Summary: The Council did not make clear to a family, in writing, why it withdrew its offer of housing or that it could withdraw discretionary housing points at any time. There was no fault in the Councils decision to discharge its main housing duty. The Council’s direct offer of a flat (made during the investigation of this complaint) has ensured the family have adequate housing, although it is not in a house which is the family’s preference over a flat.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs X, complains the Council’s decision to withdraw an offer of housing in November 2019 due to her husband’s income did not follow its allocations policy.
2. Mrs X says the Council’s offer of a two-bedroom flat (which she has accepted) is not equivalent to the house previously offered and so is not a suitable remedy to her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 read the papers put in by Mrs X and discussed the complaint with her.
6. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
7. Mrs 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

Law and guidance

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 (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe this main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
9. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household.  This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty.  (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:

• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant 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.

Key facts

10. Mr and Mrs X went to the Council as they and their two children were homeless. The Council gave them temporary accommodation and on 3 March 2020 the Council decided that Mrs X was owed the main housing duty.
11. On 19 June 2020 the Council made Mr and Mrs X a final offer of a property to discharge its main housing duty. Mrs X refused the property on 6 July and the Council wrote to them to discharge its main housing duty. Mrs X asked for a review of the suitability of the property.
12. Mrs X refused two further offers of properties made in July and August 2020. On 4 September 2020 the Council upheld its decision that the first property offer was suitable and the Council no longer owed a statutory homeless duty. Mr and Mrs X asked for a review of the decision by a members panel, which upheld the decision.
13. Mr and Mrs X could continue to bid on properties, the Council said the housing officer made the discretionary decision to leave their added homeless housing points due to the difficulty in getting accommodation because of COVID-19. On 28 October 2020 the Council offered Mrs X a house, which she provisionally accepted.
14. On 26 November 2020 Mr X told the temporary accommodation manager that he was renting property near his work and had been away for three months. The Council suspended the application due to change of circumstances and removed the offer. The Council has said that leaving the homelessness points on the application was not in line with the Council’s allocations policy and the added discretionary points were no longer needed when Mr X returned to work earning £2000 a week. The Council considered that this meant that private accommodation was affordable and available to the family. In the Council’s response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council acknowledged that it had not explained in writing why the offer of accommodation had been withdrawn.
15. Mrs X’s situation changed on 19 January 2021 as she told the Council she had split from her husband. In response to her official complaint, the Council made a final direct offer of a two-bedroom flat on 1 April 2021. Mrs X refused this offer, but has signed a permanent tenancy for her existing temporary accommodation, a two-bedroom flat.

My analysis

16. Mrs X complains the Council’s decision to withdraw an offer of a house in November 2019 did not follow its allocations policy. She has accepted the Council’s offer of a two-bedroom flat but wants a house like she was offered previously.
17. I have looked at the Council’s administrative process. I can see no fault in the Council’s decision to discharge its duty in July. So, at this point Mrs X was no longer eligible for the extra housing points because it no longer had a main housing duty to her. Any offer she received after this point, is a result of the Council’s discretionary decision to allow her to keep the extra housing points. So, events after July 2020 are outside the normal allocations policy. The Council did not follow its allocations policy after July 2020, which at first was to Mrs X’s advantage as it allowed her to bid with greater chance of success.
18. The Council has rehoused Mrs X and there is nothing in its policy to say that a two-bedroom flat is unsuitable for her. However, she would prefer a house and complains about the Council withdrawing the offer of the house she accepted in November 2020. She would like the Council to offer her a house rather than remain in the flat she has accepted.
19. I have looked at the circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of the offer of the house in November 2020. There is nothing in the allocations policy that allows the Council to withdraw a housing offer because an applicant earns a high salary. The Council allowed Mrs X to continue to bid, so there was no reason for her to think the Council would not continue to follow the allocations policy.
20. The Council exercised discretion to allow Mrs X to keep homeless housing points without clearly explaining to her that it could withdraw them at any time. I consider this was fault, although I can understand the Council’s reason for exercising discretion and also for withdrawing the offer of housing when it became clear the family had the means to easily find private accommodation.
21. The Council has already offered a remedy to this complaint, by placing Mrs X in permanent housing. The Council has provided temporary accommodation, in the flat that is now Mrs X’s permanent home, so she has not suffered any injustice from extra moves. The only question is whether the Council should offer Mrs X a house rather than a flat.
22. The Council’s allocations policy only talks about two-bedroom properties, it does not distinguish between a house and a flat or consider personal preference. So, my view is that as Mrs X is adequately housed I do not intend to recommend the Council makes a further offer of a house. I do recognise that Mrs X would prefer to live in a house and that her expectations were raised after she was offered a house, but the Council’s duty to her was to accommodate her family. It has done so, even after it discharged its main housing duty.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I intend to stop investigating this complaint and uphold Mrs X's complaint. The Council has taken action which has resolved the outstanding issue and no further action by the Ombudsman is needed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman