Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Ms R’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with her application to join its housing register. It failed to consider her overcrowded conditions under its housing policy. This caused no injustice. It also failed to: advise and consider whether these conditions amounted to homelessness; warn her about its practice of suspending those shortlisted from bidding; respond to all correspondence from her. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms R complains about the way the Council dealt with her application to join its housing register as her flat is no longer suitable for her and her family, especially her daughter who has significant health problems; as a result, they continue to live in a property that is a danger to her daughter, and she was prevented from bidding for properties for several weeks.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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)

Back to top

Council’s Housing Allocation Policy

4. The Council has a choice-based allocation scheme. It has joined other housing providers to increase applicant choice.
5. A Priority Homeseeker is an applicant whose circumstances meet one or more of the ‘reasonable preference’ criteria. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A )
6. The Council will prioritise applicants in employment above other applicants within the Priority Homeseeker and Transfer group.
7. The Council has additional preference groups for applicants with exceptional circumstances who need to move urgently because of harassment, medical, or social welfare grounds:

• Medical grounds (Group A): includes those whose medical condition is so severe it is impossible for them to live in the current home.
• Social/Welfare need grounds (Group A): includes those where the applicant or member of their household is at serious risk of harm either to themselves or to other people in their present accommodation. The applicant needs to receive significant support from the social services department; their wellbeing is seriously affected by their housing; and the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to find accommodation themselves.
• Multiple needs group (Group B): includes applicants whose households are entitled to reasonable preference on more than one reasonable preference ground.

8. Following an initial assessment of an application, an additional preference is done where housing needs fall in to more than one reasonable preference category.
9. The policy also looks at whether the household is homeless or owed a duty of homelessness.
10. Under the policy, a parent with 2 children of the opposite sex, where one is aged 10 years or more, has a bedroom requirement of 3.

Back to top

Homelessness

11. 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)
12. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women; and
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability, or old age.

13. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or are threatened with homelessness.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

14. I considered all the information Ms R sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent her. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Ms R and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

15. Ms R lived in her privately rented 1 bedroom bedsit from 2017 which she shared with her 12-year-old son who suffers from autism.
16. In October 2019, her then 13-year-old disabled daughter came to live with them. The Council confirmed Ms R joined the housing register in December. I have not seen a copy of the application she sent which led to the decision of her joining the register.
17. Ms R says she then updated her application. I have seen a copy of an application she sent in May 2020. This states her daughter, who is autistic and has significant behavioural problems, now lived with them. She hits, spits, touches, and has difficulties using the stairs. The application also states they live in a ‘studio’ and later states they only have one bedroom. In response to my draft decision, Ms R confirmed she did not make an application in May. She made an application in December 2019.
18. The same month, her daughter’s occupational therapist (OT) wrote to the Council recommending a ground floor property with a wet room and bath. The OT confirmed they were living in a 1-bedroom bedsit and the daughter had difficulty managing the stairs.
19. Apart from her daughter needing her own dedicated space for eating and cooking, for example, they all slept in the same bedroom. The bedsit had shared facilities with another family who lived upstairs until they moved out. Ms R complains the accommodation was unsafe, unsuitable, and had no heating in the kitchen or bathroom.
20. Ms R explained sharing cooking facilities was difficult because her daughter spits and hits other people. As she could not secure the shared front door, her daughter could leave the flat. Her daughter went missing for about an hour in the middle of the night on one occasion and the police were involved searching for her.
21. The Council says her application went ‘live’ on its system in May, which I assume means it had processed it which allowed Ms R to start bidding for accommodation.
22. The Council assessed her as needing a 3-bedroom, step-free property. It awarded her medical housing priority (‘emergency priority’). This was awarded because of the impact of the accommodation on her daughter. She bid for 3-bedroom properties from June and complained the Council prevented her from bidding on other properties while shortlisted. This happened on 5 occasions with one period lasting 4 weeks.
23. In November, the Housing OT wrote to 2 other OT’s who had given previous information about Mrs R. The Housing OT wanted to know whether Ms R’s claim about her daughter now being safe on stairs was correct as she wanted to let her bid on a house. One OT wrote back saying the school claimed the daughter was better at accessing stairs now.
24. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had not considered Ms R for overcrowding because she failed to complete the application properly but, gave no details to support this claim. The Council argued this had no impact on her as it gave her reasonable preference anyway. It took account of the lack of space when it awarded her emergency priority.
25. The Council also explained its shortlisting process. It claims it is quick in terms of matching a property to an applicant. Sometimes, the process is slower when waiting for applicants to send documents to prove eligibility, for example. It usually matches 3 applicants to each property to allow for refusals and they are prevented from bidding for other properties as they have been matched. The Council confirmed Ms R was unable to bid for: four weeks (bid 1); 2 ½ weeks (bid 2); just under a week (bid 3); 5 days (bid 4); 2 weeks (bid 5).
26. The Council accepts it does not tell applicants about the prevention period within which they cannot bid because for most applicants, it never makes an offer or, if they receive an offer, it is usually years between applying and making a successful bid. Applicants eligible for offers are not told of this until contacted to verify their application. As it receives 400 applications for housing each month, the vast majority of whom are unlikely to successfully bid for a property in the future, to verify claims upon their receipt would mean having to re-do them years later as and when shortlisted.
27. In March 2021, the Council confirmed Ms R bid, and accepted, a property.
28. The Council accepts there were a few emails from Ms R officers failed to reply to but, says this was due to the sheer volume of work.

Analysis

29. I make the following findings on this complaint:
1. Ms R applied to join the housing register in December 2019 for a 3-bedroom property. I have not seen a copy of her application.
2. The housing application I have seen is dated May 2020, which Ms R says is incorrect. On this, Ms R states there was one room for her and her 2 children. Her daughter was 13 years old and her son 16 years old. It also stated they lived in a ‘studio’ and ‘one bedroom’. Although the Council claimed she had wrongly completed the application form, which is why it did not consider her for overcrowding, it failed to explain what she did wrong.

From the details given on the application, I am satisfied she provided enough information to alert the Council to the number of people sharing a single room. I have also taken account of a housing application she sent in 2017 from the same address. This described living in a studio flat and her son needing a separate bedroom. The Council should have considered and explored whether she and her children were living in overcrowded accommodation under its allocation scheme when it received her application in December 2019. This is fault.

3. I am not satisfied this caused her an injustice. This is because the Council went on to award her emergency priority when it processed her application which is the highest priority she could have achieved.
4. For the reasons set out above, I am also satisfied the Council failed to consider whether Ms R lived in statutorily overcrowded accommodation for the purposes of establishing whether she was homeless. It failed to explore the suitability of the accommodation. This would also include information Ms R disclosed on the application form about her daughter’s behaviour and the property.

The Council failed to consider this and whether she needed to complete a homeless application. It failed to advise her about any option she had about making a homeless application under which it might have had to find her more suitable accommodation. It also failed to consider whether, despite having accommodation, it was not reasonable for her and her family to stay there because of overcrowding. This is fault.

5. I consider this failure caused Ms R an injustice. She suffered the distress of not knowing whether a homeless application would have resulted in her and her family being moved from their accommodation to more suitable accommodation before she successfully bid for a property in March 2021, thirteen months after her application disclosing this information. On balance, I consider it more likely than not the Council would have found Ms R homeless because of overcrowding/suitability of the property.
6. I also found fault on Ms R’s complaint about the effective suspension of bidding for other properties while she was shortlisted with others while the applications were verified.
7. Over a six-month period from September 2020 to March 2021, Ms R made 5 bids for which she was shortlisted. During this, the total amount of time she could not bid for was about 3 months, half of the total period. While I appreciate the Council’s explanation about why the suspension takes place, one of the individual periods she could not bid for was excessive. For example, she was unable to bid for 4 weeks following the shortlisting of bid 1.

Although the Council must wait for verification documentation from shortlisted applicants, this penalises unsuccessful shortlisted applicants. They not only miss out on an offer of the property but, are prevented from bidding on up to 3 properties a week through no fault of their own.

8. It is fault not to tell applicants about this suspension and there is nothing in the allocation scheme explaining this either.
9. I am satisfied the injustice this caused her is the distress of losing the opportunity to continue bidding for properties. This left her with the uncertainty of not knowing whether any bids in the period might have succeeded.
10. The Council accepted it failed to properly respond to some of her correspondence. This is fault which caused some distress (frustration).

Back to top

Agreed action

30. I considered our guidance on remedies.
31. The Council will, within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint, carry out the following:
1. Send Ms R a written apology for the failures to: advise her about making a homeless application due to overcrowding; consider whether her circumstances meant she was homeless and in unsuitable accommodation; explain in advance that if shortlisted, it would suspend her from bidding until the allocation of the property; respond to all of her correspondence.
2. Pay Ms R £3,250 for the distress the failures with the way it processed her application caused her. This was calculated based on a family of 3, (children of different sexes) with various health problems, living in one room, with access to shared facilities, for a period of 13 months, at the rate of £250 a month.
3. Pay her £150 for the distress the failure with the suspension of bidding caused her.
4. Remind officers of the need to consider giving advice and information about homeless applications where applicants live in overcrowded or other conditions that might make them homeless.
5. Review its practice of suspending all those on the shortlist for a property as well as the information it provides about it.

Back to top

Final decision

32. The Ombudsman found fault on Ms R’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman