Summary: The Council acted in line with its housing allocations policy when dealing with Miss A’s applications and so was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Miss A complains there was fault in the way London Borough of Havering (the Council) dealt with her rehousing applications since 2016.

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 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)
4. 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)
5. We have investigated Miss A’s complaint which goes back to 2016, because it is about an ongoing series of events, part of which includes a complaint about the Council not offering Miss A a three-bedroom property following a review in 2016 which said she required three bedrooms.
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
7. We have investigated Miss A’s complaint even though she could have appealed to court against the Council’s decisions on the suitability of her housing. Miss A seeks reimbursement of financial losses and the court would not order this. So it would be unreasonable to expect her to go to court.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered Miss A’s complaint to us, the Council’s responses to her complaints and documents described later in this statement. I discussed the complaint with Miss A. Both parties saw a draft of this statement and I took comments into account.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

9. Councils have a duty to house certain groups of people including households with children. This is called ‘being owed the main homelessness duty’. Councils may first place families in emergency housing, such as Bed and Breakfasts (for up to six weeks if no other accommodation is available) and hostels.
10. Once a council has accepted the main homelessness duty, it can discharge that duty by making them a suitable offer of council housing or private housing.
11. Housing applicants have the right to ask for a review about the suitability of (temporary) accommodation provided after a council has accepted the main homelessness duty. The review should be carried out by a more senior officer not involved with the original decision. The reviewing officer should consider existing and new information. Suitability reviews should take place within eight weeks of a request. There is a right of appeal to the county court on a point of law, or if the council fails to complete the review within eight weeks.
12. A council must publish an allocations scheme which sets out how it prioritises housing applicants and its procedures for allocating housing. It must allocate in line with the scheme. The allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to:
• homeless people
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing and
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
13. Applicants can ask a council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority and about the suitability of housing offered.
14. The Council’s allocations scheme says:
• Applicants usually have to live in the borough for six years to join the housing register. Accepted homeless applicants can join the register, but have reduced priority until they have lived in the borough for six years
• It prioritises applicants who have an urgent need to move which includes applicants where the current housing is having a major adverse effect on the medical condition/disability. Such applicants are placed in the emergency rehousing band
• Applicants with an identified housing need (including a need to move because of current housing having an adverse effect on health) are placed in the home seeker band
• Applicants who work and have an identified housing need are placed in the community contribution band
• A two-bedroom property is normally appropriate for a family with two children of the same sex where both are under 16. Where a child has autism and their behaviour is such that another person would be at risk if a bedroom was shared and there are no other arrangements that could be reasonably made within the accommodation, the Council will agree an extra bedroom.
15. The Council’s homeless placement policy says the Council makes suitable offers of accommodation for homeless applicants by:
• Ensuring the property meets standards set out in the suitability regulations
• Ensuring the applicant’s circumstances are considered in relation to the location and impact on health, education, employment and support
• Ensuring the property is affordable taking into account income once rent is paid.

Key facts

2016

16. In May 2016, Miss A approached the council as potentially homeless from her private tenancy as her landlord was evicting her. Miss A has two sons, now aged seven and four.
17. The council accepted the main homelessness duty and placed the family in a Bed and Breakfast hotel. In July, Miss A completed an application to go on the housing register.
18. Also in July, Miss A complained about poor communication from the homelessness team. She said she had no certainty on a day to day basis about where she would be staying. The Council moved Miss A to a council hostel. 
19. The Council upheld Miss A’s complaint. It accepted she did not get a good enough service from the homelessness team and apologised. It told Miss A she could expect to stay in the hostel for up to seven months and arranged for the hostel manager to act as a point of contact for any further issues.  Miss A escalated her complaint saying she was unhappy about staying in the hostel for seven months. 
20. Miss A also complained about her reduced priority on the housing register which she did not think was correct. She said she should be in a higher band as she was working. She sent a letter from a consultant about her oldest son possibly having autism. The consultant said the son needed his own bedroom and garden space to play
21. A manager met with Miss A in August. The manager wrote to Miss A upholding her complaint and apologised for officers’ failure to respond to her calls, emails and for not giving timely updates about the progress of her application for housing and her hotel booking. The manager explained Miss A was in the correct band and advised Miss A she could not be in a higher band until she had lived in the borough for six years. The manager also said Miss A would receive updates on how long she could expect to be in the hostel and when the Council would be able to offer her private housing.
22. Miss A tried to move her complaint to the final stage of the complaints process, but the chief executive said she could not because the issues were being considered through the statutory review processes.
23. In August, Miss A asked the Council to review the suitability of her housing. She also for a review of her band. She said her oldest son needed his own room and a garden to play in and a doctor supported this as the son might have autism. She provided a report from the doctor which suggested the son may have autism (but this was not confirmed). She asked for a three-bedroom property and for the Council to apply its old allocations policy, which was more favourable to her.
24. In September, a review officer completed reviews of Miss A’s band and the suitability of the hostel. The outcome was:
• The policy, adopted in July 2016, was she needed to have lived in the borough for six years to be in the home seeker band and to be eligible for the community contribution. She had only lived in Havering for two years and applied to go on the housing register in July 2016. So, she was in the correct band and there would be no change.
• The hostel was not suitable for the family and the review officer asked the rehousing team to find a property.  The review officer recommended a three-bedroom property. He said in a cover email to Miss A ‘I do not, on medical grounds, consider it [the hostel room] to be suitable for you. I have, as you will see, made a recommendation that you be offered three beds instead of two because of your son’s medical issues’
25. In October, the Council offered Miss A a two-bedroom private sector leased property. The letter explained the Council’s medical advisor had carried out an assessment and decided a two-bedroom property met Miss A’s eldest son’s medical needs and, as he had no diagnosis of a childhood behavioural disorder, he did not need a bedroom of his own. The letter explained Miss A had a right to request a review within 21 days. Miss A accepted the property and did not ask for a review.

2017

26. In February 2017, Miss A asked the Council to review the suitability of the two-bedroom property. She said she was given no choice but to take it. She also raised concerns about damp affecting her son’s asthma.
27. The review officer did not uphold the review. He considered the damp and condensation issues could be dealt with by better ventilation and that the property was within a reasonable distance of her family support (10 to 15 minutes by car and Miss A had a car). The review officer also said Miss A could rearrange the rooms to give the older son appropriate space and could use local parks instead of garden space. The review officer noted Miss A’s youngest son was one and could sleep with Miss A or the living room could be used as a room for either child for sleeping or other activities.
28. In July 2017, Miss A asked for a further review of the suitability of her home based on an incident post-dating her moving into the property when a gang of masked, armed youths had congregated outside. There was a second incident where a neighbour was shot in the road. One of Miss A’s windows was broken. She provided a letter from her doctor and a police crime report which supported a move based on her children’s vulnerability. The police confirmed Miss A was not targeted or at any more risk than any of her other neighbours. The review officer considered the information and wrote to Miss A saying her accommodation remained suitable as the recent incidents did not involve specific threats against her or her family. The review officer said he accepted Miss A’s son had particular problems coping with the aftermath of the incidents, but as the police considered there was no ongoing risk, there was no reason to conclude the accommodation was not suitable. And there had been no further change in circumstances that would mean the decision on bedrooms needed to change.

2018

29. Miss A continued to say she was unhappy with her property, saying the lack of a third bedroom was making family life really difficult. She asked for a further review in November 2018, enclosing supporting documents from the school and a children’s occupational therapist.  Her eldest child had been formally diagnosed with autism and her younger child, now three, was on a pathway to diagnosis of autism. The eldest child’s behavioural problems had got much worse since the previous review and the younger child also had behavioural problems.

2019

30. In January, the review officer considered the new information from Miss A and her sons’ medical professionals and decided the property was no longer suitable. The Council placed Miss A on its list for alternative privately-leased accommodation.
31. Miss A contacted the Council through her MP. She said she was unhappy with being put on a waiting list for new accommodation. A senior officer responded saying Miss A was one of a number of families in the same situation and she would get a three-bedroom privately leased property as soon as one became available and meantime she could continue to bid for permanent social housing although demand for that was also high.
32. Miss A complained to the Council in January. It responded saying the move-on team were looking for a property. Miss A escalated her complaint.
33. The Council identified a property in February 2019. The letter explained it was a three-bedroom house and set out why it was suitable for Miss A in terms of location and affordability. Miss A accepted the property and moved in at the start of March.
34. The Council responded to Miss A’s complaint saying it was satisfied with the service Miss A had received. The response said:
• The review officer recommended Miss A be offered a two-bedroom property in September 2016. This was a recommendation, not a requirement.
• The Council had a limited supply of three bedroom properties. The housing allocations team made decisions according to need. In comparison, the review officer operated independently of the allocation team and was not influenced by the pressures of the service. The review officer’s decision was not overturned.
• The review officer confirmed the two-bedroom property was not suitable in January 2019. A three-bedroom property was found and she moved in at the start of March. This was not a prolonged wait.
35. Miss A escalated her complaint to the final stage of the Council’s complaints procedure. The Council did not uphold her complaint. It said:
• The review officer’s recommendation for three bedrooms was different from a decision on a property’s suitability
• Previous reviews of the two-bedroom property confirmed it was suitable. Then, in January 2019, based on new evidence, the review officer agreed a three -bedroom property was more appropriate
• She accepted a three-bedroom property, which satisfied her request.
36. Miss A identified issues with her new property, which she claimed she was forced to accept. She said the third bedroom was not big enough according to the law. She raised a fresh complaint about her new property and about the delay in moving from the previous property.  She said she got herself into debt moving to her current property because it had no flooring or carpet and she had moving costs.
37. The Council wrote to Miss A saying it would arrange a suitability review. It wrote to her again in July 2019 with the outcome of the review. The letter said:
• The third bedroom did not meet legal minimum size requirement for a bedroom, but sleeping arrangements could be changed to meet the family’s needs as the law said a living room could be used as a sleeping room and so this gave the three family members a bedroom each.
• Even though the third bedroom was legally too small to be classed as a bedroom there was no reason it could not be used as a play room for one son. This would meet both son’s needs for individual space to play as the other son could use one of the other bedrooms.
• The property had a garden, it was close to their long-term schools and was affordable with only a small rental shortfall.
38. Miss A complained about the Council’s actions. She said the Council did not act quickly enough to offer her alternative housing. She said she wanted a permanent three-bedroom property. The Council responded saying:
• The review officer decided in January 2019, following her review request in November, that her property was no longer suitable. She was offered a property in February. Four months was a reasonable timeframe.
• It was satisfied the current property was suitable following the most recent review. It acknowledged the third bedroom was too small to use as a bedroom in legal terms, but had explained how the rooms could be used to meet her sons’ needs and provide adequate sleeping space.
• The Council has a homeless duty to provide accommodation and it has done so by providing a non-secure tenancy in a privately-leased property. It had no plans to move her anywhere else. She could bid for social housing, but she had only placed one bid this year and should bid more frequently.

Was there fault?

39. The Council accepted its communication with Miss A was not up to expected standards when she first applied for housing as a homeless person and apologised. Poor communication was fault and caused avoidable distress at a time which was already stressful for Miss A. The Council has already apologised and this was an appropriate remedy.
40. There was no fault in the Council placing Miss A in Bed and Breakfast as this was for less than six weeks and there was no alternative. There was also no fault in moving Miss A to a council hostel. This is permitted under the law, even for families.
41. There was no fault in the Council placing Miss A in the reduced priority band. In doing so, the Council acted in line with its allocations policy because she was an accepted homeless case who had not lived in the borough for six years when she applied to join the housing register.
42. The Council reviewed the suitability of the hostel placement when Miss A asked for a review. The review officer decided it was not suitable. He recommended Miss A should have a three-bedroom property. The letter did not explain the reason Miss A needed three bedrooms, but a covering email said the review officer was recommending three bedrooms because of her eldest son’s medical issues. However, the Council then offered Miss A a two-bedroom property although the review officer recommended three bedrooms.
43. I have considered carefully whether it was fault not to offer Miss A three bedrooms and have decided it was not. When making the offer, the Council explained its medical advisor had considered the case and decided her eldest son did not require his own bedroom because at that time, he was not diagnosed with a behavioural condition. I have no grounds to criticise that view because the Council acted in line with its allocations policy. The policy allows for an extra bedroom for children who have autism. Although autism was suspected in Miss A’s eldest son, it was not yet diagnosed in October 2016. This means the Council was not at fault in offering a two-bedroom property in line with the normal rule about bedrooms which was that same sex children were required to share.
44. I do not consider there was fault in the later suitability reviews. The review officer considered all relevant issues which had arisen since Miss A took the property. He was entitled to decide that Miss A was not targeted personally when there was criminal activity involving one of her neighbours and so was not at risk in the property. And, when new evidence arose as to Miss A’s youngest child’s disability, the review officer considered that evidence and recognised that circumstances had changed such that three bedrooms were needed
45. Miss A has now been offered and moved into a three-bedroom property. She says that because one bedroom is not of the required size legally, she is effectively still in a two-bedroom property. I do not share this view. The Council has explained that the three bedrooms and living rooms can be reconfigured so each person has a separate room compatible with the space standards for bedrooms. I find no fault in this approach.

Back to top

Final decision

46. There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with Miss A’s rehousing. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman