• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• What I found
• Final decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to consider her and her daughter, Y’s medical needs when it placed her in her current housing band. She also complained the Council would not accept that she has lived in its borough for over 10 years. Ms X said this has caused her and Y distress and inconvenience. There was no fault in the Council’s management of Ms X’s housing banding.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council refused to consider her and her child Y’s medical needs and should have placed her in a higher priority banding when she became homeless.
2. She said this situation has caused her and Y emotional upset and distress.

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)
4. 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

5. I contacted Ms X and discussed her view of the complaint.
6. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it supplied which included the Council’s social housing allocation policy, Ms X and Y’s medical assessment form and correspondence shared between Ms X and the Council.
7. I wrote to Ms X and the Council with my draft decision and gave both the opportunity to comment before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law

Homelessness

8. When someone applies to a council for accommodation and it has reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, several duties arise, including;
   • to make enquiries;
   • to secure suitable interim accommodation for applicants who may be eligible for support and in “priority need” pending the result of enquiries; and
   • to tell the applicant of the decision in writing and the right to seek a review of the decision.
9. Government guidance says having “reason to believe” is a lower test than “being satisfied”. If the council is satisfied that a person is homeless then it will owe a full housing duty to them. The Council usually provides temporary accommodation until it permanently re-houses a person in social housing or private rented accommodation.
10. Applicants have a right to ask for a review of a council’s decision about their homelessness application or the suitability of temporary accommodation.
    There is no right to review the suitability of interim accommodation provided while the council makes enquiries.

The Council’s Allocations Policy

11. The Council is under a legal duty to have a scheme for allocating accommodation. The Council sets its own housing policies and decide all aspects of the allocations process.
12. The law says the Council must give people with a high housing need “reasonable preference” through the allocations scheme. This includes people at risk of homelessness and those who need to move for medical or welfare reasons.
13. The Council decides reasonable preference by placing applicants in a certain priority band depending on their circumstances. Applicants have a right to ask for a review of this decision.
14. There are four priority bands, A to D. A is for applicants with an urgent need to move, due to medical or health reasons for example and D for applicants who have no priority.
15. The Council awards band D to applicants who it has accepted as homeless but have no local connection. This means the applicant has not been continuously resident in the Council’s area for the last ten years. The Council can make exceptions to this rule if the applicant can show they are suffering hardship.
16. Once allocated a priority band, applicants can bid on properties advertised by the Council.

Background

17. Ms X suffers with depression and anxiety. Her child, Y, also has anxiety and has been diagnosed with autism and dyspraxia.
18. Ms X became homeless in 2017 after losing her home in a fire and the Council moved Ms X and Y into temporary accommodation. Ms X has been in an ongoing dispute with the Council regarding how long she has lived in the Council’s borough.
19. Ms X says she has lived in the Council’s borough for over 10 years. The Council says there are two periods which Ms X has not provided evidence showing she lived in the area: June 2008 and March 2009 and December 2010 and October 2011.
20. In 2018, the Council offered Ms X private accommodation on a three year tenancy but she refused this due to previous experiences with private landlords. The Council decided she was intentionally homeless because of her refusal. She later unsuccessfully challenged this decision at court.
21. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman three times in 2018 about the Council’s decision to place her in band D due to its 10 year rule. The Council reviewed Ms X’s information but was not satisfied it should review Ms X’s house banding.
22. We found the Council was entitled to request official documents showing where Ms X was living during the disputed period and there was no fault in the way the Council had made its decision.
23. The Council later moved Ms X to different temporary accommodation in 2019, which Ms X has advised is more suitable for her and Y’s needs.

Ms X’s complaint

24. In April 2019, Ms X complained to the Council again about her housing banding. She said the Council had ignored medical information she supplied in June 2018 and should review her banding to allow her to receive permanent social housing.
25. The Council maintained it correctly placed Ms X in Band D and could not consider reviewing Ms X’s banding because she had not supplied evidence showing she had lived continuously in its borough for the last 10 years. The Council said it reviewed the medical assessment Ms X provided in 2018 and whilst it acknowledged that Ms X and Y both suffered health problems, the medical assessment did not demonstrate that Ms X and Y were unable to continue living in their current property or could not live in private rented accommodation.
26. In response, Ms X sent the Council letters from her bank showing all the addresses it held for her, a statement from a homeowner at one of the addresses she had lived and a housing benefit application form from 2011.
27. The Council wrote to Ms X and said the documents she provided were still not sufficient to prove she had lived in the borough consistently for 10 years.
    The Council said the bank statement showed various addresses for Ms X and the housing benefit form was incomplete. The Council said it required information such as payslips to show where Ms X had been living for the disputed periods.
28. In May 2020, Ms X asked the Council to reconsider its decision on the grounds that she was suffering hardship. She said the Council should review the medical evidence she previously submitted as she could not move into private housing due to the difficult experiences she had encountered with renting privately.
29. The Council wrote to Ms X in late May 2020 and said it had considered the information she had provided. The Council told her she had not met the criteria to qualify for a higher priority banding. The Council again said Ms X had not provided information which showed she and Y could not live in private rented accommodation. The Council invited Ms X to attend a meeting with a Council employee to discuss the information it needed her to supply. The Council also explained that due to the shortage of housing in the area, it could not offer social housing to all applicants who wanted it and again asked her to consider renting through a private landlord.
30. In September 2020, Ms X again applied to the Council to reconsider its decision, this time stating that her circumstances had changed. In her application, Ms X detailed traumatic experiences she had experienced when renting from private landlords and cited Y’s need for stability and routine as the reason for why she needed permanent social housing.
31. The Council wrote to Ms X maintaining its decision. Ms X then referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained unhappy with the situation.
32. During the investigation, the Council advised it has not received further medical evidence from Ms X since 2018 which would compel it to change its decision.

Findings

33. The Council has a duty under the law to ensure it prioritises housing residents that it decides have a medical need. Ms X has complained several times that the medical information she has submitted to the Council warrants a higher priority banding. The Council has confirmed in writing to Ms X on several occasions it has considered the information she has provided but does not determine that this qualifies her for priority banding.
34. The Ombudsman cannot question a decision the Council has made if it followed the right steps and considered relevant evidence. There is nothing indicating the Council has acted with fault in making this decision. Ms X has not provided new information since 2018 in support of her belief she should be on a higher banding. It is open to her to submit further information to this end. There is no fault in the Council’s actions.
35. Ms X has also complained that the Council will not accept that she has lived in its borough for over ten years The Council has reviewed the further information Ms X has provided about her living addresses. It has decided the documents Ms X has submitted are not sufficient proof of her living situation for the disputed period. There is no fault in the Council’s decision making and so, again, we cannot question that decision.

Back to top

Final decision

36. There was no fault in the Council’s actions. I have completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page