Summary: Mr X, who is street homeless, complained that he missed out on an offer of housing when the Council amended his email address on its computer system. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to acknowledge the distress he experienced.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that a member of Council staff intentionally amended the email address that the Council held for him on its Homefinder system. As a consequence, Mr X said that he missed out on the offer of a property. He wants the Council to remedy the matter by housing him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have considered the information Mr X provided and discussed his complaint with him. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
5. I invited Mr X and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision statement and considered their responses before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

The main housing duty

6. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Temporary accommodation

7. The accommodation a council provides until it can end the main housing duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
8. 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 temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
9. Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review its suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)

Housing Allocations Policy

10. 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))
11. The Council‘s housing allocation policy has priority bands which set out how properties are allocated in its area. Applicants in Band P (Priority) have the highest priority, followed by Band 1, and those in Band 3 the lowest.

What happened

The missed housing offer

12. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.
13. Mr X has been sleeping rough for several years. He joined the Council’s housing register (“Homefinder”) online in May 2022, including his correct email address in his application. He completed a homelessness application in January 2023. He was allocated priority Band 1 on the housing register.
14. Mr X said that the Council called him in late November 2023 to let him know that it was going to make him an offer of permanent housing, and that he should look out for this arriving by email. When he did not receive an offer, Mr X called the Council to check whether it had been sent. The Council said that it had, and that it would be sent again.
15. Again, an offer did not arrive. Mr X contacted the Council again approximately two weeks after the offer had been made. Mr X said that he was told that the offer to him had been withdrawn, and the property had been allocated to someone else. He said he was very distressed at missing out on this property as it matched his preferences: it was a ground floor flat (this was important to him because of his health conditions), it was in his preferred location (town A), and it was 10-15 minutes’ walk from his GP’s surgery.
16. The Council’s account was that a Registered Provider of Social Housing (the Registered Provider) had emailed Mr X twice to make him an offer of accommodation, using the email address on the Council’s Homefinder system, to which he had not responded. He had been allowed five days to respond before the offer had been withdrawn. The Registered Provider had also called Mr X twice during the offer period, but he had not answered, and there was no facility to leave a message. The Registered Provider therefore wrote to Mr X, but as he is does not have a fixed address, this letter was sent to his agreed correspondence address.

The complaint

17. Mr X told us that he had been hospitalised over the Christmas period. He submitted a formal complaint about the missed housing offer to the Council in late January 2024, and received an email of acknowledgement the following day. That email said that his complaint would be investigated, and a full response provided, within ten working days.
18. Mr X called the Council in early February and spoke to the Homelessness Manager, who identified that an incorrect email address was detailed in his record on the Homefinder system. This was immediately corrected.
19. In mid February, Mr X complained that he had not had a response to his January complaint, and added a new complaint that the Council had deliberately changed his email address. He said that he had been receiving emails from the Homelessness team, so the problem was only on the Homefinder system. The Council acknowledged this contact by email in late February.
20. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint by phoning him in mid March. The written note of this call included that the Council had checked the computer system and it was not possible to see when the email address had been changed or who had changed it. Mr X asked for this complaint to be escalated Stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure.
21. The Council responded in mid April, partially upholding Mr X’s complaint because an incorrect email address had been held on the system for him, but this had been rectified as soon as the Council had become aware of it. This response repeated that it was not possible to find out who had changed the email address and when. It also said that it was very important that Mr X should check his email inbox regularly, so that he could respond quickly if he was made an offer, as he would only have a few days within which to accept the offer.
22. Mr X put his complaint to the Ombudsman later in April.

The Council’s direct offers to Mr X

23. The Council made Mr X two direct offers of one-bed flats within its area in June 2024. He declined this, saying that he did not wish to live in the locations offered (town B and town C).
24. The Council told us that it was unable to make Mr X a direct offer of housing in his preferred location because it did not have housing stock there (only the Registered Provider did). That was why it had made him offers in town B and town C.
25. The Council said, as he had declined its offers, Mr X would need to continue bidding on suitable properties in town A when they became available through the Homefinder system.
26. Mr X told us that he could not accept an offer of housing in town B because, although he had grown up there, he had since had disagreements with a number of residents that meant he did not feel able to return. He said that he needed to live in town A to be near his GP, who is his main source of both support and food parcels, and his son, who has severe learning difficulties. He would like his son to be able to stay with him, which wouldn’t be possible in town B or town C.
27. Late in our investigation, the Council told us that the facility for automatic bids to be made on Mr X’s behalf has now been limited to properties in town A, so that he will not waste bids on properties outside of his area of preference in future.
28. Mr X and the Council both provided evidence that Mr X did not wish to consider other options including supported living or shared housing. He was reluctant to consider the private rental sector.

Temporary accommodation

29. The Council told us that it had offered Mr X temporary accommodation at “every contact” it had had with him from January 2023 to date, which he had declined. Mr X confirmed that he had refused offers of hostel accommodation on numerous occasions, preferring to await an offer of suitable permanent housing.

My findings – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

The missed housing offer

30. During our investigation, the Council told us that Mr X had entered his email address correctly at the point of his online application to the Homefinder system. And so, the change to an incorrect address must have been made by a member of Council staff. I find this to be fault on the part of the Council. As there is no evidence of when, why, or by whom the change was made, I cannot make a finding as to whether this change was made accidentally or intentionally.
31. The Council’s view is that Mr X could have received the offer of housing by answering calls from the Registered Provider, or by having a voicemail service in place (Mr X told me that he did have such a service). I agree that Mr X may have contributed to his own injustice to an extent, but I consider it would not be reasonable to expect a person who is street homeless to operate perfect communication systems. The Council said Mr X could have responded to the offer sent by letter, but I consider it unlikely that the letter would have been sent to, received at, and processed by his correspondence address, and Mr X alerted to its receipt, within the five-day offer window operated by the Registered Provider.
32. I find that the Council’s fault, of changing Mr X’s email address on the Homefinder system, led directly to Mr X missing an offer of housing that, on the balance of probabilities, I find he would have accepted. This is an injustice that warrants a financial remedy.

The complaint

33. The Council told us that Mr X was aware of the offer in early December 2023, nearly two months before he complained in late January 2024. It considers he should have complained about the missed offer sooner. But I have found that Mr X only became aware of the offer of housing after he had missed out on it, and he was hospitalised shortly afterwards. So he did not have a realistic opportunity to make an earlier complaint, and doing so would not have made a material difference.
34. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s complaints in January and February, but did not respond until March. This was more than a month later than the Council’s stated policy, which I find to be fault. When the Council did respond, that response was provided over the phone. This was also fault: a formal written response should have been sent by email, either instead of, or as well as, the telephone call.
35. The only formal written response that Mr X received to his complaint was at Stage 2, in mid-April. This explained, incorrectly, that he could escalate his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman, rather than to us. This was also fault.

The Council’s direct offers to Mr X

36. I consider that the direct offers of housing made by the Council are a suitable remedy for some of the injustice caused to Mr X by the missed offer. Mr X should be aware that refusing offers repeatedly may lead to his removal from the housing register.
37. Whilst I understand Mr X’s preferences are important to him, the Council does not have a duty to offer him a property in town A. Mr X has a right to make his preferences known, and to refuse properties presented to him, but this does not mean the Council is at fault for not offering him properties in line with what his preferences are. The Council has explained the imbalance between supply and demand for properties, and that it does not hold housing stock in Mr X’s preferred area. On this basis, I do not find fault in the Council’s actions and do not intend to make any further recommendations about this aspect of Mr X’s complaint.
38. However, I consider that the Council’s decision to offer Mr X housing outside of his known preference area represented an unconstructive approach. The Council may wish to ask the Registered Provider whether it could consider making Mr X a direct offer within town A.

Temporary accommodation

39. I do not find fault with the Council’s attempts to provide Mr X with temporary accommodation whilst he awaits an offer of suitable permanent accommodation. It has been his choice to refuse these offers, although I understand that he may have good reasons for doing so.

Back to top

Agreed actions

40. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Mr X for amending his email address, leading to the missed offer of housing, and for the errors I identified in its handling of his complaint. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation will consider this guidance in making its apology;
• provide us with an explanation about how it will ensure the same fault does not happen again; and
• pay Mr X £200 per month from November 2023 (the date of the missed housing offer) to June 2024 (the date of the direct offer), totalling £1400, to reflect the injustice and distress its faults caused him. This is a symbolic amount in line with our published guidance on remedies.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has completed these actions.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have found fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr X. I have completed my investigation on the basis the Council will carry out the above actions as a suitable way of remedying the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman