Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not deal with his housing application properly. The Council was at fault because it did not consider Mr B’s medical circumstances, offer him a review of its decision, provide information or assess his homelessness situation. The Council has agreed to reconsider Mr B’s application, review its decision making process, issue guidance to staff, review its decision letters and offer a review to other housing applicants over the past 12 months.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complains the Council has not dealt with his housing application properly because it did not consider all the information he provided and did not consider his complaint properly.
2. Mr B says he has become more ill as a result and his housing problems have not been addressed.

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)
5. 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)
6. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I spoke to Mr B and considered the details of his complaint as well as the Council’s response. I reviewed documents sent by the Council and Mr B.
8. Mr B 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

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 strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
10. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants who need to move on medical grounds. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
11. 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 threatened with homelessness.
12. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018:
• he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5))
13. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
14. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

The Council’s allocations policy

15. The Council uses a banding system to identify those in the greatest housing need. Once an application has been approved, it will decide in which band to place the application based on the information provided on the application form and any further enquiries it has made in connection with the application. If an applicant’s circumstances change, their application may be moved to a different band.

16. Applicants can be assessed by the Council’s medical advisor and then placed in one of the following relevant bands:-

17. The council has a statutory duty under part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002, to secure housing for those who fall within the criteria as described in the legislation and are homeless or threatened with homelessness within 28 days.
18. The council has adopted a homelessness prevention approach to all enquiries relating to homelessness and in every case will seek to prevent the applicant from becoming homeless by using a variety of interventions.
19. Such interventions may include negotiating with landlords to extend a private rented sector tenancy, assisting with securing a private rented sector tenancy with the help of a tenancy deposit guarantee, or mediation with family or friends to allow an applicant to remain in their present home
20. Under the terms of the Housing Act 1996 as amended by the Localism Act 2011, applicants have a right to information about certain decisions that are taken in respect of their applications and the right to request a review of those decisions.
21. Applicants may also request a review of any decision made in connection with their application, including an assessment of their banding.

What happened

22. Mr B submitted a housing application with supporting evidence in May 2020.
23. The Council sought advice from its medical advisor. In August 2020 it wrote to Mr B stating, “The independent Medical Advisor has made a decision based on all the information you provided. We consider that decision to be final and do not allow appeals against decisions made by the Medical Advisor.”
24. Mr B complained that the decision was flawed because the medical advisor did not address all the medical issues in his application. The Council offered to reassess Mr B’s application in September 2020 and wrote to him stating, “Following your recent request we submitted your application for medical priority to the Medical Advisor, who has advised that there are no medical factors to increase priority on our Housing Register. Application will remain in Band D with a start date of 22nd March 2019.

The independent Medical Advisor has made a decision based on all the information you provided. We consider that decision to be final and do not allow appeals against decisions made by the Medical Advisor.” When he remained unhappy it responded through its complaints process.

25. After its final complaint response, the Council reassessed Mr B’s application for a second time. The Council wrote to Mr B stating.” Following your recent request we submitted your application for medical priority to our Medical Advisor, who has recommended that your application be awarded no medical priority. The medical advisor has made a decision based on all the information provided by you. We consider that decision to be final and do not allow appeals against decisions made by the medical advisor.”
26. Mr B asked the Council for information about how it had made its decision. The Council told him to make a freedom of information request to its medical advisor.

Analysis

27. The multiple decision letters and complaint responses sent to Mr B by the Council clearly show it considered the medical advisor’s advice to be ‘decisions’. The medical advisor does not make the decision. It is for the Council to make the decision, taking into account the information from the medical advisor and any and all other evidence. It has to reach its own view, not just take the medical advisors view as its own. This was fault by the Council. Mr B did not have his application properly considered.
28. The decision letters sent to Mr B clearly indicate the Council considered there to be no right of appeal. There is no reference to the right of review contained in the Council’s allocations policy. The Council did not follow its allocations policy. This was fault by the Council. Mr B was denied the opportunity to have the decision reviewed.
29. Mr B clearly articulated in his original application and his further complaint that he was at risk of homelessness. There is no evidence the Council addressed this properly, by conducting an assessment of Mr B’s circumstances, providing a personal housing plan, or any interventions to prevent him becoming homeless. Instead, it considered Mr B’s information solely on the basis of the medical issues. The Council did not follow its allocations policy. This was fault by the Council. Mr B did not have his application properly considered.
30. The Council did not provide any information when Mr B asked for an explanation about how the Council’s decision was made. The Council did not follow its allocations policy. This was fault by the Council. Mr B was denied his right to request information about the decision.
31. It is apparent from the decision letters that there is a systemic procedural issue not limited to Mr B. This was fault by the Council. The Council is almost certain to have failed to consider many more housing applications properly and to have denied applicants a proper right of review.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within the following timeframes.

Within 4 weeks of this decision:

• Apologise to Mr B;
• Reconsider Mr B’s original housing application along with any further supporting information Mr B provides and backdate any decision to his original application date;
• Review its policies and procedures to ensure alignment and compliance with legislation, statutory guidance and its allocations policy;
• Issue guidance to all staff about decision making in respect of medical assessments and priority;
• Issue guidance to all staff about dealing with homelessness prevention; and
• Review its decision letters to ensure they include the necessary level of detail, including a summary of the evidence considered, the reason for the decision and the right to review.

By the end of August 2021:

• Write to all applicants after 1st April 2020 who cannot be demonstrated to have been notified of the right to review about relevant decisions, outlining their right of review and offering an opportunity to re-assess their applications.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have found fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr B. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman