Summary: Miss X complained she was living in unsuitable temporary accommodation for too long and the Council did not properly consider her application to move to permanent accommodation. Miss X says the Council’s actions adversely affected her mental health. We have found some fault by the Council but no significant injustice to Miss X. The Council has agreed to remind staff to keep accurate records.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains she was living in temporary accommodation for four years and the Council did not properly consider her application to move to permanent accommodation.
2. Miss X says the Council housed her and her three children in unsuitable temporary accommodation for too long. She says this caused her stress and worry about the effect on her children and says it adversely affected her mental health.

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. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
5. 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

6. I have spoken to Miss X and considered the information she provided.
7. I have made enquiries to the Council and considered the information it provided.
8. Miss X and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I have considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation

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 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))

11. A local housing authority may give 'additional preference' to applicants within the reasonable preference categories, if they have urgent housing needs.

Wandsworth Council Allocation Scheme

12. The Council does not operate a choice-based lettings/bidding system. It says it contacts applicants when it is in a position to make an offer of accommodation.
13. The Council assesses each application to decide whether the applicant is:

• eligible for allocation of accommodation;
• a qualifying person under the scheme;
• entitled to any reasonable and/or additional preference;
• in need of housing (based on the points and band applicable to their circumstances).

14. The Council allocates properties to the applicant in the highest band (A to D, with band A being the highest) who has been registered in that band for the longest period (subject to suitability considerations).
15. Applications involving a health-related issue will be assessed by the Council with advice from either the applicant’s doctor and/or the Council’s medical advisor(s) as appropriate.
16. The Ombudsman recognises 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 rehouse someone if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published policy.

What happened

17. This chronology includes the key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
18. In 2016, Miss X told the Council that she and her child were going to be made homeless. The Council placed Miss X into a one-bedroom self-contained property as interim accommodation.
19. On 3 February 2017, the Council accepted its duty to rehouse Miss X. It placed Miss X in priority band B.
20. Miss X had a second child in January 2018. In May 2018, Miss X and her two children moved into a Bed and Breakfast (B&B) as temporary accommodation. The Council changed Miss X’s priority band to band A.
21. Miss X left the B&B in June 2018 and moved into alternative temporary accommodation, a one-bedroom self-contained property. The Council changed Miss X’s priority band back to band B.
22. The Council placed Miss X on a temporary accommodation transfer list. In August 2020, Miss X emailed the Council and told it she was pregnant. Miss X asked the Council how long it would take for the transfer process to complete.
23. The Council told Miss X she was in priority band B and that it had assessed her as needing a two-bedroom property. It said Miss X was position 313 on the waiting list.
24. In September 2020, Miss X told the Council she had given birth to her third child.
25. In November 2020, Miss X emailed the Council. She asked what her position on the waiting list was and how many points she had regarding her housing application.
26. The Council told Miss X her position was 297 on the waiting list. It said the number of points was not relevant because it made offers based on the date the Council accepted its duty to rehouse. It said the date of acceptance for Miss X was 3 February 2017.
27. Miss X replied and told the Council she had an urgent need to move. She said one of her children had special educational needs and the overcrowding was making their condition worse. Miss X said she also had post-natal depression.
28. The Council reassessed Miss X’s case and determined she required a three-bedroom property. In December 2020, it offered Miss X alternative temporary accommodation in a two-bedroom property.
29. Miss X told the Council she could not accept the alternative temporary accommodation because she had already moved four times in almost four years. She said the stress of another temporary move would worsen her post-natal depression and she wanted to move to permanent accommodation. Miss X told the Council she also had concerns about the impact to one of her children, Child A, if she moved to the alternative accommodation. She said Child A was undergoing an assessment to obtain an Education, Health and Care plan, (EHCP), and the move would mean they would have to change schools. Miss X said she did not want to disrupt the EHCP process and did not want to change schools as a result.
30. Miss X asked the Council to increase her priority and asked how she could challenge the band B position she was in.
31. The Council reviewed the suitability of Miss X’s temporary accommodation and provided its decision on 10 December 2020. It said although Miss X’s request for a review was outside the timescale, it had completed the review using its discretion. The Council told Miss X it considered her current accommodation was not suitable but said it had sent a letter offering Miss X alternative accommodation.
32. On 18 December 2020, the Council contacted Miss X. It acknowledged Miss X said she could not move to a more suitable temporary accommodation but said there were 180 other families who had been waiting longer in similar circumstances. It said as a result, the Council was unable to consider Miss X for an immediate settled offer.

Miss X’s complaint

33. On 8 January 2021, Miss X complained to the Council that her accommodation was overcrowded. She said although the Council had offered her alternative temporary accommodation, she was unable to cut herself off from her existing support network due to her poor mental health.
34. Miss X completed a medical assessment form in support of her request for permanent accommodation. Miss X told the Council she was suffering from post-natal depression and anxiety. She said that moving again would worsen her stress because she would need to form a new support network.
35. The Council referred Miss X’s medical assessment form to the Council’s Medical Advisor (CMA) on 22 January 2021. The Council asked the CMA for their comments about Miss X’s current and future housing needs based on the medical assessment form. It also asked how further housing moves may impact Miss X’s medical needs.
36. The CMA replied on 25 January 2021.They said the evidence supplied did not provide compelling indications that a change of accommodation would be unacceptable on medical grounds.
37. The Council wrote to Miss X on 1 February 2021 to tell her the result of the CMA’s consideration. It said there were no changes in the assessment of Miss X’s homeless application and that Miss X remained registered for a three-bedroom property in band B.
38. On 2 February 2021, the Council provided its complaint response. It gave details of the events leading to Miss X’s complaint and acknowledged Miss X had declined an offer of a two-bedroom property because of her concern of the impact to Child A. The Council said it was not aware which school Child A attended but said it would discuss this further with her so that it could review the location of alternative temporary accommodation.
39. The Council said Miss X was position 178 on the waiting list for a three-bedroom property. It said it was unable to overlook higher placed applications in favour of lower placed ones unless there were urgent reasons to make a priority offer. The Council said there were no medical grounds to indicate a move to alternative temporary accommodation was unacceptable. It said there was therefore no urgent reason to award priority housing.
40. Miss X escalated her complaint to stage two on 2 February 2021. She said Child A’s condition meant they needed routine and that moving four times in the past four years was harmful to their health. Miss X said the Council had not considered how the disruption of moving house would affect Child A. Miss X asked how she could provide evidence to support her move to permanent accommodation.
41. The Council told Miss X she could provide medical evidence in support of her application, and it would refer this to the CMA for review.
42. Miss X provided further information regarding Child A to the Council. She said she needed to remain in the same area so that Child A could continue to attend the same school.
43. The Council referred the additional information to the CMA on 3 February 2021. It asked them to advise if Miss X and her family could manage a further move to temporary accommodation. It also asked whether they could remain in temporary accommodation on a long-term basis, and whether Miss X needed to move to settled accommodation as a priority. The Council asked the CMA to consider Child A’s needs and the locations it could offer.
44. The CMA told the Council on 5 February 2021 they had not identified any confirmed medical condition which precluded Miss X and her family from staying in temporary accommodation. The CMA said it did not consider permanent accommodation to be medically essential but supported the continuity of support provided by Child A’s school.
45. On 23 February 2021, the Council provided its stage two response and told Miss X the CMA’s recommendations. The Council said it accepted the CMA’s recommendations and said it would contact Miss X when suitable accommodation was available. The Council acknowledged the reasons Miss X declined its offer of alternative temporary accommodation, but said it considered it had acted in accordance with its allocations policy.
46. Miss X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and brought her complaint to us.

What happened next

47. The Council offered Miss X alternative temporary accommodation on 24 February 2021.
48. Miss X asked the Council to review its offer because she said Child A would not be able to continue to attend their school and she would be cut off from her support network. She provided a further medical assessment form and said the uncertainty about not knowing how long she would be staying in temporary accommodation was causing her a lot of stress. She said Child A struggled with the lack of space at her current address and told the Council she needed a property with a garden or some outdoor space.
49. The Council referred the additional information to the CMA on 25 February 2021. On the same day, the Council called Miss X and said it had withdrawn its offer of alternative temporary accommodation without penalty.
50. The CMA responded on 26 February 2021 and asked for information relating to the make-up of Miss X’s family. The CMA also asked why the Council had offered Miss X smaller accommodation than the required three-bedroom property.
51. The Council provided the requested information to the CMA on 9 March 2021. It said a two-bedroom property (as temporary accommodation) may be offered if this is the first type of accommodation available. It said any offer of settled accommodation would be a three-bedroom property.
52. The CMA replied on the same day and said a two-bedroom property could be configured to provide Child A with their own room or independent space. It said a two-bedroom property would therefore be suitable in the short term.
53. At about this time, Miss X says she contacted her councillor. Miss X says her councillor asked the Council on her behalf why she had been living in temporary accommodation since 2017. Miss X says the Council looked into her case as a result of her query.
54. The Council says it identified that when Miss X moved address in June 2018, it changed her band B date in error to the date of the change of address. The Council says when this was discovered, it corrected the date and backdated it to 3 February 2017. The Council emailed Miss X on 22 March 2021 to tell her it had adjusted the band date. It said Miss X had not lost out on any housing opportunity as a result of the changed date.
55. On 24 March 2021, the Council made an informal offer of alternative accommodation to Miss X. Miss X declined the offer. The Council left a voicemail for Miss X about a second property, but the accommodation was taken by another applicant before Miss X could respond.
56. At around this time, Miss X provided a further medical assessment form with supporting information. The Council referred this to the CMA on 25 March 2021. The medical advisor told the Council they considered a garden was not medically essential in Miss X’s case.
57. In May 2021, the Council reviewed Miss X’s case and awarded her priority status, placing her in band A. It says this was because of Miss X’s wait for permanent accommodation and the assessed unsuitability of her existing temporary accommodation.
58. The Council offered Miss X permanent accommodation on 25 May 2021.
59. Miss X accepted the Council’s offer and moved into permanent accommodation in June 2021.

Analysis – the Council’s consideration of Miss X’s request for permanent accommodation

60. Miss X says the Council did not properly consider her application to move to permanent accommodation. Miss X provided the Council with her reasons for requesting permanent accommodation and supplied medical assessment forms in support of her request.
61. Councils may ask medical advisors to review applicants’ medical evidence as part of their homelessness and/or housing applications. The medical advisors provide recommendations to councils about homeless-vulnerability and suitability of accommodation.
62. I have reviewed the correspondence between the Council and the CMA and consider this is evidence the Council considered Miss X’s application for permanent accommodation. The Council referred Miss X’s reasons for her request and her medical evidence to the CMA for its recommendations. This was in line with its allocations policy. I am satisfied the Council considered the CMA’s recommendations and the information provided by Miss X, and communicated its decisions to Miss X.
63. I acknowledge Miss X considers a further move to temporary accommodation was not suitable for her and her family. However, the Council’s decisions are in line with the CMA’s recommendations regarding this issue. On this basis, and as the Council acted in accordance with its allocations policy, I consider there is no fault by the Council in this aspect of the complaint.

Miss X’s time in temporary accommodation

64. Miss X complains she was living in temporary accommodation for about four years. She says there are only a few other people housed by the Council who have been in temporary accommodation for the same amount of time.
65. I acknowledge Miss X’s comments that she and her family were living in overcrowded accommodation while she was waiting to be rehoused. However, as stated at paragraph 16, the Ombudsman recognises the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas, and this can lead to lengthy waiting times.
66. The Council says it accepted the main housing duty on 3 February 2017 and this remained unchanged throughout the time Miss X was waiting for rehousing. However, the Council acknowledges it made an error with the band B date from June 2018 until March 2021. The Council says it rectified the error as soon as it was identified and contacted Miss X to inform her. It says despite this error, Miss X was not disadvantaged and it did not overlook her for an offer of permanent accommodation.
67. The Council has provided clarification as to why it considers Miss X was not disadvantaged by the error. It has confirmed the periods when Miss X was assessed as requiring one, two and three bedrooms, and the periods when she was in band B, band A and then returned to band B.
68. It says it has identified all applicants who it housed into each of the above sized accommodation for the period in question. The Council says no cases were housed from the homelessness queue into a one-bedroom property with a shorter band date than Miss X.
69. The Council says for the period Miss X was in band A, no cases were housed from the homelessness queue into a two-bedroom property with a shorter band date.
70. The Council says four cases were rehoused into a two-bedroom property with a shorter band date than Miss X, (while in band B), but three cases were accelerated because of urgent medical priority, and one case was an urgent Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference case.
71. The Council says four other cases were rehoused with a shorter band date than Miss X. However, in three cases, the temporary accommodation was converted into a permanent letting without requiring the families to move, and one property was in an area that Miss X had expressed a preference against.
72. The explanation provided by the Council is in line with its allocations policy, which says it may give additional preference to people with urgent housing needs who qualify for priority rehousing status. I am satisfied the Council also considered Miss X’s case in line with this policy, but it considered her circumstances did not preclude her from living in temporary accommodation.
73. It is positive the Council identified the band B date error, rectified its records and informed Miss X. However, it is noted the error was not identified as part of the complaints process, but after the Council had considered Miss X’s complaint.
74. Councils should maintain accurate records relating to their housing applications and I have found the error identified in this case to be fault.
75. I do not consider the fault identified caused an injustice to Miss X however. This is because the Council told Miss X on 20 November 2020 that offers of accommodation are made based on the applicant’s acceptance date. In Miss X’s case, this was 3 February 2017. The Council has confirmed this date remained the same throughout the period Miss X was waiting for rehousing.
76. The Council backdated the priority band B date to 3 February 2017. Following this adjustment, Miss X was placed at position 12 on the allocations list. Had Miss X been placed at the top of the list following the adjustment, I consider it is more likely she may have missed earlier offers of accommodation. However, as this was not the case, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, it is more likely than not Miss X did not miss opportunities for an earlier transfer. As a result, I consider the fault identified caused no injustice to Miss X.

Back to top

Agreed action

77. The Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:

• Remind staff to ensure service user records are updated accurately to avoid errors which may affect priority banding and/or placement in the housing list.

Back to top

Final decision

78. I have found fault by the Council, and the Council has agreed to take the above action. I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman