Thurrock Council (21 009 340)

Category : Housing > Allocations

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 27 Apr 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it handled Ms X’s housing application. This caused Ms X injustice as she may have received a higher priority on the housing register. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

  1. Ms X complains about the way the Council handled her housing application. Ms X says she lived in unsuitable accommodation and the Council did not consider her request for medical priority.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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

  1. As part of this investigation, I considered the information provide by Ms X. I discussed the complaint with Ms X over the telephone. I made enquires with the Council and considered the information received in response. I sent a draft of this decision to Ms X and the Council and considered comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

  1. 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.
  2. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. This is called the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
  3. A person is homeless if they have no accommodation in the UK or elsewhere which is available for their occupation and which that person has a legal right to occupy. A person is also homeless if they have accommodation but cannot secure entry to it. A person who has accommodation is to be treated as homeless where it would not be reasonable for them to continue to occupy that accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 175 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 6.4)
  4. Where the local housing authority is satisfied that an applicant is homeless (rather than just threatened with homelessness) and eligible for assistance, it is subject to a duty (unless they make a local connection referral) to take reasonable steps to help the applicant secure accommodation that will be available for at least six months. This is called the relief duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
  5. 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)
  6. 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))
  7. 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))
  8. The Council’s allocations scheme places applicants in Bands based on their level of priority. Those in Band four have a general housing need and do not meet the criteria for a higher priority. This includes applicants who are not adequately housed in terms of size, suitability or affordability but do not meet the criteria for a higher Band.
  9. Applicants in Band three include those who are homeless and have been owed the main housing duty as well as those who have a medical condition which is affected by their current accommodation.

What happened

  1. In 2009 Ms X moved into her current accommodation with her partner and two daughters. This was a two bedroomed property. Ms X also joined the Council’s housing register and was placed in the lowest Band.
  2. In 2019 Ms X told the Council she had given birth to a son and was moved into Band four on the Council’s housing register as the Council considered her household overcrowded.
  3. In March 2021 Ms X received a section 21 notice from her landlord requesting she leaves her property. Ms X said she telephoned the Council and spoke with someone who told her
  4. On 29 March 2021 the Council received a referral for Ms X from another department at the Council as she was at risk of losing her accommodation after receiving a section 21 notice.
  5. Ms X said she contacted the Council to apply for medical priority as her daughter suffered with breathing difficulties. Ms X said she discussed this with someone over the telephone. The Council said it does not have a record of this however Ms X did email it in late April 2021 to ask for medical priority. The Council said it responded to Ms X to ask her to provide more information but did not hear back from her.
  6. In May 2021 the Council carried out an assessment of Ms X and produced a personalised housing plan for her. The Council accepted a prevention duty towards Ms X and agreed to take reasonable steps to prevent her homelessness.
  7. In June 2021 Ms X raised a complaint via her MP. This raised concerns about Ms X losing her home and not being able to bid for the correct property size. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint on 16 June 2021 and said she currently had an active housing register application and was listed as needing a three bedroomed property. The Council said Ms X was in Band four and this would remain in place until the Homeless Team completed its assessments.
  8. Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure in July 2021. Ms X discussed her complaint with the Council via telephone. Ms X asked the Council to increase her Band on the housing register and explained her daughter’s health conditions are getting worse because of the property the family lived in.
  9. The Council provided its stage two response on 3 August 2021. The Council said:
    • Ms X is eligible to bid on three bedroomed properties.
    • Ms X is in Band four on the Council’s housing register as her household is overcrowded by one bedroom. The Council told Ms X to make sure she places bids on all property types not just houses to maximize her chances of obtaining a property.
    • Its Allocations Team confirmed Ms X did notify it about her daughter’s medical concerns. The Council said at the time Ms X had received a section 21 notice so was told by the Allocations Team to contact the Homeless Team for support and raise all medical concerns with the Homeless Team.
  10. In September 2021 the Council’s Homeless Team sent Ms X’s case to its medical advisor, along with two letters from her daughter’s doctors. The medical advisor recommended Ms X’s accommodation was suitable.
  11. In November 2021 Ms X received a possession order from the Courts to leave her property. Ms X provided further medical evidence from her daughter’s consultant. The Council’s Homeless Team sent this to the medical advisor who, in January 2022, recommended the property was not suitable on medical grounds.
  12. Ms X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman. Ms X said the Council did not consider her household for medical priority and should have been placed into a higher Band on the housing register.
  13. In response to our draft decision the Council said it has now owed Ms X the relief duty and moved her into interim accommodation.

Analysis

Ms X’s request for medical priority

  1. Ms X said the Council did not consider her request to receive medical priority based on her daughter’s health issues. It is not clear when this was requested by Ms X. The Council said it only had a record of Ms X emailing it in April 2021. However, Ms X said she spoke with a Council officer over the telephone about this.
  2. Either way the Council confirmed in its stage two response that the Allocations Team said Ms X notified it she wanted to be assessed for medical priority, but the Allocations Team told her she needed to raise this with the Homeless Team. This is fault.
  3. Just because the Council had accepted a homeless prevention duty towards Ms X would not stop it from being able to consider whether she qualified for medical priority. I accept the Council said Ms X was at risk of losing her accommodation, however over ten months on from receiving a section 21 notice, Ms X had not been evicted. In addition, looking at trying to increase someone’s priority on the housing register could be a way of attempting to prevent their homelessness.
  4. As I have found fault, I need to consider whether this caused injustice to Ms X. The Allocations Team did not assess Ms X’s household for medical priority however, the Homeless Team sent her daughter’s information to the Council’s medical advisor. The medical advisor recommended Ms X’s accommodation was unsuitable on medical grounds in January 2022, if the damp and mould could be established at the property.
  5. The decision about whether to award medical priority is not for the Ombudsman but the Council. I cannot say if the Council would have given Ms X medical priority had it assessed her application correctly. However, the recommendation from the medical adviser will at the very least cause Ms X uncertainty about whether she would have qualified to be in Band three.
  6. Normally we would recommend the Council consider whether to award an applicant medical priority. We have not done so in this case as Ms X has now moved out of the property as the Council has placed her in interim accommodation.

Ms X’s homeless case

  1. In response to our enquiries the Council said Ms X’s homeless case was at the prevention stage while the Council waited for a bailiff’s warrant. The Council said once it received a bailiff’s warrant it would progress her case to the relief stage and place her into interim accommodation. Since our draft decision Ms X has been owed the relief duty and moved to interim accommodation.
  2. After the Council received the medical advisor’s recommendation in January 2022, it should have considered whether the property was reasonable to occupy and whether the Council should owe Ms X the relief duty. Failure to do so is fault.
  3. If the Council was of the view Ms X’s accommodation was not reasonable for her to occupy it should have made her an offer of interim accommodation.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. Within one month of my final decision the Council agreed to carry out the following and provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has done so:
      1. Apologise to Ms X for the faults identified.
      2. Pay Ms X £150 to reflect the uncertainty about whether she would have been moved to Band three had the Council considered whether she qualified for medical priority.
      3. Remind the Allocations Team that they should still consider whether an applicant qualifies for medical priority when requested, even if an applicant has been owed a homeless prevention duty.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation and found there was fault by the Council which caused Ms X injustice. The Council has agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings