Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness and housing applications. We found the Council to be at fault because it took too long to carry out an initial assessment and offered her properties that were subsequently withdrawn. The Council has already apologised and made a payment to Miss X. It has also taken action to improve its service. We are satisfied this has remedied the injustice caused by the Council’s fault and no further recommendations are necessary.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the how the Council responded to her homelessness and housing applications. In particular, she complains about the following matters:
1. Being incorrectly shortlisted for properties that she was not entitled bid on.
2. Delay in processing her homelessness application and accept she was owed the main homelessness duty.
3. Poor communication and conduct of Council officers.
4. Failure to provide suitable accommodation prior to her giving birth.
2. At the time of making her complaint, Miss X was pregnant. She says the Council’s failure to provide suitable accommodation prior to the birth of her baby caused considerable distress, uncertainty and frustration. As a result, she spent the latter stages of her pregnancy living in overcrowded accommodation, causing additional distress.

Back to top

What I have not investigated

3. Since making her complaint to the Ombudsman, Miss X gave birth her first child. She was provided with accommodation by the Council. Miss X says this is unsuitable. I have not investigated this matter because it has not yet been considered by the Council under its complaints procedure. Her complaint to the Ombudsman is therefore premature.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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 spoke to Miss X and reviewed the information she provided.
7. I made enquiries with the Council, considered its response and reviewed the relevant law.
8. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I consider any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and policy

Homelessness

9. 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.
10. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
11. The council must then try to agree a personalised housing plan (PHP) with the applicant, setting out what both parties will do to try to resolve the housing problem. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A)
12. The relief duty applies when the council is satisfied that an applicant is homeless (rather than just threatened with homelessness) and eligible for assistance. The council has a duty to take reasonable steps to help the applicant secure accommodation that will be available for at least six months. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B and Homelessness Code of Guidance 13.2)
13. The relief duty will end when 56 days has passed and the council is satisfied that the applicant has a priority need and is homeless unintentionally. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B(4))
14. If homelessness is not successfully relieved, a housing authority will owe the main housing duty to applicants who are eligible, have a priority need for accommodation and are not homeless intentionally. Under the main housing duty, councils must ensure that suitable accommodation is available for the applicant and their household until the duty is brought to an end, usually through the offer of a settled home. (Housing Act 1996, section 193(2))

Housing allocations

15. 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))
16. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
17. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

The Council’s allocations policy

18. The Council is a partner in a local choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which are advertised.
19. The Council’s housing allocation scheme has four bands of priority, from A to D. The band relevant to this complaint is “Band C-”, described as “applicants with lower priority”.

What happened

20. I have set out below a summary of the key events. But it is not meant to show everything which happened.
21. Miss X lived with her mother and three other family members in a small two bedroomed flat. In November 2021, she approached the Council requesting help with her housing situation. Her mother had asked her to leave due to overcrowding. An initial appointment was scheduled for December 2021, but this did not take place.
22. The Council carried out an assessment in February 2022. The Council accepted she was owed the Homelessness Prevention Duty. As part of her Personal Housing Plan, she was accepted onto the Council’s housing register with “Band C-“ priority.
23. In March 2021, Miss X advised the Council she was pregnant. The following month, she was offered a property following a successful bid. However, this offer was withdrawn shortly afterwards because she had insufficient priority. She was advised her only realistic chance of finding somewhere to live was in the private rented sector. As an alternative, it was suggested Miss X could remain with her partner’s family until the birth of her baby, after which time she would be entitled to higher banding priority and additional benefits.
24. Miss X complained to the Council about this mistake, and the Council’s general failure to properly assist her find suitable housing. In its response, the Council acknowledged it was at fault for making an offer that was later withdrawn. It explained this was caused by its allocation system not being updated. Under its allocation scheme, offers of social housing would not be made to applicants with “Band C-“ priority. The Council apologised and offered Miss X £750 to recognise her distress and inconvenience. She was also invited to request a review of her priority banding.
25. Miss X also complained about the way she had been spoken to by her housing officer, Officer D. Miss says Officer D was rude and unhelpful. In response, the explained Officer D had a different recollection of their conversation but had reminded her of the need to prioritise customer care.
26. Miss X continued to discuss her situation with the Council with a different housing officer. The option of emergency hostel accommodation was suggested. Miss X said this was not a suitable proposal because it was not an improvement to her current situation. Miss X was also offered financial support with rent of she found a property on the private rented sector.
27. Miss X complained again to the Council. The Council increased its financial award to £900. Dissatisfied with this outcome, and the fact she had not been offered suitable accommodation, despite the birth of her first child being imminent, Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
28. In response to our enquires the Council made the following points:

• It had already acknowledged it was at fault for making an offer of a property that was later withdrawn and made financial compensation.
• It accepted it too long to first assess Miss X. This was caused by officer error. The Council had since taken action to review its practices to ensure cases were subject to regular reviews to avoid cases remaining inactive.
• The Relief/Main Homelessness Duty was not owed because Miss X and her extended family agreed she should remain at home until her child was born. This avoided the possibility of being offered emergency accommodation in a hostel.
• It did not accept that Miss X’s complaints about individual officers had not been responded to.

Analysis

29. I have considered Miss X’s separate areas of complaint below.

Miss X was incorrectly shortlisted for properties that she was not entitled to

30. The Council has already accepted it was at fault for making Miss X an offer that she was not entitled to because of her priority banding. Miss X says she was subsequently invited to view two more property that were then withdrawn for the same reason. Although not referred to in the Council’s response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the case records I have seen confirm Miss X’s account.
31. Miss X was understandably frustrated and disappointed by having her expectations raised three times. To the Council’s credit, it acknowledged the impact on her by apologising and making a payment of £900 when it upheld her complaint about the first incident.
32. In September 2021, the records show a senior officer became aware of two further incorrect offers and used her discretion to allow the most recent offer of a one bedroomed flat to be honoured. The Council also accepted the relief duty was owed as she was soon to give birth.
33. Miss X decided not to accept this offer because it was unsuitable.
34. There was fault by the Council. Miss X should not have had her expectations raised as there were. It is understandable why she was so frustrated and distressed. However, the Council has already remedied the injustice to Miss X by apologising, making a payment and honouring the most recent offer. The Ombudsman could not add anything further to this outcome.

Delay in processing Miss X’s applications and acceptance that she was owed the main homelessness duty

35. The Council has accepted Miss X’s homelessness application took too long to progress initially. It has apologised and taken action to improve its service. Any further investigation by the Ombudsman could not achieve anything more for Miss X. This is because there is no evidence to suggest Miss X would have been provided with accommodation sooner than she was so the injustice to her was limited. Similarly, due to her priority banding, I am satisfied she would not have been able to make a successful bid, even if she had been accepted onto the housing register when she should have been.
36. Miss X says she should have been assigned the main homelessness duty when she became pregnant, and her mother has asked her to leave. The records show the Council discussed options with her, and Miss X agreed to pause her homelessness application while she was pregnant and she was able to stay with her partner’s family as an interim measure. This avoided the possibility of being provided with emergency accommodation. Miss X made it clear this was not a viable option for her. There is no evidence to suggest Miss X was pressurised into making this decision. Whilst not the solution Miss X was hoping for, there was no fault by the Council by taking this pragmatic approach and providing the advice it did.
37. Overall, I am satisfied there was no fault by the Council in its handling of her homelessness application.

Poor communication and conduct of council officers

38. Miss X says she was frustrated and distressed by several housing officers failing to respond to her enquiries promptly and unhelpful attitude towards her housing situation. She also says the Council did not respond to her complaints about these officers. This is disputed by the Council.
39. The case records I have seen confirm the Council’s position. It responded in detail to Miss X's formal complaint about Officer D. The Ombudsman can add nothing further to this. I have considered the records and can find no evidence that officers were rude and unhelpful. The Ombudsman makes decisions on the balance of probabilities. In this area of complaint the issues relate to one person’s word against another. There are no independent witness or recordings of the telephone calls. As I am unable to prefer one account over another, I am unable to make a finding on this part of the complaint.
40. Nor did I find evidence of excessive delay in responding to Miss X’s queries. I appreciate some responses were not as prompt as Miss X would have liked> However, the delay was not significant enough for me to make a finding of fault..

Failure to offer suitable accommodation during Miss X’s pregnancy

41. Miss X says she should have been rehoused sooner than she was. Apart from the mistakes already acknowledged by the Council, I have not found fault with how the Council managed her housing situation. As Miss X had not yet given birth, she was assigned Band C-. While I understand Miss X feels she should have been given higher priority, this decision was made in line with the Council’s allocations policy.
42. She was also offered the opportunity to request a review of this decision.
43. I understand the difficulties Miss X experienced living in overcrowded accommodation and her desire to move to permanent, suitable accommodation prior to the birth of her child. But based on the evidence I have seen, my view is the Council properly assessed her housing and homelessness applications in accordance with its allocations scheme and homelessness legislation. The delay in finding somewhere to live was as a result of the short supply of housing, rather than due to Council fault.

Conclusion

44. Overall, while there was some fault by the Council, I am satisfied the Council acknowledged its mistakes, apologised and acted to both remedy the personal injustice to Miss X and improve its service. The Council’s payment to Miss X more than what the Ombudsman would usually recommend to remedy the fault that occurred in this case. I am also satisfied with the service improvements already implemented by the Council. For this reason, I have not made further recommendations to the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

45. The Council was at fault and had already provided a suitable remedy. The Ombudsman had not made further recommendations to the Council as there is no outstanding injustice that requires a remedy, On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman