Summary: Ms M complains, on behalf of three young adults, the Council gave them misleading advice about applying for social housing. The Council was at fault as it failed to manage their expectations about the likely success of their application given restrictions imposed by local housing providers. It failed to proactively address why they were not being considered for properties and to ensure they understood this. The Council has agreed to make a payment to remedy the distress and frustration this caused them. It has also agreed to review its procedures to be clearer about the likely success of applications from unrelated adults.

The complaint

1. Ms M complains on behalf of her daughter, Miss X and two others, Mr Y and Mr Z. Ms M complains the Council gave Miss X, Mr Y and Mr Z misleading advice about applying for social housing. It failed to allocate them a property despite them being in first place on over 50 bids. This raised their expectations and caused them distress and frustration. Ms M wants adequate support to meet Miss X, Mr Y and Mr Z’s housing needs, staff adequately trained and relevant policies revised to prevent this happening again in future.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), 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 have considered information provided by Ms M and have discussed the complaint with her on the telephone. I have considered the information provided by the Council in response to my enquiries.
6. I gave Ms M and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered the comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

7. 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))
8. 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))

9. Private registered providers have a duty to cooperate with housing authorities – where the authority requests it – to such extent as is reasonable in the circumstances in offering accommodation to people with priority under the authority’s allocation scheme (Housing Act 1996, section 170)
10. The Council operates a choice based lettings scheme – Homes4Wiltshire (H4W). It sets out that ‘Whilst all housing applications are assessed in the same way, and determine admission to the Housing Register, all housing providers have different criteria to let their homes, operating individual lettings policies. The council works with these providers with a view to achieving some consistency in the overall approach to the allocation of properties’.
11. The Council places applicants into one of four bands with band one (emergency need) being the highest. Band two (high need) includes an urgent medical or welfare need (where an applicant’s functional ability or psychological state is severely compromised), band three (medium need) includes a medical or welfare need (where an applicant’s physical safety and functional ability are compromised by the current living conditions and re-housing would prevent a future deterioration in their functional ability or psychological state) and band four (low need) includes lacking or sharing facilities.

What happened

12. Miss X is an adult who lived at home with her family. She has Asperger’s Syndrome and pathological demand avoidance. Miss X sought to move out of the family home. The Council had considered supported living placements but these had fallen through due to the cost compared to Miss X’s level of care needs
13. In June 2017 the Council accepted Miss X onto the housing register in band four (low need).
14. In March 2018 Miss X’s social worker asked her mother, Ms M, whether Miss X would consider living with two males of a similar age. Miss X agreed to explore this and met with Mr Y and Mr Z.
15. The Council assessed Miss X’s needs in July 2018 to support her housing application and to consider what support Miss X would need to live independently. At that time Miss X received two hours of support per week to go out in the community, to provide Ms M with respite. It assessed Miss X would require 20.5 hours of support per week to live independently.
16. The assessment noted Miss X had met Mr Y and Mr Z who both had a similar level of need to Miss X. All three agreed they would like to live together with a joint support package. It noted ‘The plan is for them to register on H4W and find a suitable three bedroom house. They would then receive a joint package of support from a local provider who can provide both housing and support for all three of them’.
17. Social workers for Miss X, Mr Y and Mr Z met with the Housing department. The Housing department advised the housing providers would not grant individual tenancies. A property would be offered on a joint tenancy basis meaning all were responsible for the property as a whole. If one tenant left it would end the tenancy for them all. It advised they could make a joint housing application, with information to support their wish to live together and how the risks of a breakdown in relationships would be managed. The social worker updated the families of Miss X, Mr Y and Mr Z. Mr Z had reservations about a joint tenancy. In October 2018 Ms M confirmed to the Council all three still wished to live together and to pursue a joint tenancy.
18. Miss X’s social worker went off on long term leave. Her case was passed to Mr Y’s social worker. The social worker arranged to meet the families in December 2019. Following this, in early February, they sent a risk assessment through to Housing, to support the housing application. The application for all three to live together was admitted to the housing register in March 2019.
19. The social worker contacted Housing in June 2019. At this time the housing application was in band four. The social worker explained the impact of the time it was taking to rehouse the three of them and the impact on their welfare. The Housing Department amended the banding to band three for welfare need.
20. The social worker met with Miss X, Mr Y and Mr Z and their families in July 2019. All three were frustrated by the long delays in finding a place which was causing them stress, anxiety and depression. All three families would not consider a privately rented property due to the lack of long term security or stability.
21. In September 2019 the social worker spoke to Housing. The notes record Housing advised there were properties for which the three applicants were not considered. This was because the main three housing providers would not accept a three-way tenancy. Housing agreed to contact the providers to clarify why they had not considered the applicants. Housing suggested the applicants may need to consider renting privately.
22. Housing updated the social worker later that month. It advised the largest provider in the area (provider 1) said as long as it was satisfied with the support plans it would consider a three-way tenancy. Another provider (provider 2) advised they would not offer a tenancy to three unrelated people. Housing advised if they bid on any of provider 2’s properties they would be overlooked. Housing advised it was unsure what the position was with other landlords but if they were over looked the applicants could appeal directly to the landlord. The social worker verbally updated Ms M.
23. The social worker contacted the applicants in October 2019 to ask if they wished to explore supported living or learning disability vacancies.
24. In January 2020 the applicants were nominated for a property in their area of choice. The housing provider (provider 4) would not consider them for it as it did not accept a three-way tenancy.
25. Following further discussions with Housing the social worker reviewed Miss X’s needs assessment to reflect the significant impact the rehousing delay was having on Miss X’s health and well being. As a result, in March 2020 the Housing department increased Miss X’s banding to band two (urgent welfare need).
26. In late July 2020 Ms M contacted the social worker to advise they had missed out on a further three properties they were in first place, which were owned by provider 3. The social worker spoke to Housing who advised there were various restrictions on the properties related to income and employment. It advised them to contact the housing providers direct.
27. In August 2020 Ms M spoke to provider 3. It confirmed it would not offer them any property as the houses were designed for families and it would not house three adults from three households. Ms M sought advice from housing on what to do as she considered the three adults were being seriously disadvantaged.
28. An officer from Housing advised Ms M that the housing providers have their own allocations policies which they used in conjunction with the Council’s allocations policy. It was aware that provider 1 had agreed to such a tenancy in the past. However, three bedroom homes were in great demand due to the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown and it was obliged to give priority to the homeless and those in temporary accommodation and tenants were unable to move. They advised Ms M to keep bidding.
29. In late September 2020 Ms M successfully bid on a property with provider 4 but having viewed it, Miss X, Mr Y and Mr Z declined it as not suitable due to its state of repair and location. Ms M bid on two properties in September 2020 and was not considered for both.
30. In October 2020 Housing contacted provider 3 who advised they may in future be able to consider the three applicants. In late 2020 Housing spoke with care provider 1 to query why the application was not considered. Provider 1 advised it would not rehouse a group of unrelated adults. Housing updated the families.
31. The social worker reviewed Miss X’s care needs in January 2021. Ms M said she continue to bid but they had been declined on 30 properties. Ms M had emailed providers 1 and 2 to appeal their decision not to consider bids from the three applicants but had not had a response. Ms M said she was considering looking at private rented properties.
32. In January 2021 an Assistant Team Manager in ASC took over due to the social worker’s absence. Ms M was unhappy the local lettings plan made no reference to their issue and she was told they would look at each case on an individual basis. The Manager contacted provider 1 who explained they would not give a tenancy to three unrelated people whether or not they had disabilities. This could lead to management issues if one person left and the other two could not cover the rent. Also this could lead to family units being taken up by non related people sharing. The Manager contacted provider 2 who said they had never let a property to three unrelated people. It did not consider the situation exceptional. It considered the risk to security of tenure was high and offering a three-way tenancy was not the best use of housing. It would consider applications if unrelated people had lived together over 12 months.
33. Ms M continued to bid on properties but the applications were not considered.
34. In June 2021 Ms M identified a privately rented property for Miss X, Mr Y and Mr Z which Miss X, Mr Y and Mr Z moved in.

Complaint responses

35. In February 2021 Ms M complained to the Council about the poor advice from ASC and separately complained to Housing and provider 1.
36. Provider 1 responded in February 2021. It apologised for the delay in responding to her queries about its lettings policy. It said the policy did not clearly state that it would not offer a family home to unrelated single occupants and this would be addressed when it next reviewed the policy. It said it did not offer HMOs (houses in multiple occupation where each tenant has an individual tenancy). It set out the difficulties in offering a tenancy to three individuals which are complex to manage. It said historically it would let a property to a support provider who would let the rooms to individuals but in this case the three did not qualify for supported accommodation.
37. Ms M remained unhappy and provider 1 responded at the next stage of its complaints’ procedure. Provider 1 explained its tenancy assignment procedure included a clause that related to it not usually allowing a joint tenancy other than to spouses and partners although it would consider each request on an individual basis. It apologised that it did not make this clear when the Council enquired about it. It said the officer consulted had recalled a previous case but that this had involved two people with a familial connection which did not apply in this case. It had never offered a three-way tenancy before. It said it would make its lettings policy clearer and offered Ms M £250 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused. It was willing to house Miss X independently but would not consider a three-way tenancy.
38. In April 2021 ASC responded to Ms M’s complaint. It set out the support Miss X needed was low and so she did not meet the criteria for specialised housing provided by ASC. It said social workers were expected to direct people to Homes4Wiltshire for formal advice. It said the proposal to share with others was reasonable and no guarantees were made about Housing. It accepted the expectations of getting social housing should have been made clearer. It said it would review the induction and training for social care practitioners and would ensure it was explicit that people were directed to Housing for housing advice
39. On the same date Housing also responded to the complaint. It set out that applicants can bid for advertised homes through its choice based lettings scheme. It said it does not and had not in the cases of the three young people undertaken to re-house anyone. It set out how it had added Mr Y and Mr Z to Miss X’s housing application at their request. It said there was no evidence it had recommended a housing application be made by the three together. Social services had asked if it was possible and it advised it was. It said an officer wrote to provider 1 in 2019 about the principle of granting a joint tenancy to three individuals. Provider 1 said if the three had support plans which would make the tenancy sustainable it would offer a tenancy. Provider 1 later advised it would not re-house a group of unrelated adults who had not lived together previously.
40. It went on to say that the Council would grant tenancies to unrelated persons. However Miss X, Mr Y and Mr Z want to live in an area where the Council itself did not have any homes. It could not comment on the approach taken by partner landlords. It had spoken with the providers and three of its partner landlords would consider granting tenancies to unrelated persons if satisfied the tenancies were sustainable. It had sought to persuade provider 1 and provider 2 to change their approach but it could not oblige them to do so. It noted they had been offered a property by one provider but they had considered it unsuitable. It said it was unfortunate there was a misunderstanding between provider 1 and the Council which led to the perception it would re-house Miss X, Mr Y and Mr Z. It said if they wished to rent privately it could offer advice about affordability and grants may be available to help with some of the costs
41. Ms M remained unhappy and asked to go to the next stage of the Council’s complaints process.
42. ASC responded at stage two of the complaints’ process in July 2021. Within the response, it explained it did believe until Autumn 2020 that provider 1 would offer tenancies to the unrelated adults. It advised it would consider purchasing a home for Miss X, Mr Y and M Z given the low turnover of homes owned by partner landlords. It reiterated that it could not interfere with the policies of partner landlords but it had sought to influence them and to request greater flexibility of approach.

Findings

43. Miss X, Mr Y and Mr Z all sought to live independently from their families. Given their level of need they were unlikely to qualify for supported housing, ASC was not at fault for suggesting the possibility of the three living together. Housing considered their circumstances and admitted them to the housing register.
44. The Council was willing to offer a three-way tenancy but did not have properties in the area Miss X, Mr Y and Mr Z wanted to live However, most of the other providers in the area would not accept a three-way tenancy. In its complaint response provider 1 explained why this was the case. This is not fault as housing providers have their own housing allocations policies. However, Housing and ASC failed to clearly manage Miss X, Mr Y and Mr Z’s expectations about the availability and likelihood of successfully obtaining social housing, given the nature of the tenancy they were requesting and the limitations imposed by the housing providers’ policies. This was fault. ASC has said it will review the induction and training for social care practitioners and will ensure it was explicit that people were directed to Housing for housing advice. This is appropriate.
45. When they first joined the register the application was in band 4 and they were therefore highly unlikely to be successful in bidding for a property. The length of time on the housing register impacted upon the well being of Miss X, Mr Y and Mr Z. The social worker acted appropriately in June 2019, reviewing Miss X’s care needs which resulted in housing awarding higher priority on the housing register, recognising their welfare need and the significant challenges the young adults faced in their current accommodation.
46. When they were not considered for allocations in September 2019, Housing contacted two housing providers to query the reasons for this. Provider 1 said it would consider a three-way tenancy. In November 2020, over a year later, provider 1 advised the Council it would not accept a three-way tenancy for unrelated adults. In its complaint response provider 1 accepted it was at fault by misadvising it would accept a three-way tenancy when it would not, as set out in its tenancy assignment procedure. It said it would review its policy to make this clearer. This was appropriate.
47. From March 2020 the application was in band 2 of the housing allocation scheme. Considering just those bids made between July and December 2020, the application was not considered for 11 properties in which they were first place and five for which they were second place. In each case, the reason given was that the housing providers were unable to offer a three-way tenancy. Miss X, Mr Y and Mr Z did successfully bid on a property in late September 2020, but considered it was not suitable for their needs.
48. It was not until late 2020 that it was made clear to Ms M and the families of Mr Y and Mr Z that the likelihood of them successfully being allocated a property in their area of choice was very slim as the main housing providers would not support a three-way tenancy. Ms M had been regularly bidding on properties for over 18 months, for which they had a very limited chance of success. When this was made clear to the families they pursued and secured private rented accommodation.
49. It was at the Council’s suggestion that Miss X, Mr Y and Mr Z sought a joint tenancy with a view to sharing care and support. Although they had previously been reluctant to pursue a private rented property, due to the potential lack of stability, I consider if the restrictions imposed by the housing providers had been made clearer to them sooner, and their expectations had been better managed by the Council, it is likely they would have explored the option of private rented accommodation at least a year earlier. This would have reduced any negative impact on their wellbeing whilst they were waiting for suitable accommodation to be identified.
50. Miss X, Mr Y and Mr Z experienced significant challenges living at home which led the Council to agree to increase their priority on the housing register from band 4 to band 2 to reflect their welfare need. In light of this the Council should have been more proactive to investigate why they were not getting offers sooner and to ensure Ms M understood which housing providers may be willing to accept the application.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, Mr Y and Mr Z and pay them £500 each to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused by not clearly managing their expectations about the likely success of their bidding for properties and for the time taken to address the issue.
52. Within three months of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Review it procedures, practices and the training given to housing and social care staff around how choice-based lettings work in relation to unrelated adults who want to apply to join the housing register together.
• Ask its housing providers to ensure the Council is informed of any barriers to re-housing customers which affect the operation of the housing register and choice-based lettings scheme.
• In future, where unrelated adults who have not previously lived together choose to apply to join the housing register, to discuss and confirm in writing, the position regarding which social landlords will consider a tenancy.

Back to top

Final decision

53. I have completed my investigation. There was evidence of fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman