policy does not say how long the Council should take to decide applications to join the register. However, I consider that nearly 12 months was much too long. That delay was fault which caused Ms X avoidable distress, worry and frustration over a long period of time.
42. I also consider there was fault in how the Council assessed Ms X’s medical priority. As set out in our guidance to councils, the priority someone should have is a decision for the Council to make, not the Council’s medical advisers. The evidence shows the Council’s medical adviser only provided their opinion about what Ms X’s priority should be and that the Council adopted that opinion without question or further explanation.
43. Although the Council says it can ask for further specific information and more detailed assessments, it did not ask for the adviser’s reasons or details about how they reached their opinion. I am satisfied the Council simply adopted the opinion of their medical advisers without considering and weighing this alongside any other evidence themselves. That was fault.
44. However, I do not consider that fault caused an injustice in Ms X’s case. While Ms X provided the Council with evidence of her health conditions, that evidence did not suggest that any link between Ms X’s current home and her health conditions that would satisfy Band 1 or 2 of the Council’s policy. Had the Council’s medical advisers given the Council a more detailed opinion about the evidence, I think it is likely the Council would have decided Ms X did not meet the criteria for Band 1 or 2 medical priority.
45. I also do not consider that Ms X missed out on alternative properties due to the delay in assessing her housing register application. Given the priority Ms X was entitled to, it is highly unlikely Ms C would have been rehoused by the Council during 2023.
46. There was also fault with how long the Council took to consider Ms X’s request for a review. The Council sent Ms X’s its review decision 227 days after she asked for the review; significantly longer than the 56 days set out in the Council’s policy. That delay added to Ms X’s distress and worry.

Ms X’s homelessness application

47. There is no evidence the Council properly considered Ms X’s first homelessness application in early 2024. The Council failed to send Ms X a decision about its decision, or to provide her with advice about preventing her homelessness that she was entitled to.
48. Those failures were fault which caused Ms X avoidable distress and worry, on top of the existing uncertainty around the future housing situation caused by her landlord’s decision to give her notice to leave her home (which the Council was not responsible for). However, I do not consider this caused Ms X any further injustice, since it is unlikely the Council would have had any other duties to Ms X. The notice from her landlord was invalid and so Ms X was likely not ‘threatened with homelessness’ at that time.
49. The Council accepted in its mid-2023 complaint response that it had failed to provide Ms X with housing advice. However, there is no evidence it then provided her with that advice. This caused Ms X further distress and worry, not knowing what was supposed to happen next.
50. The Council responded to Ms X’s late 2023 homelessness application promptly. It told her what duties it owed her and provided her with a personalised housing plan, as it was supposed to. The Council then took steps to try to prevent her homelessness by negotiating with her landlord. This is what the law and guidance expected the Council to do. The Council did not have a duty, at that time, to rehouse Ms X or provide her with alternative accommodation.
51. However, once Ms X told the Council that her landlord had obtained a possession order, the Council should have reviewed what duties it owed to Ms X. It’s failure to do so was fault.
52. While Ms X still had accommodation ‘available for her occupation’, the Code says that the Government would consider it “highly unlikely” that it would be reasonable for someone to remain in their home after the date given in a possession order. The Council says its ongoing negotiations with Ms X’s landlord was good reason to depart from the guidance. However, the Council has provided no evidence it properly considered the guidance at the time Ms X’s landlord obtained the possession order.
53. I cannot say what decision the Council would have made had it properly reviewed the duties it owed to Ms X when it should have done. However, I am satisfied that failure caused Ms X further distress, inconvenience and uncertainty, especially worry she could be evicted from her home at any time and the inconvenience of having packed her belongings into boxes. This also denied Ms X the right to challenge the Council’s decision about this. However, I cannot say that Ms X was living in unsuitable accommodation during that time.
54. There was fault in how the Council made its decision that Ms X’s accommodation was suitable for her in light of her disability, in that it again simply adopted its medical adviser’s conclusions. However, I am satisfied the outcome would likely have been the same if the Council had made its decision properly. Ms X has not provided any medical evidence which shows her health conditions and housing meet Band 1 or 2 of the Council’s policy.

Communication with Ms X

55. The Council accepted that its communication with Ms X in early 2023 had been poor. I am also satisfied that its communication with Ms X after this was also, at times, poor. Ms X clearly found the uncertainty around possible eviction by her landlord very distressing and the lack of communication and updates from the Council made that worry and distress worse.

Back to top

Agreed action

56. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:
• apologise to Ms X for the frustration, worry and uncertainty it has caused by the delays and other failures in dealing with her housing register and homelessness applications; and
• pay Ms X £750 to recognise that distress.
57. Within two months of my final decision the Council will review Ms X’s homelessness application, fully taking into account the statutory guidance and the latest information from her landlord. It should decide whether Ms X is homeless, and what duties it owes to her, and give her its written decision setting out her review and appeal rights.
58. Within three months of my final decision the Council will:
• develop and share with the Ombudsman an action plan to ensure it can process housing register review requests within the timescales set out in its allocations policy;
• ensure all relevant staff have read our guidance on Medical assessments for housing applications; and
• remind relevant staff that when making decisions about medical priority:
1. it is for the Council to make the decision about priority;
2. decision makers should not simply accept the view of the Council’s medical adviser, but should weigh all the evidence, including any medical advice, before making their own decision; and
3. they should ensure there is a clear record of the issues considered and how the decision was made.
59. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
60. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

61. I have completed my investigation. There was fault with how the Council took too long to decide Ms X’s priority under its housing allocation scheme, managed her homelessness application and communicated with her. The Council agree to review the duties it owes Ms X, apologise and pay her a financial remedy. It also agreed to review how it manages housing register reviews and issue reminders to its staff.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman