Bristol City Council (19 007 854)

Category : Housing > Allocations

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 24 Feb 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to deal properly with her application for housing. There was no delay in the time taken for the Council to award Ms X housing priority and no fault in the way the Council carried out a suitability review of the property it offered her. There was fault when the Council failed to consider medical evidence Ms X submitted but this did not cause her an injustice. Ms X also complained the Council breached data protection legislation but I will not investigate this. This is because matters about data breaches are best left to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The complaint

  1. Ms X complained the Council:
      1. failed to properly deal with her housing application which she made in 2018 and did not take into consideration the supporting evidence she provided;
      2. made her an unsuitable direct offer of housing which she refused, leading to her subsequent removal from the housing register for six months; and
      3. breached data protection legislation when it sent her somebody else’s personal details.
  2. Ms X says that as a result, she had been forced to live at relatives’ homes for longer than necessary which has had a negative effect on her health and the health of her child.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I have investigated complaints 1 a) and b). I explain why I have not investigated complaint 1 c) at the end of this decision statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I spoke to Ms X and considered her view of her complaint.
  2. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided. This included the application and supporting information submitted by Ms X, the reviewing officer’s letter to Ms X and the Council’s Housing Allocations Policy.
  3. I wrote to Ms X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness law

  1. If a council has reason to believe someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make enquiries.
  2. On 3 April 2018 the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 (the HRA) came into force and imposed certain duties on councils.
  3. After carrying out an assessment under the HRA, the council must prepare a personal housing plan with the applicant to prevent or relieve their homelessness, depending on circumstances. During this stage the council has a relief homelessness duty towards the applicant.
  4. The relief duty will come to an end under a number of circumstances including when 56 days have passed since the council became subject to this duty, whether or not the applicant has secured accommodation.
  5. At this stage, if a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, it has a duty to provide accommodation. I have called this the full homelessness duty. Someone will have a priority need if, for example, they have children.
  6. Councils can discharge their homelessness duties through securing suitable accommodation. Councils must tell applicants of the implications if they refuse an offered property and their right to a review.

The Council’s Housing Allocations Policy – direct offers

  1. The Council’s housing applications policy says applicants will receive one offer of housing under its allocations scheme. If the applicant refuses the property, the Council will disqualify the applicant from reapplying for housing for 6 months. The Council has no further duty to provide accommodation during this period.
  2. The applicant has 21 days to ask for a review of whether the property is suitable if they decide to refuse the property.
  3. If the review decision is against the interests of the applicant, the reviewing officer must write to the applicant stating the reasons and giving the applicant the opportunity to respond.
  4. There is no right of appeal following a suitability review except to Court on a point of law. This is called a judicial review.

The Council’s Housing Allocations Policy – priority bands

  1. The Council allocates all housing applicants a band to determine the priority they will be given when they bid for a property. The Council has four bands with Band 1 being the highest.
  2. Band 2 includes applicants for whom the Council has accepted the full homelessness duty.
  3. Band 3 includes applicants who:
    • are threatened with homelessness and are owed the homelessness prevention duty; or
    • are homeless and are owed the homelessness relief duty; or
    • have medical or welfare needs that are related in part to their current housing and could be helped by rehousing.
  4. If an applicant falls into more than one band or falls into more than one category within the same band, the Council will place them in the higher band and backdate their application by six months. This is called a ‘composite need’.

What happened

  1. Ms X had been on the Council’s housing register since around 2016. She was in Band 4 which was the lowest priority band. She has a young child who has some medical conditions.
  2. On 20 June 2018, Ms X presented to the Council as homeless. Ms X said she and her child had previously been living with her mother but had been asked to leave. Ms X said they had moved into another relative’s home but the relative was soon moving house and at that point they would be homeless.
  3. The Council accepted a relief homelessness duty and drew up a personal housing plan. This included a requirement for Ms X to inform the Council if there were any areas where she would be at risk if she was allocated housing there. Ms X did not complete this section.
  4. In July 2018, Ms X submitted documents including a health form and a letter from her GP about her child’s conditions.
  5. On 24 July 2018, a Council officer (Officer B) requested a senior manager consider whether Ms X’s priority should be increased to Band 2. Officer B advised Ms X that it could take up to eight weeks for a decision to be made.
  6. Ms X asked for an update on 7 August 2018. Officer B told her a decision had not been made on her banding and there was a backlog of cases which were causing further delays.
  7. The relief homelessness duty the Council owed Ms X finished after 56 days on
    16 August 2018. The Council accepted it had a full homelessness duty towards Ms X and on 17 August it placed Ms X in priority band 2 with an effective date of 21 June 2018 which was when she first presented as homeless.
  8. Also on 16 August 2018, Officer B wrote to the Council’s Health and Housing Team and asked the team to make recommendations for temporary accommodation based on the medical documents it held for Ms X and her child. Officer B updated Ms X on these actions.
  9. On 16 January 2019 Ms X emailed Officer B about a property she had seen on the Council’s listings. Officer B said this could only be bid on through the usual channels and they could not allocate it directly to Ms X. On the same day Ms X sent Officer B further medical evidence about her child.
  10. On 22 March 2019, Ms X met Officer B. She said it was “crucial” she was housed within five minutes car drive of her mother’s house and her child’s nursery. This was because Ms X did not drive and so her mother took her child to nursery. Ms X also said because of her child’s medical conditions they frequently had to go to the Accident and Emergency (A&E) Department at the local hospital and she needed to be close to her mother so she could drive them there when that happened. Ms X’s record did not contain the medical information she had submitted in January 2019 and so Ms X provided a hard copy of this again.
  11. Ms X’s case was reassigned to another officer, Officer C. On 26 March 2019, Officer C spoke to a relative of Ms X’s who mentioned details of incidents and threats against herself and her family by a local family (Family Z). Officer C contacted Ms X and asked her to provide details of these incidents.
  12. On 26 March 2019, the Council awarded Ms X Band 2 priority with composite need. Its based on the fact the Council owed Ms X the full homelessness duty and there was a medical need for the applicant and her child. In line with its policy, because it was a composite need, the Council backdated Ms X’s eligibility date by six months.
  13. On 30 April 2019, the Council wrote to Ms X and made her a direct offer of a 2 bedroom, first floor flat. The letter said the Council had an obligation to make one offer of housing and it could discharge its full homelessness duty whether Ms X accepted or refused this offer. The letter informed Ms X that if she refused the offer she would be excluded from bidding for properties for six months from the date of her refusal unless she asked for a review and was successful.
  14. Ms X was unhappy with the offer. She contacted Officer C and said she was concerned the flat was unsuitable because of the risk from Family Z and its distance from her mother’s property and her child’s nursery and the A&E.
  15. Officer C emailed Ms X and asked for more details about Family Z. Ms X described the incidents between Family Z and her relative and said Family Z had links with the area where the flat was located.
  16. Officer C contacted the police for details of the incidents. The police did not support Ms X’s submissions.
  17. Ms X disagreed with the police and stated the risks were real even though there was no forensic evidence against Family Z. Ms X stated again the risk was too great for her to move into the flat.
  18. Around the same time, Ms X reread some of the information she had been sent around a year ago by Officer B. This contained sensitive personal details about a third party which Officer B had sent to Ms X accidentally. She contacted Officer C and said Officer B’s error demonstrated their incompetence in dealing with her case.
  19. Officer C responded on 9 April 2019. They said there was no substantive police evidence of the incidents Ms X said had happened. Officer C said they had taken into account the comments made by the Health and Housing Team and the flat was a suitable offer. Officer C told Ms X the Council was considering what action to take about the data breach and she must destroy the information about the third party otherwise she would be in breach herself of the relevant legislation. Ms X said she would not destroy the information and she was going to go to the press.
  20. Officer C continued to correspond with the police over further comments from
    Ms X about Family Z. The police did not support the submissions from Ms X that she was at risk.
  21. Ms X made a complaint to the Council on 10 April 2019 about the suitability of the flat and Officer B’s actions.
  22. Officer C emailed Ms X on 3 May 2019 in response to her complaint. They said:
    • the police did not support her claims she was at risk;
    • the flat was close to one A&E and 20 minutes from the A&E Ms X currently used; and
    • the flat was near to her child’s nursery and her mother’s house.
  23. Officer C confirmed the Council had taken the medical evidence she had submitted into account when deciding whether the flat was suitable. The officer said Ms X was entitled to ask for a suitability review.
  24. On 13 May 2019, Ms X complained at Stage 2 of the Council’s complaints system. She said Officer C had failed to take into account all the issues she had raised about Family Z, the fact she could not drive and the distance to the A&E. Ms X also accused Officer B of hiding the data breach and said Officer C had forced her to delete the third party information. Ms X said she did not want any more contact from Officer C.
  25. On 21 May 2019 the Council sent Ms X a letter informing her she had to sign for the tenancy by 28 May, otherwise it would consider her to have refused the offer of accommodation.
  26. On 22 May 2019, Ms X informed the Council she was refusing the offer. She asked for a suitability review.
  27. The Council reviewed its decision and sent Ms X a provisional decision on
    7 June 2019 which stated her review was likely to be unsuccessful. The letter detailed the information the reviewing officer had considered which included the medical evidence Ms X had submitted. The officer said:
    • the rent on the flat was below the local housing allowance and so it was affordable for someone on benefits;
    • using Google Maps, the travelling time from the flat to the nursery was between 5 and 8 minutes by car or between 20 and 27 minutes by bus, or if
      Ms X’s mother was taking the child, a round trip would take her around
      12 to 16 minutes by car;
    • the flat was in close proximity to an A&E and although it did not have a specialist paediatric department, the A&E could assess the situation to determine whether a transfer was necessary. Ms X could also call an ambulance;
    • Ms X’s bidding history showed she had bid on properties much further away than the flat was from her mother’s house;
    • although the flat was on the first floor, the windows had locks and so was secure for her child. The flat also had access to a private garden in line with
      Ms X’s preference; and
    • on balance, after considering the police’s responses, there was no significant risk in offering the flat to Ms X. However, if Ms X had moved into the flat and there had been any incidents, Ms X could have applied for rehousing.
  28. The Council asked Ms X to submit further information in support of her review otherwise it would finalise its decision that the flat was suitable. It said because Ms X had refused it, the Council no longer owed her the full homelessness duty.
  29. Ms X did not submit any further information. The Council finalised its decision which was to refuse her review. The Council removed Ms X from its housing register for six months.
  30. The Council responded to Ms X’s stage 2 complaint in July 2019 on similar lines to the review response. Ms X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.
  31. In response to a previous draft decision I issued, the Council said it had considered the information submitted by Ms X in January 2019 and this was not, at that stage, sufficient to award her a composite need based on medical evidence.

My findings

Update of Ms X’s housing application to Band 2

  1. The Council’s Allocations Policy states when the Council accepts it has a full homelessness duty towards an applicant, they will be given Band 2 priority.
  2. The Council decided in August 2018 it owed Ms X the full homelessness duty. It awarded her band 2 priority the following day and backdated her effective date to when she first presented as homeless. There was no delay in the Council’s actions and no fault.

Submission of medical information by Ms X in January 2019

  1. Ms X provided the Council with medical information about her child in
    January 2019. The Council did not update her application with this information which meant she submitted evidence a second time in March 2019. At this stage the Council decided she had a composite Band 2 need. In line with its policy, it backdated her eligible date by six months.
  2. Because the Council did not process Ms X’s medical information in January 2019, there was a delay of two months. This is fault. However, the Council has considered the information submitted by Ms X and states this was insufficient to ward her composite need. And in any case, the Council carried out an audit of the properties available to bid on during this two month period and determined Ms X did not miss out on any opportunities to bid in the area of her choice. Therefore, Ms X did not experience any injustice from the Council’s fault.

Suitability of the Council’s direct offer

  1. Ms X was unhappy with the direct offer the Council made her. She said the flat was unsuitable because of its location, the risk posed by Family Z and the danger to her child because it was on the first floor. She said the Council failed to consider the information she provided, particularly the medical evidence.
  2. We are not an appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which decisions are made. Where we find fault in the decision-making process, we decide whether it caused an injustice to the complainant. To do this, we need evidence to show that, but for the fault, the outcome would have been different.
  3. Ms X asked the Council to review the suitability of the flat. The review concluded the flat was suitable. In making this decision, the reviewing officer took the relevant information into account and responded to each of Ms X’s concerns. The review was thorough and evidence based. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation. There was fault in the Council’s actions. However, this did not cause Ms X an injustice. There was no fault in the suitability review the Council carried out. I will not investigate the matter of the data breach.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint I did not investigation

Data breach

  1. Ms X complained the Council sent her details of another housing applicant and states it breached data protection legislation.
  2. The Ombudsman may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. Any breach by the Council did not cause Ms X a personal injustice. In any case, the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to deal with matters about data breaches. Therefore, I have not investigated Ms X’s complaint about the data breach.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings