Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to rehouse her despite her having urgent medical and welfare needs. She says the Council also failed to accept a homelessness application from her. The Council failed to allocate Mrs X the correct priority band on the housing register in July 2018. We also found fault in the Council’s decision making process that Mrs X was not threatened with homelessness. The faults caused Mrs X uncertainly and distress. The Council has already taken steps to remedy some of the injustice caused and has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and review Mrs X’s homelessness application.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to rehouse her despite her having urgent medical and welfare needs. She says the Council also failed to accept a homelessness application from her in the meantime, despite accepting that her current accommodation does not meet her physical and health needs.
2. Mrs X says she has suffered an injustice as a result of the Council’s actions because she has lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary. She says this has impacted her mental health and physical well-being.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 spoken to Mrs X considered all the information she provided and made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided.
6. I wrote to Mrs X and the Council with my draft decision and invited their comments. I considered the comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background and legislation

Homelessness

7. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities sets out council’s powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
8. 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. This becomes known as temporary accommodation once the council accepts a full housing duty.

Allocations

9. 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 accordance with the published scheme (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14)).
10. Councils have some discretion to decide which people deserve priority in their area. 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.

11. As part of good practice, the Ombudsman expects to see clear allocations policies and clearly written decisions which explain the information considered and the reasons for the decision. We expect to see evidence councils have considered an applicant’s medical priority and whether there are any exceptional circumstances. Councils should also tell applicants about a right to ask for a review of their decision.
12. The Council’s Allocation Policy says it will allocate all qualifying applicants to one of nine bands with Band 1 having the highest priority. It also says when deciding whether a particular type of property is suitable to the applicant’s needs it will consider the circumstances of the applicant, the size and type of property and any special facilities needed.
13. Band 2 applies to applicants whose homes require major adaptation where alternative more suitable accommodation is not available. Major adaptations can include works to enable disabled people to move in and out and around their homes; access living and sleeping areas within the home; and access cooking, bathing and toilet facilities.
14. Appendix C of the Council’s Allocation Policy gives examples of what size and type of property an applicant can usually expect to be offered. The Council will usually only offer working age applicants the size of property for which they are entitled under the Department of Works and Pensions (DWP) bedroom standard. However, if applicants can demonstrate that they are able to pay rent with or without recourse to Housing Benefit, they may be considered for a property with an additional bedroom, subject to availability. The Council’s policy also says that where an applicant has a carer or carers providing overnight care they may qualify for an additional bedroom.

Background

15. I am investigating the issues of the complaint from July 2018. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
16. Mrs X lives in a one bedroom, first floor flat. She has a number of health issues which impact her daily living.
17. In July 2017 the Council’s Occupational Therapy Service (Service) assessed Mrs X and identified that Mrs X had difficulty managing her stoma care independently. An Occupational Therapist (OT) recommended repositioning the sink closer to the toilet to enable Mrs X to maintain her hygiene while completing her stoma care. Mrs X told the OT that she had difficulties managing the stairs due to fatigue. The OT noted that bilateral handrails were in place on the stairs.
18. In February 2018 Mrs X contacted the Council and said adaptations to relocate the sink had not been completed. The Service carried out another visit to Mrs X’s property. It said, to move the sink closer to the toilet would require relocating the shower and the sink, which could potentially cause water to leak from the shower into the hallway. Mrs X told the Council that she had applied for rehousing and on this basis, adaptations were not recommended by the Service. The Service suggested using the shower chair near the sink, but it is noted Mrs X declined this.
19. In early July 2018 the Service carried out an assessment for ‘priority rehousing on medical grounds’. The OT confirmed the bathroom could not be adapted to meet Mrs X’s needs and supported rehousing on medical grounds as an urgent priority. The OT recommended a one bedroom, ground floor property or a property accessible by lift, with a wet room. Mrs X was placed in Band 3.
20. On 16 July 2018 the Council contacted Mrs X about a 1 bed bungalow in Area D Mrs X said she did not want to move to Area D.
21. In May 2019 Mrs X informed the Council about a change in her circumstances stating her health had deteriorated. Mrs X also said she wanted to live in sheltered accommodation with a responder service.
22. In June 2019 the Council contacted Mrs X about a property in Area S. Mrs X declined the property as it was not suitable for her needs.
23. In October 2019 the Council contacted Mrs X about two bungalows in areas that she had requested. Mrs X liked one of the bungalows but said the plug sockets in the kitchen were an issue.
24. In January 2020 the Council contacted Mrs X about a one-bedroom bungalow in Area K. Mrs X raised concerns about the position of the bungalow and carrying her shopping from the car. Mrs X queried the possibility of a two-bedroom property. The Council’s records state “[Mrs X] had originally stated she would not want a two bedroom because of bedroom tax”.
25. The Council spoke with Mrs X in early April 2020 and recorded that Mrs X wanted “sheltered accommodation only with parking close by, either a drive or parking right by the property”. In September 2020 Mrs X told her social worker that she had requested a two-bedroom property so she could have a carer overnight. The social worker explained that Mrs X had not been assessed as needing a permanent carer overnight but the need of someone changing her bed sheets overnight may be supported if she was in sheltered accommodation.

Mrs X’s complaint

26. Mrs X submitted a complaint to the Council in September 2020. She complained about the delays in being rehoused despite recommendations from the Service. She said the Council’s ‘Housing Assistance Policy’ stated, in the case of an unsuitable property alternative accommodation would most likely become available within six months. Mrs X said her health had deteriorated over the last two years, but her banding had not changed. Mrs X also said that due to the medical unsuitability of her property she should be classed as homeless. Mrs X expressed concerns that three bungalows in Area W had been allocated to people in lower bands and they had only been on the waiting list for a year.

27. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint at stage one and stage two of its complaint’s procedure. It did not uphold Mrs X’s complaint. It said following the award of medical priority Mrs X received the first offer of accommodation in July 2018 and two further offers in June 2019 and January 2020. The Council confirmed three bungalows in Area W were allocated to other persons in July 2020. It said one bungalow was not sheltered accommodation and the other two bungalows were two bedroom sheltered accommodation. These were not considered suitable as Mrs X had raised concerns about paying the additional bedroom tax.
28. The Council said there was no evidence to suggest that Mrs X could no longer access the property and was therefore not threatened with homelessness. It said because Mrs X was “quite specific” about the type of accommodation she wanted this had impacted the time she had to wait. The Council explained it had very few properties that met Mrs X’s parking requirements and if Mrs X insisted on two bedrooms this would limit even further the number of vacancies she could be considered for.
29. In January 2021 the Council informed the Ombudsman that it had reviewed Mrs X’s application following her complaint and awarded her additional priority which placed her in Band 2, backdated to July 2018. The Council accepts that it was at fault for not reviewing Mrs X’s medical information sooner. The Council explained that Mrs X’s case was not supported by the social worker as requiring overnight accommodation for a carer, but it was satisfied that Mrs X could afford any shortfall if she occupied a two bedroom property. The Council placed Mrs X at the top of the waiting list to be considered for the next available two bedroom vacancy in Mrs X’s area of choice.

Back to top

Analysis

30. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
31. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. He may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.
32. The Council has acknowledged it is at fault for failing to review Mrs X’s medical information in July 2018. Because the Council has accepted fault it is not necessary for me to investigate this aspect of the complaint further. However, I must consider whether the fault caused an injustice to Mrs X.
33. I welcome the action taken by the Council in January 2021. Mrs X was awarded additional priority and moved from band 3 to band 2, backdated to July 2018. The Council has placed Mrs X at the top of the waiting list to be considered for the next available two-bedroom vacancy in Mrs X’s area of choice.
34. I have looked at the availability of two bedroom sheltered bungalows and ground floor flats in Mrs X’s area of choice from July 2018, when she should have been allocated band 2. Based on the information received, there is a possibility that Mrs X lost the opportunity to be rehoused sooner in Area B. During this period the Council allocated five, two-bedroom ground floor flats in Area B to applicants in a lower band than Mrs X. I note the Council’s comments that it is uncertain whether Mrs X would have accepted these properties as they would not have met her request for parking. However, the Council has given Mrs X the “benefit of doubt” and prioritised her application. I consider this to be appropriate action to take under the circumstances.
35. However, this does not remedy the prolonged avoidable injustice caused to Mrs X. The significant delay in awarding band 2 priority caused Mrs X uncertainty, distress and frustration.
36. In its stage one response the Council said there was no evidence to suggest that Mrs X could no longer access the property and therefore was not threatened with homelessness. It is not my role to say whether the Council made the correct decision. However, I can consider whether there is fault in the decision making process.
37. The Housing Act 1996, Section 175(3) provides that a person shall not be treated as having accommodation unless it is accommodation which it would be reasonable for them to continue to occupy. The Act states that “it would not be reasonable for an applicant to continue to occupy accommodation if the physical characteristics of the accommodation were unsuitable for the applicant because, for example, they are a wheelchair user and access was limited”. There is no simple test of reasonableness and it is for the housing authority to make a judgement on the facts of each case, taking into account the circumstances of the applicant.
38. The Council’s stage one response relies on the view of the OT Service from July 2018. The Council does not explain how it considered Mrs X’s deteriorating health over the last two years and the consequences of remaining in the accommodation. The stage two response does not address Mrs X’s complaint that she still cannot properly access the bathroom facilities, has difficulty using the stairs and that the property cannot be adapted to meet her medical needs. I find the Council failed to consider Mrs X’s circumstances at the time of her complaint when considering whether it was reasonable for her to continue to occupy her current accommodation.
39. Mrs X also complained about the Council’s failure to have regard to her mental health when considering her homelessness application and suitability of accommodation. There is no evidence that the Council took this into consideration when it was raised by Mrs X in September 2020.
40. For all these reasons, I consider there was fault with the decision-making process. This has caused uncertainty for Mrs X about whether her application was properly considered.

Agreed action

41. To remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X, the Council will take the following action within four weeks:
1. apologise to Mrs X in writing for the faults identified;
2. pay Mrs X £300 to remedy the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused by the delay in awarding band 2 priority;
3. pay Mrs X £150 to remedy the time and trouble she experienced in making her complaint to the Council and the Ombudsman; and
4. offer to carry out a fresh review of its decision that Mrs X was not threatened with homelessness, taking into account Mrs X’s current circumstances and any further evidence Mrs X wishes to provide. It should make its decision in accordance with statutory timescales and write to her to confirm the reasons for that decision.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have found fault by the Council causing injustice to Mrs X. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman