Summary: There was fault by the Council as it failed to recognise a vulnerable young care leaver had significant mental health issues until late in the housing application process when several reviews had already been carried out. Mr B had a home for most of this time, but a payment of £850 remedies the injustice when he was without suitable housing for 3 months and his time and trouble in pursing the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complains the Council should have increased his housing medical points earlier, rather than at the recent review. He says that he has had to remain in accommodation in an unsuitable location for over a year and was homeless for three months.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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

4. I read the papers put in by Mr B and discussed the complaint with him.
5. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
6. I gave the Council and Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

7. Mr B rented a room in a shared house in 2017. Mr B made a housing application in September 2018. Mr B said a neighbour was harassing him, shouting and calling him names. Mr B said that he had panic attacks as he suffered from PTSD, that he had a personality disorder and suffered from anxiety.
8. The Council has said the online housing application form of September 2018 acts as a filter, identifying those cases which indicate a housing affected health need and the Council does not ask for medical evidence routinely. The Council has said that Mr B’s answers did not indicate a medical need, so far as the automated assessment could tell, and he did not request a review of the decision at the time.
9. However, after the Council made its decision on his exceptional needs in June 2019, Mr B requested a review of that decision, on the basis that he should receive other points, including medical.
10. In June 2019, the Council’s executive director awarded Mr B points as he was a care leaver. These showed as exception panel points on his application.
11. The Council has said there is an email of 26 June 2019 to the housing department which included a letter from a Psychologist dated 14 December 2017.  The Council said that Family Services and Social Work appear to have had knowledge of Mr B’s mental health issues on 4 July 2019, as an email from then had attachments including a discharge letter from the Personality Disorder Service dated 27 March 2019.
12. The Council carried out 2 reviews, but did not award Mr B any medical points in July 2019.
13. Mr B complained to the Ombudsman in August 2019. In response to my enquiries in October 2019 the Council said it would carry out a further review of Mr B’s medical needs.
14. In September 2019 the police advised Mr B not to go back to his home because of threats made on his life by a neighbour. The Council explained to Mr B he could make a homeless application but he did not want to do this as he would lose points on his housing register application.
15. A note on the file says the Council reinstated care leaver points on 31 October 2019. There is no indication of when the Council removed them.
16. The Councils notes show that on 18 November 2019, the Council received letters dated December 2017 and January 2018 from Mr B’s psychologists. A review of the medical information provided was carried out.
17. On 21 November 2019 Mr B’s application was amended that he was in need of a one bedroom property as a care leaver who needed added space due to his vulnerability. (Previously Mr B had been assessed as needing a bed-sit.)
18. Mr B bid on many properties at the beginning of December 2019. He had 467 points (awarded from 18 December):
• 200 points as he was a care leaver (exceptions panel points).
• 150 Category B medical points.
• 75 Harassment and Violence points.
• 42 time on list points.
19. The Council offered Mr B a one-bedroom flat on 12 December 2019 which he accepted.

My analysis

20. Mr B is vulnerable, with mental health difficulties. The Council’s review in December 2019, after the Ombudsman became involved, resulted in him being allocated 467 points. This was enough to enable him to get a one bedroom flat.
21. Mr B is now in suitable accommodation. But, my role is to decide if this should have happened earlier.
22. Mr B had a home when he made his housing application in September 2018. He left this property in September 2019 and at this point could have made a homeless application. It is likely he would have been entitled to temporary accommodation from the Council. However, I can understand his view that this would have lost him the points on his housing application.
23. The key change that seems to have led to Mr B receiving more housing points was him supplying letters from his psychologist, in support of his application in November 2019. One of these letters had been supplied in June 2019, but the others had not been sent to the Council before. It does seem that if the Council had seen these letters earlier, it is likely that he would have received the increased points much sooner and so, perhaps an offer of a flat.
24. Looking at the first form Mr B filled in in September 2018 about his medical needs, it clearly explains that he mental health problems including a personality disorder, anxiety and PTSD. Mr B sent the discharge letter from the mental health team when he moved out of the borough but there is no evidence he sent the psychologist’s letters. Equally, the Council has said that it did not ask Mr B if he had evidence to support the diagnosis or his need for self contained accommodation in September 2018 and Mr B did not ask for a review of the decision then.
25. Mr B had a home until September 2019, although I recognise the location of the property (away from family and his previous mental health support) and the issues with his neighbour were not ideal. And, he got a suitable flat in December 2019. So, there were three months during which he did not have a suitable home and as a vulnerable care leaver, he has clearly struggled with dealing with the Council to get a suitable property. He has, however, had support from support workers, an advocate and had the opportunity to make a homeless application which would have likely resulted in him being offered temporary accommodation.
26. To decide if there was fault by the Council which resulted in an injustice to Mr B, I have to make a decision on the balance of probabilities. In doing this I have considered that Mr B is clearly vulnerable and told the Council when he applied for housing that he had mental health difficulties. If the Council had asked Mr B to supply medical evidence when he first applied in September 2018 he would have done so and it is likely he would have been given an increased number of medical points, enabling him to get a flat earlier.
27. So, my decision, is that the Council was at fault for not taking into account the mental health difficulties of a vulnerable young care leaver sooner in the housing process. I recognise that it could be argued that Mr B could have done more to provide the information to the Council and I will take that into account when deciding on an appropriate remedy. But ultimately, Mr B was entitled to medical and other points as he was a care leaver which were not applied to his application until he had asked for several reviews.
28. The injustice to Mr B was that he was not in suitable housing for three months and had the worry of living in a property that was not in an ideal location prior to that. In order to remedy the injustice of the increased costs of being without suitable housing for 3 months I propose the Council makes a payment to Mr B of £600 (£200 per month) plus £250 for his worry and time and trouble in pursing the complaint.

Agreed action

29. The Council makes a payment of £850 towards Mr B’s expenses for the 3 months he was without suitable accommodation and his worry and time and trouble in dealing with his complaint, within one month of the date of the decision on this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is upheld. I consider the payment of £850 a suitable remedy to the injustice identified in paragraph 28 from fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman