Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has failed to offer her a direct let property since May 2021. Mrs X says she has an urgent need to move for medical and welfare reasons. We have found no fault in the Council’s handling of direct offers. However, we find the Council was at fault for not responding to Mrs X’s complaint about the condition of her property. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives in private accommodation with a family of six and a support dog. She says the Council has failed to offer her a direct let property since May 2021.
2. Mrs X says her current accommodation is unsuitable for her medical needs, and this has significantly affected her quality of life and physical wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 Mrs X about her complaint and considered the information she provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and documents it provided.
7. Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered all comments before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law and guidance

8. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it owes them the main housing duty. A council generally carries out the duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it can make a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
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; and
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
11. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

The Council’s housing allocations policy

12. Applicants who qualify to join the housing register in the London Borough of Bromley are placed on one of six bands. These are referred to as Emergency, Band 1, Band 2, Band 3, Band 4 and Band 5. Band 1 is for those with a high medical priority. Emergency Band is for those with the most critical and immediate need to move.
13. The scheme sets out that ‘there are circumstances where a household’s needs are so complex or urgent that they require an offer of accommodation outside of the banding system. Such decisions will only be made in exceptional circumstances at the discretion of the housing needs team. We reserve the right in such instances to either make a direct offer of accommodation or to allow the household to bid for accommodation via Bromley Homeseekers, in an agreed band for a specified period of time’.
14. The scheme also allows the Council to make a direct offer of adapted accommodation where:

• A property has been secured or adapted to meet the needs of a specific household;
• An urgent move is required in order to allow a household to continue to live independently; and
• A move is required in order to free up hospital or specialist accommodation.

What happened

15. Mrs X lives in private rented accommodation with her partner, four children and a support dog. The accommodation is unsuitable for Mrs X and her family’s needs. An Occupational Therapist visited the family in September 2019 and reported that Mrs X required a three or four bedroom property, wheelchair accessible throughout or suitable to adapt with a ramp, a through lift and level access shower, kitchen suitable to adapt or partly adapt for a wheelchair user, with space for eating and ceilings suitable for a potential hoist. Mrs X required parking close to the property and a garden.
16. Mrs X has been on the Council’s register since October 2019 in Band 1. This was backdated to June 2019.
17. I am investigating this complaint from May 2021 when the Council agreed to a direct offer to reduce the waiting time for a move. At the time the Council said “as soon as something suitable for [Mrs X] and her family comes from the housing associations on our books, it will be offered to them.  Unfortunately, I am unable to give you a timescale on this, but this does mean that [Mrs X] and her family have moved to the top of the list when it comes to accommodation”
18. In March 2022 Mrs X complained to the Council. Mrs X said that she was told that she was at the “top of the Council’s list” for a direct offer and would be offered the next available three bedroom property that could be adapted for her needs. Mrs X said she had seen several three bedroom properties advertised on ‘Bromley Homeseekers’ however the Council had failed to contact her about them. Mrs X explained she was unable to shower or use her wheelchair, frequently required help to get to and from the bathroom and three of her children were still sharing a bedroom. Mrs X said her current accommodation was in disrepair, surrounded by black mould, single glazed windows that did not open and rats in the external communal area. Mrs X also said the Council had not responded to her emails.
19. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. It acknowledged that Mrs X had not been formally offered a direct offer. The Council said it had “lots of household on the direct offer list who [had] been waiting for a direct offer nomination. All have different needs” and priorities. Therefore, Mrs X would not necessarily be offered the very next available accommodation.
20. The Council explained it must advertise a certain number of different accommodation on Bromley Homeseekers. It acknowledged there was a severe lack of adapted or adaptable three of four bedroom accommodation. To address this, an Occupational Therapist checked every three or four bedroom property to see whether they could be adapted. If a property was not suitable for adaptation, it was advertised as normal.
21. In November 2022 a further housing assessment was carried out by an Occupational Therapist. The family composition had changed, which meant Mrs X required a four bedroom property with step free access, fully adapted with a walk-in shower. Mrs X was placed in Emergency Band.

Analysis

22. 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 letting scheme policy.
23. Mrs X has been waiting since May 2021 for a direct offer to be rehoused. My role is to decide whether this is due to fault by the Council. The Council raised Mrs X’s expectations when it said the family had moved to the top of the list for a direct offer. Therefore, it is understandable that Mrs X is frustrated that she has not yet been rehoused.
24. Since May 2021 there have been seven properties allocated to the Council that could have been adapted but not all of them could meet Mrs X’s needs. It was for the Council to decide whether these properties should be used for direct offers or advertised on Bromley Homeseekers. The Council advertised four properties in accordance with its allocations policy. The remaining three properties were allocated as direct offers to applicants with an urgent need to move and had been in Band E prior to Mrs X. I have found no fault by the Council.
25. The Council was aware that the property was unsuitable, and it could not be adapted. It should be acknowledged that Mrs X was given Band 1 in October 2019. This was increased to Emergency Band in November 2022 due to a change in circumstances. I would therefore expect the Council to consider whether Mrs X was ‘homeless’ under the Housing Act 1996. As part of my inquiry, I asked the Council to detail what consideration it had given to this matter. The Council responded, “There are two potential reasons for considering the family homeless; condition and unreasonableness to occupy the property on health grounds”.
26. The Council recognises the family needs a home properly adapted to meet its needs. The current property does not provide such accommodation as it does not meet the family’s health needs. The Council considers it is reasonable for the family to occupy their current property while alternative housing is sought. The Council has based its decision on the following:

• Mrs X and her family are supported by family who live in the same borough;
• it would avoid disruption to the children’s education;
• support provided to one of the children would be lost if they were to move outside the borough; and
• it would be difficult to find temporary accommodation that would accept a support dog.

27. I am satisfied the Council has explored whether Mrs X and her family should be considered as ‘homeless’ or whether it is reasonable for them to continue to live in their current accommodation based on health grounds. I have found no fault by the Council here.
28. Mrs X raised concerns about disrepair in her complaint. The Council did not address her concerns in its response. This was fault. The Council said that it had previously advised Mrs X that she should raise the issues with her landlord or the environmental health team. Regardless, the Council should have responded to all issues raised by Mrs X in her complaint and its failure to do so has caused her frustration. It should be said that Mrs X is in the highest band and a homeless application would not have changed this.
29. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to respond to requests for information. Mrs X says her support worker contacted the Council in September 2022 but did not receive a response. I have reviewed the case records from May 2021 and cannot find any evidence to support Mrs X’s view. Furthermore, if the Council did not respond to the email in September 2022, I cannot say this alone was evidence of poor practice as the records show frequent communication with Mrs X and her MP in September and October 2021. I have found no fault by the Council here.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. To address the injustice caused by the fault identified in paragraph 28, within one month of the date of my final decision the Council will apologise to Mrs X.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have found fault in the way the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. This caused an injustice to Mrs X. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman