Summary: There was no fault in how the Council assessed Mr X’s medical priority for housing. The Council was at fault for reducing Mr X’s priority on its housing register in July 2021. The Council also failed to consider whether Mr X was homeless or threatened with homeless. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice this caused Mr X and improve its service.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
• wrongly reduced his priority on its housing register in July 2021
• failed properly to consider his request for medical priority
• failed to take into account evidence from the Police that the family needed to move.
2. As a result, Mr X says he and his family remain in private rented accommodation where they are at risk of harm.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
8. Mr X and the organisation 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

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 strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
10. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

The Council’s allocations scheme

11. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. This means housing applicants can express an interest in available properties. This is called bidding.
12. The Council assess a housing applicant’s needs and places them into a priority Band based on their priority:
• Band 1 is the highest priority
• Band 3 is awarded to applicants who are overcrowded or received a private sector property before April 2013 as part of the Council’s homeless discharge of duty.
• Band 5 is no priority and awarded to applicants who do not meet the criteria for Bands 1 to 4. Applicants in Band 5 are not able to bid on properties.
13. The date on which the Council placed an application into a priority band is called the priority band date. This date is important because the Council uses it to decide priority within a band. For example, if there are three bids for a property from applicants with Band 1 priority, the applicant with the oldest priority band date will be highest on the list.
14. The Council’s Housing Allocations Schemes in place during 2020 and 2021 both state that registration for housing is “time limited to 12 months”. That means applicants must re-apply annually. An applicant receives a message on their section of the Council’s housing website telling them the review is due. The Allocations Scheme also recommended that applicants check their details monthly as a minimum. If an applicant fails to re-register under the annual review process the Council automatically closes the account. They also lose any priority previously awarded. A message is left on the account page telling the applicant they must re-register. If the applicant contacts the Council within 42 days, the Council will reinstate the application with the original priority.
15. Applications for medical priority are considered by an Independent Medical Adviser. They assess the evidence provided by the applicant to see if the housing is adversely impacting the applicant’s health and can only be improved by rehousing. The Council sends a decision to the applicant.
16. To consider if an applicant needed emergency rehousing the Council would require significant evidence of the applicant being in direct danger. In the absence of such evidence the Council has no duty to increase an applicant’s priority.

What happened

17. Mr X lives in private rented accommodation which the Council offered him to end a homelessness duty. Under the allocations scheme in place at the time, therefore, Mr X had the ‘Reasonable Preference’ priority. This is equivalent to Band 3 priority in the current scheme.
18. In August 2020, Mr X did not renew his housing application.
19. In September, Mr X complained to the Council that there had been no option to renew the application on his online account. The Council accepts it failed to deal with this complaint.
20. In November, Mr X contacted the housing team directly. At this point, the Council reinstated his application in the ‘Reasonable Preference’ priority.
21. In January 2021, Mr X asked the Council to consider the medical needs of the family and whether this attracted further priority.
22. In February, the Council introduced a new allocations scheme. It migrated Mr X’s application to Band 3 under the new scheme.
23. In May, the police told the Council about an incident relating to Mr X’s wider family and that Mr X wanted to move home.
24. In June, the Council’s Independent Medical Adviser assessed Mr X’s application. The Council decided not to award any medical priority.
25. In July, the Council looked at Mr X’s case. It decided his Band 3 priority should have been removed in August 2020 when he didn’t renew the application. It therefore changed his priority to Band 5. This meant Mr X was unable to bid.
26. Mr X complained to the Council that it had not awarded medical priority or rehoused him following contact from the police. The Council’s complaint response said there was no fault in how it considered the application for medical priority. It said it had reduced his priority to Band 5 in line with the allocations scheme requirement to renew the application every year. Regarding the information from the police, the Council said Mr X could look for alternative private rented accommodation. He could also contact any local authority for help if he was homeless.
27. In November, one of Mr X’s children turned 10. This meant the family were now overcrowded. The Council awarded Band 3 priority with a priority band date of November 2021.

Analysis

Priority

28. Mr X complained to the Council in September 2020 that he could not renew his housing application. The Council accepts it failed to respond to this. Since Mr X had contacted the Council within 42 days of the August renewal date, it would have reinstated his application at this point with his original priority. Instead, this didn’t happen until November. This is a delay of two months and is fault.
29. The Council accepts therefore, that it was a mistake to demote Mr X’s application to Band 5 in July 2021. It did this without an understanding of its own previous actions, including the complaint in September 2020 and decision in November to reinstate the application.
30. Reducing Mr X’s priority band in July 2021 was fault. The Council acknowledges this. To put it right, the Council has backdated Mr X’s Band 3 priority to his original priority band date in 2012.
31. Mr X has not missed out on an offer of accommodation in the time he could not bid with the correct priority and band date. However, he had to go to significant time and trouble trying to resolve the matter with the Council, which caused avoidable frustration. This is an injustice to Mr X.

Medical assessment

32. There is no fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s request for medical priority. It took the relevant information into account and followed its procedures. It explained its decision and the reasons for it. We will not question the outcome if there was no fault in the decision making process.

Information from the police

33. Mr X says he is at risk due to the incident reported to the Council by the police. There is no fault in how the Council decided Mr X did not have an urgent need for rehousing. It took the information from the police into account and applied its allocations scheme criteria correctly.
34. The Council advised Mr X that if he considered he was unsafe in the property, he could approach the Council for homelessness assistance, or approach another council in an area the family considered safe.
35. When 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) 
36. The Code of Guidance says councils should be particularly alert to applications for social housing which indicate the applicant might be homeless or threatened with homelessness. The code says this will constitute an application. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 18.6)
37. In this case, I do not consider the Council had proper regard for its duties under homelessness law. This was fault. It should have considered whether it had reason to believe Mr X was homeless or threatened with homelessness. Given the very low threshold, and Mr X’s reference to a specific threat to his family, it seems likely the Council would have decided this threshold was met.
38. The Council should then have made inquiries to decide if it owed Mr X and his family any further duty. I cannot say what it would have decided. However, if the Council had decided Mr X was not homeless after making inquiries, it should have issued a decision in writing. This decision carries a statutory right to review and then appeal to court.
39. Therefore, there is uncertainty about what action the Council would have taken had it properly considered its homelessness duties. This uncertainty is an injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. To remedy the injustice to Mr X from the faults I have identified the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X in writing
• Pay Mr X £200 in recognition of his avoidable frustration, time and trouble, and uncertainty
• Make inquiries to establish if the Council owes Mr X any homelessness duties.
41. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
42. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Remind relevant staff that decisions should be recorded with sufficient detail to be able to inform future decisions and actions.
• Ensure frontline staff are aware that a homeless application can be made to any department and refer people who indicate they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness to the relevant department. Provide guidance or training as necessary.
43. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman