Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council has assessed her housing allocation band. She says it means she is unable to bid for properties, and has caused her and her daughter stress and anxiety. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Ms X, complains about the way the Council has handled her housing situation. She complains that:
1. the Council has wrongly put her in band D;
2. the Council’s review ignored her daughter’s epilepsy and mental health;
3. the Council’s review says there is a chance she can remain in her current property, which she says is not the case; and,
4. she should be eligible for social housing because of her circumstances.
2. Ms X says this means she is unable to bid for properties, and has caused her and her daughter stress and anxiety. Ms X believes she meets the criteria for social housing. She says the Council is not doing enough to prevent her and her daughter becoming homeless.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information and documents provided by Ms X and the Council. I spoke to Ms X about her complaint. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments before I reached a final decision.
5. I have considered the relevant legislation and policies, set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Homelessness prevention duty

6. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 came into force on 3 April 2018. This says that councils must provide a free service which gives information and advice on preventing homelessness, securing accommodation for homeless people, the rights of those who are homeless or threatened with homelessness, and what help the council can give.
7. If someone applies to a council for housing, the council must determine if the person is homeless, or threatened with homelessness, and whether they are eligible for assistance. The council must assess the person and complete a personal housing plan. This plan outlines what the person and the council will do to try and prevent homelessness. The council must determine if it has a duty to accommodate that person.
8. If a person is threatened with homelessness, the council must do prevention work with the person. However, there is no duty to provide accommodation until the person is actually homeless.
9. Under this Act, councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness for a person who is eligible for assistance and is threatened with homelessness. Prevention could be helping the person to stay in their current home, delaying the need to leave their current home to allow for a planned move on, or securing alternative accommodation.

Housing allocation bands and reviews

10. Councils must have an allocation scheme to determine priorities and set out the procedure it will follow when allocating housing. Each council’s allocations scheme will be different but in general most will award 'reasonable preference' to allocations by awarding points or placing an applicant in a certain priority band. Applicants have a right to review a council’s decision about the number of points or band they have been awarded.

The Council’s allocations policy

11. The Council has a policy which sets out how it will allocate housing. There are four bands (A to D, with band A having the highest priority). The Council will allocate someone to a band after it has assessed the person’s needs and circumstances.
12. The policy says that if someone has an illness or disability which is affected by their current housing, they will be referred to the Council’s medical adviser. The medical adviser will assess the person or any relevant family member, and will make recommendations to the Council which will inform the Council’s decision.
13. The policy says the medical adviser will assess the applicant or members of their family in relation to the effect their present housing may have on their state of health. If there is an adverse effect due to their current housing, the medical adviser will consider whether the overall effect on the household is sufficiently severe to warrant recommending they be put in a higher band.
14. The policy says that in order to be considered for band C due to medical need, the person’s current housing must have an adverse effect which creates a particular need for them to move.
15. If someone disagrees with the Council’s allocation or banding, they can ask for a review. This review is statutory.

What happened

16. In 2014, Ms X registered with the Council for housing assistance for her and her daughter (G). G has epilepsy and mental health issues. The Council assessed Ms X and put her in band D.
17. In November 2018, Ms X’s landlady served an eviction notice (also known as a ‘notice to quit’), meaning Ms X would have to leave the property by February 2019.
18. In December, the Council responded to a complaint Ms X made through her MP. The Council said there was nothing to indicate Ms X’s current accommodation was having a detrimental effect on G’s medical condition. For this reason, the Council said Ms X remained in band D.
19. In January 2019, Ms X went to the Council with an eviction notice. The Council assessed her that day. It said she was eligible for assistance, she was threatened with homelessness, and it therefore owed Ms X a prevention duty.
20. The Council completed a personal housing plan which said what actions the Council and Ms X would take to try and prevent her becoming homeless. It told Ms X she had a right to request a review of the Council’s allocation decision.
21. Ms X asked the Council to review its decision. She requested social housing.
22. In March, the landlady served a revised eviction notice, which said Ms X had to leave by May 2019.
23. Later in March, the Council sent Ms X its review. It said it considered amongst other things all the information she had sent, as well as three medical assessments for G completed by the Council’s medical adviser in 2016, December 2018 and January 2019.
24. The review noted G’s medical conditions. It said the medical adviser had recommended band D because Ms X’s property was medically suitable for G.
25. The review outlined the eligibility criteria for bands A to D. It said that people in need of housing who have an illness or disability which is affected by their current home are referred to the medical adviser. It said the medical adviser will then give recommendations that inform the Council’s decision.
26. The review said the Council’s decision was that band D was correct for Ms X and G. It said there was nothing in Ms X’s current property that was having an adverse effect on G.
27. The review said that Ms X had made a homelessness application, but it did not deem that Ms X or G fell into the ‘reasonable preference’ category that would allow her to move to band C. This was because the Council had not accepted her as a homelessness case, and it did not consider her current property to have an adverse effect on G.
28. The review said it had also considered other households on the register with similar circumstances and housing need as Ms X. It said Ms X’s circumstances did not warrant her being a priority.
29. Ms X complained to the Council about its decision.
30. The Council responded to Ms X in April. It said the issues she raised were about its decision which was issued after a statutory review. It said it was not appropriate to address Ms X’s issues through the complaints procedure because it had been superseded by the statutory review process.
31. The Council recommended that Ms X seek legal advice if she remained dissatisfied with the decision.
32. Ms X then complained to the Ombudsman.
33. In September, there was an eviction hearing in court. Ms X had to leave the property by October.
34. In October, Ms X and G left the property. The Council placed them in emergency accommodation. Ms X says that since moving to emergency accommodation, the Council has changed her banding from D to C.

Analysis

Council’s banding allocation

35. Ms X complains that the Council has wrongly put her in band D (part a of the complaint). She believes she should have been given a higher priority because of G’s medical conditions.
36. The Council’s policy says that band C for medical need can be given when the person or family member’s current housing conditions are having an adverse effect on medical conditions which create a particular need for them to move.
37. In this case, the Council’s medical adviser assessed G on three separate occasions (before the review). Each time, the medical adviser said that Ms X’s current home did not have an adverse effect on G which meant she needed to move home.
38. I find the medical adviser assessed G in line with the Council’s policy. The Council then acted in line with its policy when it reviewed its allocation decision. The Council’s decisions, both before and during the review, were made in line with its policy. For these reasons, I do not find fault with the Council.

Medical conditions

39. Ms X complains that the Council’s review ignored her daughter’s epilepsy and mental health (part b of the complaint).
40. The review clearly outlines G’s medical conditions. It also notes the letter received from G’s doctor. The review outlined the medical adviser’s findings about G’s medical conditions.
41. I find that the Council’s review did not ignore G’s medical conditions. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.
42. Ms X believes she should have been given higher priority because of G’s medical conditions. This is not evidence of fault. I find that the Council acted in line with its policies.

Remaining in current property

43. Ms X complains that the Council’s review says there is a chance she can remain in her current property, which she says is not the case (part c of the complaint).
44. I have not found any reference in the Council’s review to a chance Ms X could remain in her property. I also have not seen any evidence in correspondence or other documents that the Council said this.
45. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.

Eligibility for social housing

46. Ms X complains that she should be eligible for social housing because of her circumstances (part d of the complaint).
47. When Ms X was initially allocated band D status, this meant she was eligible for social housing and was on the housing register. Due to her low banding, however, it meant she was not able to actively bid on properties. This is the case for everyone assessed as band D.
48. As I have said above, I find that the Council correctly assessed Ms X as band D in line with its policy. Being in band D means that a person is eligible for social housing but is not a priority.
49. Essentially, Ms X’s argument is that she should have been a higher priority banding. I have addressed this above (part a of the complaint), and I do not agree with Ms X.
50. For these reasons, I do not find fault with the Council.
51. Since becoming homeless, Ms X says she has been assessed as band C. This means she can now actively bid on properties.
52. Ms X says the Council has not done enough to prevent her becoming homeless. The Council did a personal housing plan and completed all the identified actions in the plan.
53. I find that the Council acted in line with the law, and for this reason I do not find fault with the Council.

Complaint handling

54. Ms X complains about the time the Council took to respond to her complaint.
55. Ms X complained in March 2019. The Council replied 22 working days later. It said it was not appropriate to look at Ms X’s complaint under the complaints procedure because it had been superseded by the statutory review process.
56. I do not find fault with the Council for not accepting Ms X’s complaint under its complaints procedure. I find it was entirely appropriate for the Council to have reviewed Ms X’s banding allocation with a statutory review.
57. I agree with the Council that it would have been inappropriate to look again at Ms X’s complaint under its complaints procedure, given that she had just completed the statutory review process. The statutory review process is there to address people’s complaints about how a council has allocated a banding status.
58. Given that the Council did not deal with Ms X’s complaint under its complaints procedure, the timeframes set out in its complaints procedure do not apply.
59. I do not find that the Council delayed responding to Ms X’s complaint.
60. For these reasons, I do not find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

61. I have completed my investigation and I do not uphold Ms X’s complaint. This is because I have found no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman