Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused to let him apply for a property transfer and failed to consider his homelessness application. We find the Council delayed in reviewing his housing decision and assessing the condition of his property. It has agreed to pay him £150 for avoidable distress and uncertainty caused by its delays.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council allocated him a flat that was in a poor state of repair and unsuitable for him to live in. He said it then refused to let him apply for a property transfer and failed to consider his homelessness application or offer him temporary accommodation after he moved out of his flat.
2. Mr X said he had to use his own money to stay in hotels. That has cost him over £2000. He would like the Council to rehome him.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint about how the Council considered his application to go on the housing register for property transfer and his homelessness application. The reasons for not investigating the rest of his complaint are set out at the end of this decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of housing let on a long lease by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5B, schedule 5, as amended)
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
8. 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

9. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the evidence he provided.
10. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
11. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s Allocations Scheme

12. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
13. 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))

14. The Council has a points-based scheme, allocating points based on the applicant’s housing and additional needs.
15. Where existing Council tenants are applying to be placed on the register because of unsatisfactory housing conditions, the Council will assess the property and either award points or provide temporary accommodation, depending on the length and severity of repairs needed.
16. Where an applicant has health needs related to their housing, the application is assessed by the Council’s medical assessment officer. For the Council to assess the person as eligible for housing and health related points they must demonstrate that:
• their medical condition is being caused or made worse by their housing conditions, and
• their current property cannot be improved or adapted to meet their needs at a reasonable cost, and
• rehousing is likely to significantly improve their condition.
17. Existing Council tenants asking to transfer will not qualify for the housing register if it does not assess them as having a housing need.
18. The Council has a two-stage process for reviewing housing decisions. It aims to complete the first stage within 14 days of receiving the applicant’s review request. At stage two, the decision is reviewed by an independent reviewing officer. They will review the decision within 56 days of the request and provide an outcome in writing.

Homelessness

19. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
20. Examples of applicants in priority need are:
• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age.
21. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. Councils must complete reviews about an applicant’s eligibility for assistance within eight weeks of the date of the review request.
22. The council must advise applicant of their right to appeal to the county court if they remain dissatisfied. Applicants can also appeal if the Council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review.

Background

23. Mr X has been a Council tenant since November 2019. Shortly after moving in to his flat he complained the boiler was broken, resulting in six weeks with no heating or hot water. He also said the flat had a leaking water pipe. The Council investigated his complaints and sent a final response in May 2020. It accepted there were disrepair issues when Mr X first moved into the flat, but those were now fixed.

What happened

24. In May 2020 Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register to transfer his flat. He said he could not live in his property because of unsanitary conditions. His application also referred to a lack of privacy as he only had one bedroom.
25. The Council wrote to Mr X on 20 May 2020 and said he did not qualify to go on the register as his application did not demonstrate a need for social housing. It said he could apply for a mutual exchange to swop his home. It said he had 21 days to ask for a review of its decision.
26. Mr X complained to the Council on 24 July 2020. He said a further water leak in his flat was causing damage to the flat below. He said there was an unhealthy stench now coming into his flat which was impacting his health.
27. At the start of August, Mr X asked the Council for a review of its housing decision. He said his flat was not ready for habitation when he moved in and he wanted the Council to award him points to allow him to re-join the register and bid for new houses. He said the flat below him was contaminated.
28. Later that month, Mr X emailed the Council further about the flat below. He said it was damp and covered in mould. He said fumes from the flat were coming into his property and affecting his health.
29. The Council emailed Mr X mid-September. It apologised for delays in responding to his complaint. It said it was dealing with the issues in the flat below him. In a separate email it said there was a backlog in its medical assessment reviews, but it would contact him once complete.
30. Later that month the Council wrote and confirmed it was carrying out clearance works on the flat below him and apologised for delays in sorting out the condition of the flat.
31. Mr X’s doctor wrote to the Council in October 2020. They stated they had spoken to his housing manager who confirmed the flat below him had been in a terrible state “covered in mould, crawling with rats and smelling’. They said they had visited the flat below and it was covered in black mould. They stated Mr X reported a chronic cough and needed an inhaler; they referred to his mental health needs and asked housing to support him.
32. At the end of October, Mr X chose to move out of his flat. He said the mould in the flat below made his flat uninhabitable. Mr X moved into a hotel paid for by himself.
33. The Council sent Mr X a second stage complaint response at the start of November. It accepted there were damp problems in the property below his flat, and that had affected his own living conditions. It said the Council had rectified those and was completing a chemical wash on the flat below to remove mould spores. It awarded Mr X £450 for failing to address the effects of damp at the flat. It said Mr X should contact his housing officer if he felt he could not return to his flat.
34. Mr X made a homelessness application at the start of November 2020. He said his property was unsafe to live in because it had been contaminated from the flat below. He said he had been admitted to hospital five times in the past twelve months.
35. A Council homelessness adviser spoke to Mr X. They asked him to keep receipts for the hotel he was staying at and said they would contact his neighbourhood housing officer.
36. Mr X had also complained to his local MP. The Council responded to them mid-November. It said that a repairs officer had visited Mr X on 11 November and reported no repair or damp issues were present in his home. However, as a precaution it was arranging an air quality test to determine whether the property was habitable or not.
37. The homelessness officer wrote back to Mr X the following week. They said the Council had no responsibility to provide him temporary or interim accommodation as he was a Council tenant and not legally homeless. They said they would close his application.
38. The Council arranged for an independent air quality survey at the start of December 2020. Although poorly ventilated, the survey did not identify the air in Mr X’s property as harmful to health. The surveyor sent their findings to the Council on 16 December. Because Mr X was refusing to return to the flat, the Council paid his hotel fees between 15 and 28 December.
39. The Council wrote to Mr X on 24 December with its stage one review of his housing decision. It apologised for the delay. It said it closed his housing application because he did not meet the criteria for housing as the Council considered him adequately housed, therefore he had no immediate right to be included on the housing register. It said the disrepair issues were resolved and recommended Mr X consider a mutual exchange of his flat. It said if he disagreed with its decision he could ask for a stage two review within 21 days.
40. The Council wrote to Mr X with its homelessness decision on 5 January 2021. It said it did not owe him a duty as he had accommodation it considered suitable for him to occupy. The decision letter shows the Council considered Mr X’s physical health and the air quality at the flat. The Council explained that if he did not occupy the property, he would lose it, and likely be considered intentionally homeless. It explained Mr X could ask for a review of its homelessness decision.

My findings

41. When Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register in May 2020, he said his existing flat was uninhabitable because of unsanitary conditions; he also referred to a lack of privacy. His application did not specify what was unsanitary about his flat. I have seen no evidence in the case records the Council checked the condition of Mr X’s flat. It did not comment on this in its decision letter. Therefore, I cannot be confident the Council assessed the condition of Mr X’s accommodation at that time. The Council was at fault.
42. However, on the balance of probabilities, it is unlikely that fault caused Mr X an injustice. The Council had just written to Mr X confirming it had completed repairs therefore there is nothing to suggest the flat was not habitable. Mr X did not complain about dampness and associated problems from the flat below until the end of July 2020.
43. The Council’s allocations policy states at stage one it will review housing decisions within 14 days. It took the Council 19 weeks to send Mr X the outcome letter of its review. That delay was fault. In addition, the Council did not visit his flat until November 2020 to check its condition. As a reason Mr X was asking for a review was because of the condition of the flat, that delay was also fault. Those delays have caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and distress. However, I cannot say that if the Council had visited Mr X’s flat and reviewed its decision within the 14 days it would have affected the outcome of its housing decision.
44. The Council accepted Mr X’s homelessness application in November 2020 and checked he had accommodation whilst it made its inquiries. It asked him to keep receipts. The Council contacted his housing officer and the MP’s letter states a repairs officer visited the property and there was no evidence of damp or disrepair. The Council emailed him within two weeks stating it did not owe him a homeless duty and wrote to him with its decision letter within eight weeks. The Council was not at fault in how it considerred his homelessness application. Mr X can ask the Council for a review of that decision if he remains unhappy with it.

Back to top

Agreed actions

45. Within one month of my final decision the Council has agreed to:
• Remind relevant staff to record any inquiries made when assessing housing applications and ensure decision letters comment on any reasonable preference specified.
• Confirm how it checks the condition of properties where it receives housing applications from Council tenants citing unsanitary conditions.
• Pay Mr X £150 for the avoidable uncertainty and distress caused by the delay in reviewing his housing application.

Back to top

Final decision

46. The Council was at fault for delays in reviewing Mr X’s housing application and assessing the condition of his flat. It has agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused therefore I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

47. I cannot consider Mr X’s complaints about the condition of his flat when he first moved in, or about its ongoing state of disrepair. I can also not consider his complaints about the condition of the flat below his. These complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and are for the Housing Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman