Summary: Mrs X and Miss Y complained about the Council’s failure to address their housing situation. We find the Council was at fault by not properly considering their request to be given higher priority for social housing. This caused frustration and distress. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed apologise and make a payment to Mrs X and Miss Y. We have not found fault with the other matters complained about.

The complaint

1. Mrs X and Miss Y complained about a number of matters relating to their request for support to find suitable housing and deal with problems in their current accommodation. In particular, they complain the Council:

• failed to give their housing application sufficient priority;
• failed to allow them to bid on two bedroom properties;
• failed to provide adequate support in respect of disrepair in their former, privately rented property and issues with the landlord; and
• subjected them to harassment.

2. They say the actions of the Council have caused significant distress and affected their health and well-being.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. Mrs X and Miss Y complained about events that took place from 2018. I have only considered events from August 2019 onwards for the reason set out in paragraph 73 below.
4. The Council’s final complaint response was dated November 2019. However, the complaint that was accepted by the Ombudsman for investigation in February 2020, referred to their ongoing homelessness situation. Because of this, I have investigated events up to May 2020, rather than refer the more recent matters back to the Council.
5. Mrs X and Miss Y’s complaint to the Ombudsman included several complaints about different Council services. Their complaints about benefits and adult care services are the subject of separate Ombudsman investigations.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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)
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the council of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))
8. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
9. 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

10. As part of my investigation I have:

• considered the complaint and documents provided by Miss Y;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• considered the relevant law and statutory guidance;
• sent my draft decision to both parties and invited comments on it; and
• considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and policy

Homelessness

11. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended by the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017) and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
12. Where a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, it is subject to a duty (the relief duty) for 56 days to take reasonable steps to help the applicant secure accommodation that will be available for at least six months. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

Housing allocations

13. The law requires all local authorities to have an allocations scheme for determining priorities and a procedure to be followed in allocating social rented housing in their area.
14. 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))

15. The Council’s housing allocations scheme explains how it determines priority for allocating properties to applicants on the housing register. All applicants for social rented housing will be placed into one of 4 groups:

• High Need Plus – exceptional and/or urgent multiple housing and welfare need.
• High Need – high/urgent needs.
• Preference Need - identified housing needs.
• Conditional Need – no assessed needs.

16. An applicant could be placed in the “High need” band in the following circumstances:

• High level of concern about the welfare of a child.
• Suffering from a diagnosed mental disorder and receiving a high level of social work support.
• Ongoing threat of domestic violence/harassment.
• Homelessness.
• Immediate threat to life or limb.

17. The Council is a partner agency in “Homes for Bolton”, the local choice-based lettings scheme with responsibility for allocation of social housing.

Private rented housing disrepair

18. Private tenants may complain to their council about a failure by the landlord to keep the property in good repair. Local authorities have powers under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (introduced by the Housing Act 2004, Part 1) to take enforcement action against private landlords where the council has identified a hazard which puts the health and safety of the tenant at risk.
19. Councils must take action for the most serious (category 1) hazards and can choose to take action in regard to less serious (category 2) hazards.
20. Government guidance (Housing Health and Safety Rating System Enforcement Guidance) says:
21. A hazard awareness notice under section 29 of the Act may be a reasonable response to a less serious hazard, where the authority wishes to draw attention to the desirability of remedial action.
22. This procedure does not require further action by the person served with the notice, though the authority should consider monitoring any hazard awareness notices that it serves.

What happened

Background information

23. In February 2018, Mrs X and Miss Y moved into private rented accommodation (Property D) together. Soon afterwards, Mrs X became ill and Miss Y gave up work to become her full-time carer. They encountered a number of problems at Property D, including a threatened eviction, financial difficulties, property disrepair and living in fear from threats from close family.
24. At some time in 2018 they say they contacted the Council’s housing department for help finding somewhere else to live where they would feel safe. They say they were told by the Council that until they were physically evicted by bailiffs it was unable to help. The Council has no record of this contact.
25. They also say that since 2018 they had an ongoing application for housing support under the Council’s housing allocation policy and were actively bidding for properties but were unsuccessful due to incorrect priority banding.
26. In January 2019, they moved into Property E, in the private rented sector, but problems soon emerged relating to the condition of the property and how this was affecting Mrs X’s physical and mental health.

Request for housing support in August 2019

27. Despite being on the housing register for some time, the complainants had not secured suitable housing. The Council’s records show they did not start bidding for properties until August 2019.
28. In August 2019, Miss Y contacted the Council to query their priority banding and requested an increase to the highest banding (Band A) based on Mrs X’s medical issues. In support of this, she provided the Council with a copy of Mrs X’s social care assessment. The email was sent to the Council’s housing benefit department with a request it be forwarded onto the housing department.
29. I response the Council confirmed they were in the “Preference Need” band. They were told to ignore the alphabetic banding as this referred to properties out of the Council area.
30. They were also having problems with the Council’s bidding system. While they say they were advised to register to allow them to bid, this would not work because of their existing application. They asked Mrs X’s social worker to help. She advised them to contact Bolton at Home to resolve this problem.
31. Despite now being able to bid on properties, they were still far from being successful.
32. Miss Y contacted the Council in December 2019 and requested a medical form in support of their claim to have greater housing priority.
33. There is no record of a response to this request.
34. Mrs X and Miss Y were placed in the high/urgent preference banding category in March 2020.

Disrepair at Property E

35. In October 2019, the complainants raised a number of issues with the Council about problems they had with the condition of Property E:

• Mould.
• Workmen attending the property unannounced.
• Defective bath sealant, but underlying problem with the bath.
• No electric switch for new cooker.
• Dirt marks on ceiling caused by leaking bath.
• Tile coming off under kitchen cupboard.

36. They told the Council their poor living conditions was affecting both their physical and mental health.
37. An environmental health officer (Officer M) made an appointment to inspect Property E, but this was cancelled by Miss Y because the landlord agreed to carry out repairs. Miss Y says this did not happen.
38. In December 2019, Miss Y contacted the Council again because they had been threatened with eviction. She also reported the repairs had not been carried out. She was advised the eviction notice was invalid and so they did not have to leave their home on the date stated by the landlord.
39. Officer M carried out an inspection and issued the landlord with a hazard awareness notice. This identified three Category Two hazards – carbon monoxide, damp/mould and excess cold. She set out the remedial action required. Some other advisory issues were also raised.
40. Officer M discussed her concerns with the landlord. They included an issue with the gas boiler in Mrs X’s bedroom. But, according to the Council, Miss Y would not allow access for the gas engineer to attend.
41. The Council said it did not take further action because it was Miss Y’s responsibility to allow access to an inspection and repairs.

Homelessness application in March 2020

42. In March 2020, Mrs X and Miss Y made a homelessness application based on the fact they were threatened with eviction.
43. In April 2020, the Council considered this application and determined they were homeless and entitled to support to find accommodation. They were given priority because of their homeless status.
44. They successfully bid on a property in June 2020.

Problems with bidding on two bedroom properties

45. A dispute arose because Miss Y understood they were only entitled to bid on one bedroom properties. This was despite making it clear to the Council they required a two bedroom property because Mrs X was predominantly bed bound and they were unable to share a bedroom. Miss Y says the Council asked inappropriate questions about this sensitive issue.

Harassment

46. Miss Y says the Council called her in October 2019 about their housing application despite having been told on several occasions that they would only accept written communication. This was because direct telephone contact caused severe anxiety to Mrs X. Miss Y complained, this, together the Council’s general conduct and repeated requests for information that had already been provided, amounted to harassment.

The complaint

47. Miss Y raised many complaints with the Council about these and other matters. Initially these were mainly addressed by individual service department. But as Miss Y remained dissatisfied, the Council collated all outstanding complaints into one final, corporate response sent in November 2019.

The Council’s complaint response

• The Council had no record of a request for assistance with a threatened eviction from Property D.
• As of November 2019, their housing application was in the Preference Need category. Any confusion about banding arose because of some lack of consistency between the local and regional allocations policies.
• A couple would only be eligible for a two-bedroom, social housing property, if they provided evidence of specific need. Officers were required to request evidence of this need
• A telephone phone call by the Council to a mobile number that had been provided by Miss Y on their housing application was not harassment. But the request to have all contact in writing in future was noted.

48. The complainants were dissatisfied with this response so brought their complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

49. I will consider each separate complaint below:

The Council failed to give their housing application sufficient priority

50. In reaching my decision about this aspect of the complaint I have relied mainly on evidence provided by Miss Y. I have requested a copy of the Council’s housing records from 2018 but the Council said it did not hold any records of a request for housing assistance prior to March 2020.
51. The context to this is that Miss Y made a significant number of complaints about several council departments. Many of her emails were sent to multiple departments. I can see this has posed a considerable challenge to the Council. That being said, I would have expected the Council to have some records relating to the concerns raised by Miss Y in August 2019 about priority banding. In the absence of such records, I must make a finding based on what information was made available to me.
52. The records I have seen confirm Miss Y raised her concerns about priority banding in August 2019. This was sent to the Council’s housing benefit mailbox with request to pass it onto the relevant department.
53. The reply to this email came from “Homes for Bolton” and advised Miss Y they were in the “Preference Need” band. This clarified any confusion about this.
54. Miss Y says that around this time she sent medical evidence to support their claim for additional priority. Neither Miss Y nor the Council has provided a copy of what was sent, although the emails I have been shown by Miss Y demonstrate she was in part relying on Mrs X’s adult social care assessment in support of their request for additional priority.
55. I have no evidence the Council took any action to consider the representations Miss Y made about their incorrect priority banding. While I accept, the manner and frequency of Miss Y’s correspondence made it difficult to deal with this specific issue, I am satisfied, the Council should have taken steps to address it. Even if the Council was satisfied that they were in the correct banding, they should have been given the opportunity to request a review of this decision.
56. A similar situation occurred again in December 2019. Miss Y has provided a copy email in which she asked the Council to send her a medical form, relating to priority banding. Miss Y says this was not sent and I have no evidence from the Council to disprove this.
57. The issue was also raised by Miss Y as part of her formal complaint. In its November 2019 response the Council said they were in the correct band based on their circumstances.
58. This may have been the case, but the Council failed on at least three occasions to give Mrs X and Miss Y the opportunity to request a review of the decision about priority banding. Or, if such a review was not available, for this to be explained to Miss Y. Miss Y was clearly of the opinion that their individual circumstances warranted a higher banding. The Council should have explained why this was not the case. While I acknowledge that Miss Y’s approach to complaints was not always helpful to their cause, the Council nevertheless failed to properly consider this issue. This is fault.
59. I must then consider what injustice arose from this. While I consider it is highly unlikely that a review of their circumstances would have led to a change in priority banding, they were nevertheless denied the opportunity to present evidence they were. This caused many months of uncertainty and frustration for the complainants. This could have been avoided, had the Council properly considered the matter in August 2019. This injustice requires a remedy set out below.

The Council failed to accept their need for a two bedroomed property

60. The records show Miss Y raised this issue with “Homes for Bolton” in August 2019 and she was told to check the property criteria and apply for suitable properties. I have found no evidence to show they were unable to bid on larger properties because of a restriction placed on the bidding system by the Council. The evidence shows the opposite, that they were allowed to bid on larger properties.
61. While I have seen evidence of the Council questioning whether a two bedroom property was necessary, this was also in the context of housing benefit and liability for the “bedroom tax”. Such enquiries were reasonable and necessary.
62. I have therefore not found fault in respect of this part of the complaint.

Private tenancy disrepair

63. The records I have seen show Officer M responded quickly to Miss Y’s requests for inspections of their property in both October and December 2019.
64. The Council’s case notes show the landlord contacted Officer M to discuss the problem she faced with accessing the property, particularly Mrs X’s bedroom where the gas boiler was situated. It is clear to me from reading both the Council’s records and Miss Y’s complaint that the relationship between the landlord and her tenants had broken down by this point.
65. The Council decided it would not take further action because the landlord was prevented from accessing Property E. On balance, I am satisfied this was a decision the Council was entitled to make. The case notes show Officer M had several discussions with the landlord with the purpose of trying to resolve the issues. I note Miss Y strongly disagreed with Officer M’s assessment of the disrepair, but unless there was fault in the way these inspections were undertaken, I cannot say the Council’s assessment of the disrepair was wrong. I have found no evidence of such fault. Quite the opposite in fact. Officer M went to considerable effort to work with the complainants and the landlord to achieve a resolution.
66. My overall assessment is the Council took the action it was required to. The landlord attempted to comply with the notice served. Without the co-operation of Mrs X and Miss Y, this was not possible. In addition, many of the issues raised by the complainants were not the Council’s responsibility to resolve. They were private contractual matters between them and their landlord. I appreciate they were frustrated by the Council’s perceived failure to respond to the actions of their landlord, but in the absence of any duty to take action, I do not find fault with the way the Council responded to their complaint about the landlord and disrepair.

Harassment by the Council

67. The Council has accepted in its complaint response that it contacted Miss Y by phone to discuss her housing application. There has been a significant amount of correspondence between Miss Y and several Council departments about many different issues. I have seen several emails from Miss Y in which explains that she is unable to take telephone calls because of the impact this has on Mrs X and herself.
68. It is evident and understandable that this inability to speak directly to Miss Y has created its own problems and may have impacted on the service they have received. I say this as a statement of fact rather than a criticism of either the Council or the complainants.
69. Nor do I criticise the Council for incorrectly making a call to the complainants. This, in itself, does not constitute harassment, particularly as the purpose of such a call was to try and assist them on a mobile number that was provided by Miss Y.
70. From the evidence I have seen, which includes many emails between the Council and Miss Y, the officers involved have been both mindful and respectful of their personal circumstances and request for reasonable adjustments to be made. I have found no evidence of any type of harassment in the Council’s contact with Mrs X and Miss Y.

Back to top

Agreed action

71. To remedy the injustice caused by the one area of fault identified in this decision statement, the Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks from the date of my final decision:
1. Apologise in writing to Mrs X and Miss Y.
2. Make a payment of £100 to the complainants. This is a symbolic payment in recognition of the frustration caused by the Council’s failure to respond to questions raised about their housing priority.

Back to top

Final decision

72. There was fault in the way the Council responded to the complainants’ request for additional housing priority. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy. I have therefore completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

73. I have not investigated Mrs X and Miss Y’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide housing support in 2018. This is because there are no records available from either the Council or the complainants for the Ombudsman to consider. In the absence of any evidence, it would not be possible for the Ombudsman to make a finding on this aspect of the complaint.
74. I have also not investigated the complaint about harassment from their landlord. This was a private contractual arrangement between Mrs X, Miss Y and their landlord and so does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman