Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s actions after she refused the offer of a property and the Council ended its homelessness duty. The Council was not at fault when it ended its homeless duty to Miss X or in the information it provided about her right of review. It was at fault when it failed to review Miss X’s banding after she refused a housing offer. It has now reviewed Miss X’s banding.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to:
• notify her of her right to appeal regarding the suitability of the property following her refusal of the Council’s offer of accommodation;
• update her priority banding after she refused a property which raised her expectations about what she could bid for; and
• award her the correct priority banding for housing allocated by the Council. She feels her living circumstances mean that she should be awarded the highest priority banding.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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 have considered the information provided by Miss X and have spoken with her on the telephone.
6. I have considered the information provided by the Council in response to our enquiries and the relevant law and guidance.
7. I gave Miss X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law

8. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
9. Within 21 days of being notified of the decision, homeless applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation offered to them after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

10. The Council’s housing allocations scheme, in place at the time, placed applicants into one of four bands, band one being the highest. It is a choice-based lettings system which means applicants are expected to bid on advertised vacancies. Homeless households who are unintentionally homeless and in priority need are placed in band one. Applicants lacking at least one bedroom receive band two priority.
11. The scheme sets outs that:
• ‘homeless cases will be monitored, and if applicants fail to make bids, the Council will then bid on their behalf for the next suitable property they are eligible for. If an applicant refuses a successful bid that is considered suitable and reasonable, the homeless duty to them may be discharged. In such cases the application will be reassessed’. (10.3.2).
• ‘The Council will take into account the current needs of the household before reducing any priority. Where priority has changed applicants will always be informed in writing stating the reasons, any time restrictions and their right to a review of that decision. Once the period of reduced priority has expired the application and effective banding dates will revert to the original applicable dates.’ (10.4.2).
• ‘Generally, if an applicant refuses 2 offers, they will be contacted to discuss their housing needs and circumstances. With the exception to applications assessed with band 1 priority (excluding accepted homeless housing duty), where the Council may review an application after the refusal of 1 reasonable offer. Once reviewed, if the partner considers such refusals were unreasonable, the Council reserves the right to reduce the banding to a band 4, for a period of 6 months from the date of the most recent unreasonable refusal’. (14.5.1)
• ‘Applicants subject to a direct letting will normally be made one offer of suitable accommodation. If they do not accept the property the Council may decide to make no further offers to them, reduce their banding or discharge a homeless duty. They will be able to request a review of any decision on the suitability of a property or a decision not to make a further offer’. (14.8.3)

What happened

12. In January 2019 Miss X became homeless. She lived between a friend’s home and her parents’ home with her three children. In April 2019 the Council accepted its homelessness duty to her.
13. In July 2019 the Council offered Miss X a property. The Council’s letter set out that it was a final offer of suitable social housing with the intention of bringing the main housing duty owed to her to an end. The letter set out it was a final offer to end the duty owed to Miss X. It set out why the Council considered the property was suitable. It also set out Miss X’s right of review of the suitability of the property whether she accepted or refused the property. The letter said ‘you are strongly advised to protect your position and ensure that you have accommodation to live in by accepting the offer and still exercising your right to review its suitability if you are in any way unhappy with the offer’.
14. The Council’s records show an officer called Miss X in early August 2019. The notes record the officer made Miss X aware ‘this is her one and only offer and it was an unreasonable refusal…..[Miss X] still wished to refuse property’.
15. The Council wrote to Miss X in early August 2019. The letter set out the Council’s duty under the Housing Act had come to an end due to Miss X’s refusal of a suitable social housing offer. It set out Miss X’s right to review the suitability of the offer within 21 days. The Council says it sent the letter by email. However, Miss X says she never received the letter.
16. Miss X continued to bid on properties advertised by the Council. In January 2020 Miss X placed a bid on a property. Her bid appeared to be in first place for the property. However, the Council later told her that her banding should have reduced when she refused the offer in August 2019. It placed her application into band four.
17. Miss X wrote to the Council to appeal the decision she had unreasonably refused a property. She said she was not informed she would be re-banded to band four and asked that her banding be reviewed. The Council responded in February 2020. It confirmed Miss X was previously in band one as homeless but her homeless application was closed in August 2019 after she refused an offer. As Miss X had not requested a review within 21 days of the notification of this decision it said it would not review the homelessness decision. It reviewed Miss X’s banding and placed her in band two, sharing facilities with dependent children, with effect from February 2020 in line with its allocations policy.
18. Miss X complained to the Council in June 2020 about its error and the impact this had on her. The Council operates a two stage complaints process. It responded at stage one the following week. It said a Council officer had, in February 2020, explained what happened and apologised for the delay in amending the banding. It confirmed Miss X’s application was in band 2 for sharing facilities with dependent children which was the correct banding based on her current circumstances. It reiterated its apology for the inconvenience caused. Miss X remained unhappy and asked for her complaint to be considered at stage two of the Council’s complaints’ process.
19. The Council responded to Miss X at stage two of its complaints process. It explained Miss X was notified in April 2019, when it accepted her as homeless that it would close her application if she refused an offer. It notified her of this again in the offer letter and on the telephone and when it closed the application. It apologised for not reviewing her banding in August 2019 after she refused the offer. It had since re-banded her application to band two with effect from February 2020, in line with its allocations policy. Miss X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.

Findings

20. The Council offered Miss X a property and explained why it considered the property suitable. Decisions on homelessness applications have review and appeal rights which applicants can use to challenge the decision. When the Council offered Miss X a property in July 2019, the offer letter set out that Miss X’s homeless application would be closed if she refused the offer and set out Miss X’s right to request a review of the decision. The notes show a Council officer rang Miss X to advise her they would close her application if she refused the property. The Council also emailed Miss X a letter ending its duty. Miss X says she did not receive this letter. I cannot now establish whether or not the letter was sent. Even so, from the information provided previously to Miss X, I am satisfied the Council made her aware of her review rights and the time limits involved. It was open to Miss X to request a review of the offer sooner and she did not do so. I will not investigate this issue further.
21. The Council did not amend Miss X’s banding when it ended its homelessness duty to her. This is fault. The Council’s policy suggests that when the homeless duty is discharged an applicant’s banding will be reassessed. It says it will take into account the needs of the household before reducing priority. When the Council realised in January 2020 it had failed to amend Miss X’s banding in August 2019, it placed her in band 4. This is fault and not in line with its policy. The Council has now assessed Miss X’s current banding in line with its housing allocations policy. There is no fault in the way it has assessed her current banding. However, this should be with effect from August 2019, when it should have reviewed the banding, not February 2020.
22. Miss X believed her application was still in band one and bid for houses on that basis. This caused her frustration, but she did not miss out on a property because of this. Miss X’s banding was wrong. If the Council had amended Miss X’s banding sooner, she would not have been in first place for the property she bid for as she was no longer in band one. The Council has already apologised to Miss X for this through its complaints’ procedure. This is an appropriate remedy.
23. I recommended to the Council that it backdate the effective date of Miss X’s band two banding to August 2019.The Council agreed to do this. However, the Council has confirmed that following the receipt of further information regarding the family’s circumstances it now proposes to place Miss X in band one with effect from 30 September 2020 so the agreed recommendation is no longer appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation. There was fault leading to injustice which the Council has already remedied.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman