Summary: A man complained the Council had not given him enough help in finding his own accommodation despite his need for independent housing. However we do not have reason to start an investigation of this matter. This is because the Council has now offered to carry out a complete review of the man’s housing case.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr B provided with his complaint and his comments in response to a draft of this decision. In addition I took account of documents the Council provided concerning Mr B’s previous housing applications and complaints.

Back to top

My assessment

4. In 2019 Mr B applied to join the Council’s housing register to obtain social housing. This was on the basis that he needed to move from his parents’ home to his own self-contained accommodation for reasons related to his mental health.
5. Around the same time the Council also accepted Mr B was threatened with homelessness and that, as a result, it owed him the ‘prevention duty’ under the law on homelessness. This meant it had to take reasonable steps to avoid Mr B becoming homeless. It also meant that Mr B was accepted onto the housing register with Band D priority under the Council’s Housing Allocation Policy as Band D is awarded to applicants who are owed a homelessness prevention duty by the Council.
6. The Council assessed the supporting medical evidence which Mr B provided. But it decided there was no indication Mr B was ‘vulnerable’ under homelessness law and, as a result, he would not be eligible for emergency accommodation if he became homeless. The Council also concluded the evidence did not show that shared accommodation would be unsuitable for Mr B.
7. In addition, the Council advised Mr B about trying to find private rented housing. This included advice that, under government rules, benefits for most renters under 35 are restricted to the cost of renting shared accommodation. Therefore the Council said it could only help Mr B find private housing with shared facilities.
8. The Council’s most recent housing assessments in Mr B’s case were in early 2021 when it decided it still owed him a prevention duty due to an ongoing threat of homelessness. However the Council decided Mr B no longer qualified for its housing register. In August 2021 the Council also decided its prevention duty had ended as Mr B had been able to continue living with his parents.
9. Mr B also complained to the Council, and it sent a final complaint response in May 2021. The Council did not uphold Mr B’s complaint but said it would continue to try and prevent him becoming homeless. The Council also said it would consider an appeal about its decision to close Mr B’s housing register application.
10. In response to my enquiries about Mr B’s complaint, the Council said it stood by the decisions it had made in his case. However it also acknowledged there had been errors on its part in dealing with his applications.
11. In particular, the Council said it had no record of sending Mr B a letter last year to inform him its prevention duty had ended. Therefore Mr B had no opportunity to use his statutory review and potential court appeal rights if he had wanted to challenge that decision.
12. Second, the Council said it could find no evidence it had completed its consideration of Mr B’s appeal about its assessment of his housing register application.
13. From the information provided, I consider there are also signs of other fault by the Council in Mr B’s case.
14. In particular, the Council appears to have disqualified Mr B from the housing register in 2021 despite continuing to owe him a prevention duty at the time. Furthermore, if the Council did not properly notify Mr B it had ended its prevention duty in August 2021, that duty would have continued to the present day and, accordingly, he would also have continued to qualify for the housing register.
15. In addition, from the medical assessments I have seen in Mr B’s case, I am not clear that the Council has ever assessed if he is entitled to medical priority 2, which gives Band C priority under its Allocation Policy. Medical priority 2 is awarded where an applicant specifically requires social housing to address a medical condition, including a significant mental health issue, and that housing will demonstrably contribute to alleviating the impact of the condition.
16. However, in its response to my enquiries the Council also asked for an opportunity to put right its failings in Mr B’s case. First, it said it would send an end of prevention duty letter to Mr B regarding its decision last August which will give him a proper right of review if he disagrees with the decision.
17. In addition, the Council has proposed carrying out a complete review of his case and current circumstances, both in relation to any threat of homelessness and to the housing register. The Council also said if it finds Mr B should have been entitled to join the housing register it will backdate his priority.
18. I consider that the Council’s proposal is a suitable remedy for Mr B’s complaint at this stage and, therefore, we now do not have reason to start an investigation in his case.
19. In particular, it appears to me reasonable for the Council to have a chance to correct any mistakes it has made. Also, the Council says it has had no contact from Mr B for almost a year. Therefore I consider it is appropriate for the Council to look again at his case now so it can take account of any changes in his circumstances and needs.

20. In addition, it is ultimately for the Council to decide about Mr B’s qualification and priority on the housing register and about what duty it owes him under the law on homelessness. We have no powers to make those decisions. So as it stands, I consider the Council is currently in the best position to resolve issues for Mr B. As we always encourage the settlement of complaints at a local level wherever possible, I have concluded that we should not investigate matters in Mr B’s case.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We do not have reason to investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has not given him enough help in finding his own self-contained accommodation despite his health needs. This is because the Council has now proposed to take satisfactory action to address Mr B’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman