Summary: Mr Y complained the Council did not include his autistic son’s needs as part of his application for housing. This meant Mr Y is only eligible for one-bedroom properties when he says he needs a two-bedroom property. There was no fault in how the Council considered Mr Y’s housing application.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council did not include his autistic son’s needs as part of his application for housing. This means Mr Y is only eligible for one-bedroom properties when he says he needs a two-bedroom property.
2. He says the Council’s failure to rehouse him in a two-bed property has caused him worry and frustration as his son cannot have his own space if he feels overwhelmed during contact visits.

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 cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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 considered all the information provided by Mr Y about the complaint and have spoken to him.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and took account of all the evidence and comments received.
7. I have written to Mr Y and the Council with my draft decision and given them an opportunity to comment, before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. 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))
9. 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))

10. 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.
11. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking from assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018, he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4))
12. 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.  (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
13. Some councils no longer have any housing stock; however, they are still under a legal duty to have a scheme for allocating accommodation. Councils often run these schemes in partnership with local housing associations.
14. Only one person can claim child benefit for any one child.

What happened

15. The Council uses a local choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for advertised properties.
16. Mr Y’s partner, X, had moved in with Mr Y to escape domestic violence at the property she owned in the area. Mr Y’s landlord then served a Notice to Quit (NTQ) for the property in June 2018.
17. Mr Y and X, approached the Council to ask for help with housing. Mr Y told the Council he had a young son, who had autism and stayed with Mr Y every other weekend and for part of the school holidays as part of a mediated contact arrangement.
18. The Council advised Mr Y the NTQ was incomplete and unenforceable against him. So, the Council did not consider Mr Y and X to be threatened with homelessness.
19. The Council placed X and Mr Y on the lowest “Copper” priority banding for housing allocations.
20. Mr Y and X raised a joint complaint with the Council before approaching the Ombudsman. Mr Y repeated his concerns about his autistic son’s need for a separate bedroom when he came to stay. This was to allow him a place to go when he became overwhelmed.
21. Mr Y’s landlord served a further and enforceable NTQ in September 2018. Since contacting the Ombudsman, Mr Y and X have ended their relationship and X has moved out. Mr Y also received a court order for him to leave his rental property in February 2019.
22. Mr Y gave the Council his NTQ and the court order showing he was threatened with homelessness. As Mr Y’s circumstances had changed because of the breakdown of his relationship, the Council reassessed Mr Y’s housing priority as a single male, threatened with homelessness. The Council then placed Mr Y into its highest “Gold” banding for housing allocations.
23. As a result, the Council has rehoused Mr Y during this investigation, in a one-bedroom flat to prevent him from becoming homeless.
24. Mr Y says he accepted the property to stop him becoming homeless. However, he does not feel the Council properly considered his son’s need for a separate bedroom. He thinks his son needs the extra room during visits to see him.
25. The Council says it does not consider the child to be dependent on Mr Y because he does not receive Child Benefit for his son. Also under the mediated contact arrangement Mr Y is not his son’s main caregiver. Therefore, under the Council’s policy, as Mr Y only has access to his son, it has not considered Mr Y’s son in determining the size of property Mr Y needs to be housed in.

Analysis

26. I have considered Mr Y’s complaint from the point where his relationship ended and he became a sole applicant. At that point, the Council reassessed Mr Y’s priority.
27. The Council had a duty to take reasonable steps to help secure accommodation for those threatened with homelessness, as Mr Y was. It needed to ensure accommodation was suitable for his needs and those of members of his household.
28. As Mr Y was threatened with homelessness through no fault of his own in the following two months, the Council placed him in the scheme’s gold band. This gave him the highest priority to be rehoused. However, under the Council’s policy, “children you have access to…” [but are not dependent on you] “… are not taken into account in determining the size of property you are eligible for.”
29. The Council told me that in its opinion Mr Y’s son was not dependent on him. The Council assesses “dependency” by considering evidence that the person gets child benefit and that the child lives with them. Alternatively, the Council looks for a Consent Order or Child Arrangement Order in the applicant’s favour to be in place. Where the applicant has an agreement with another parent, it asks for evidence for a valid claim for child benefit.
30. Mr Y has confirmed that his son stays with him every other weekend and for half the school holidays. Mr Y has also said he does not get child benefit for his son.
31. Consequently, the Council has not considered Mr Y’s son or his son’s needs when allocating housing to Mr Y to prevent him from becoming homeless.
32. The law and statutory guidance give councils discretion about how to decide whether a child is dependent on a person making a housing application. The Council was therefore entitled to decide not to include Mr Y’s son as relevant to its decision about the size of property he could bid for because it considered his circumstances and made its decision in line with its policy.
33. The Council was entitled to decide that, even though Mr Y’s son has autism, as he is not his dependent, it did not need to allocate him a larger property to account for his condition.
34. Consequently, I have found no fault in the Council’s decision-making process for not including Mr Y’s son’s needs in Mr Y’s housing application.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr Y’s complaint as there was no fault in how the Council considered Mr Y’s housing application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman