Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council had failed to offer her and her family suitable accommodation to alleviate their severe overcrowding. We found the Council delayed in processing her application, in providing her with access to its housing portal and in notifying her of the medical assessment outcome. While this has caused Mrs B frustration and time and trouble, she has not missed out on any offers of accommodation. The Council has agreed to pay her £250 and backdated her banding to an earlier point.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained that the London Borough of Barnet (the Council) failed to find the family suitable accommodation since 2019, despite their band one priority for statutory overcrowding. This has caused and is continuing to cause, severe hardship and distress to the whole family living in such cramped conditions. Mrs B also complained that the Council has failed to properly consider her request for a separate bedroom for her nephew who has a mental health condition. This has caused additional stress and worry.

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. 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

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mrs B and the Council 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

Homelessness

5. 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)
6. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
7. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
8. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

Housing 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. 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))

The Council’s allocations scheme

11. The Council’ policy allocates priority in four bands. Band 1 is the highest and is awarded in cases where applicants have a very urgent need to move.
12. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. He 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.

What happened

13. Mrs B lives in a two-bedroom housing association property with her husband and eight children, one of whom she is looking after under a special guardianship order. The special guardianship support plan from June 2019 said that the Council should work to provide larger more suitable accommodation for the family, close to the children’s schools and support network.
14. The Council offered Mrs B appointments to discuss her housing situation in October 2019, and January 2020 but she did not attend. Following a telephone call in March 2020 the Council took details of Mrs B’s circumstances, opened a homeless application, and made a further appointment for April 2020 for a housing needs assessment.
15. At this appointment the Council noted that the family was statutorily overcrowded (too many people by law living in a property with insufficient bed spaces) and needed a four-bedroom house. It advised her that the Council was likely to offer her accommodation in the private rented sector. Mrs B said she did not want this. The Council asked Mrs B to provide documents to support her application but sent the link to an incorrect email address, so she did not receive it. The Council noted the email address was wrong in May 2020 but did not correct it.
16. In July 2020 the Council accepted the prevention duty with a view to finding a solution in the private sector. It produced a personal housing plan.
17. In August 2020 Mrs B had another baby and contacted the Council. It confirmed she was likely to be placed in Band 2 on the housing register for a five-bedroom house. The Council took no further action until December 2020 when Mrs B rang up to find out what was happening with her application. The Council again advised her to look for accommodation in the private sector, but Mrs B declined.
18. The Council asked Mrs B to provide financial, medical and personal documents to complete the application process. Mrs B also requested a medical assessment for one of her children as she believed he needed a room of his own, which would mean the family needed a six-bedroom property.
19. In January 2021 the Council apologised to Mrs B for the delay in assessing her application. It advised her that social housing stock was very low, and most people resolved their housing needs with accommodation in the private sector. Mrs B said she did not want this due to insecurity. The Council also advised her that she could consider temporary accommodation to alleviate the overcrowding, but the Council could not guarantee the location, although it would be within a reasonable distance of work and schools. In terms of banding, it said it would backdate her application appropriately and she had not missed out on accommodation because of the lack of larger properties.
20. In February 2021 the Council accepted the relief duty towards her and requested further documents to support her claim. Mrs B became frustrated and said she had already provided them. The Council explained more recent information was needed as she provided the original information a long time ago. The Council again offered her temporary accommodation, but she declined as she did not wish to uproot the children. The Council visited their property and verified their living conditions.
21. On 18 February 2021 the Council declined to allocate another bedroom on medical grounds, saying the main issue was overcrowding.
22. In March 2021 Mrs B complained about the time the process was taking. The Council apologised for the delay and said her application would be backdated to August 2020 as the delay was due to the Council. The Council said it did not have any five bedroom houses in its housing stock. The Council again discussed a private rented property. It explained that the law allowed the Council to meet the family’s housing needs with a privately rented property and that it would only offer a property which was affordable based on the family’s circumstances.
23. Later that month the Council said that the waiting time for a four bedroom property was about three years. It discussed the option of splitting the household and providing two properties. Mrs B said that would work if her two older children could go into a two bedroom property. The Council also discussed temporary accommodation again and Mrs B explained that she needed to maintain stability for her children.
24. The Council followed up the two homes option by discussing with the legal team whether a 16 or 17 year old could take on a tenancy.
25. In April 2021 the Council accepted a full housing duty towards the family and placed Mrs B’s application in Band 1 due to the severe overcrowding. But the Council once again requested up-to date information about their bank accounts and Mrs B was unhappy she had to do this again.
26. In April 2021 the Council offered a viewing of a five bedroom privately rented property. Mrs B declined as it was not social housing. The Council also offered the family a three bedroom house close to their existing flat and two large two bedroom properties opposite each other, with a view to splitting the family.
27. Mrs B viewed the three bedroom house but was unhappy with the size of the bedrooms and the garden. the Council said there was a public green space nearby and the property had a large extra living room. It said the property would be a big improvement for the family. It suggested Mrs B would need to compromise as she does not wish to look for a five bedroom property in the private sector and the Council did not have any four bedroom properties in her preferred area. Mrs B said the two homes option was too expensive. The Council said it was the only available option to resolve her situation in the social housing sector and it was within the local housing allowance rates.
28. In June 2021 the Council informed Mrs B of the outcome of the medical assessment in February 2021 and confirmed the application remained in Band 1 for five bedroom accommodation. Mrs B provided more information about the medical needs of one of the children and the Council reviewed the assessment. In July 2021 it upheld its previous decision that five bedroom accommodation was appropriate.
29. In December 2021 Mrs B provided another medical letter regarding the child and the Council reviewed the medical assessment again. In February 2022 it confirmed its previous decisions and did not make any recommendations on medical grounds.

Formal complaint

30. Mrs B made a complaint in March 2022. The Council responded at stage one of its complaints procedure. It apologised for the delay in dealing with her application but said it had not affected the outcome as she would not have been rehoused any quicker.
31. Mrs B escalated her complaint to stage two and the Council responded on 6 April 2022. It partially upheld the complaint that there had been delay informing her of the outcome of the medical assessments but did not uphold the complaint that the assessments were flawed. It did not uphold the complaint that the Council had not offered them large accommodation in accordance with the special guardianship order. It said Mrs B had rejected the option of privately rented accommodation which was likely to provide the quickest and most appropriate solution. She had also refused temporary accommodation and the option of splitting the household. It said these offers were still available if Mrs B wished to pursue them.
32. The Council upheld her complaint that she had been unable to upload documents to the Council’s portal due to the Council’s uncorrected error with her email address. The Council confirmed it had now corrected this and apologised for the delays and difficulties she had faced.
33. The Council also agreed that it should have accepted the relief duty as soon as the Council decided her current property was unsuitable and accepted there had been delays in getting all the required documents to confirm the main housing duty (in April 2021). However, it concluded that despite the delays, the Council had made reasonable efforts to find Mrs B more suitable accommodation, most recently offering a four bedroom house with an extra living room. It also said that temporary accommodation was still an available option to relieve the overcrowding. It said in order to get information on properties she may have missed out on she would need to make a freedom of information request.
34. Mrs B then complained to us.
35. In response to my enquiries the Council said that in addition to the properties offered to Mrs B, the following five bedroom properties were available but not offered to her:
• a private sector property became available in March 2021 but was too far away from the children’s schools.
• in June 2021 a third floor private rented flat with no lift was not offered to Mrs B due to her previously declining private rented properties.
• in October 2021 a council property was offered to an applicant who had been in Band 1 for longer than Mrs B.
• in March 2022 a private rented property was let privately by the landlord.
• In August 2022 a housing association property was offered to an applicant in a different band because it was only suitable for a 7 person household.

Analysis

36. Mrs B did not attend a housing appointment until April 2020. I have not found fault with the Council’s actions up to this point.

Delay in processing Mrs B’s application

37. The Council sent the link to enable Mrs B to access the housing portal to an incorrect email address in in April 2020. Even though the Council noted in May 2020 that the email address was wrong it did not correct the matter until April 2022. This was fault which caused Mrs B significant inconvenience and frustration as she could not provide her documents directly to the housing portal.
38. The Council then took three months to accept the prevention duty and send a personal housing plan in July 2020 when it should have accepted the relief duty. This was fault.
39. It did not accept the relied duty or make any progress with its enquiries until January 2021. This was fault which caused Mrs B frustration and time and trouble in chasing the Council for a response and supplying documents on multiple occasions.
40. It also meant the Council did not place Mrs B’s application in Band 1 until April 2021. Without the delays it is reasonable to assume this could have been achieved by the end of July 2020.

Medical assessments

41. The Council has considered a request for an extra bedroom for one of the children on three occasions and concluded each time that the main problem affecting the child is severe over-crowding. I have not identified any fault in the way that decision was made. On each occasion the Council has considered the relevant circumstances including new medical information provided by Mrs B, but it has not changed its view. The Council was at fault for not notifying Mrs B of the outcome of the first medical assessment concluded in February 2021 until June 2021. This caused Mrs B some frustration.

Housing outcome

42. Despite the delays in processing Mrs B’s application, I do not consider she has missed out on any suitable offers of accommodation. The Council from (March 2021) made considerable efforts to resolve the family’s situation by offering temporary accommodation, five-bedroom accommodation in the private sector and two council properties close together.
43. While I understand why Mrs B has not accepted any of these offers, I have not found fault in the Council’s attempts to resolve her situation. The law allows the Council to discharge its housing duty by finding accommodation in the private sector and I cannot find fault with its repeated attempts to resolve the overcrowding via that route, particularly as the Council does not have any five bedroom properties in its own stock, or even any four bedroom properties in Mrs B’s preferred area.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mrs B by the delays in dealing with her homeless application, I recommended the Council, within one month of the date of my final decision:
• explains why it did not backdate the band one priority to April 2020 and
• pays Mrs B £250.
45. In response to my draft decision the Council has backdated Mrs B’s application in Band 1 to 11 May 2020, 33 days after the assessment date and in accordance with its allocations policy and agreed to pay Mrs B £250.
46. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Mrs B and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman