Summary: Ms D complained the Council delayed deciding her housing needs register application, mishandled her homelessness application and failed to communicate with her during 2022. The Ombudsman has found the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. Ms D complained the Council delayed deciding her housing needs register application, mishandled her homelessness application and failed to communicate with her during 2022.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

2. Ms D also refers to a possible GDPR breach. I did not investigate this because she can pursue this matter with the Information Commissioner’s Office. She has also recently advised me about her Housing Review outcome in 2023. I did not investigate that because it is a new complaint which the Council needs to investigate first.
3. My investigation considered what took place in 2022 through to the beginning of February 2023.

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 have spoken to Ms D and considered the information she provided. I asked the Council questions and examined its response. I have considered the appropriate legislation.
7. Ms X and the organisation 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

Relevant legislation

Homelessness

8. 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.
9. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:
• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)
10. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

Duty to provide advisory services

11. Councils must provide to anyone in their district information and advice free of charge on:

• preventing homelessness;
• securing accommodation when homeless;
• the rights of people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the duties of the authority;
• any help that is available from the authority or anyone else, for people in the council’s district who are homeless or may become homeless (whether or not they are threatened with homelessness); and
• how to access that help.

The prevention duty

12. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants to secure that accommodation so it 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)

Housing allocations

The published scheme

13. 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))

Reasonable preference

14. 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 Housing Allocations Scheme

15. The Councils housing allocation scheme (the Scheme) states in recognition of the level of housing need in the district and the shortage of accommodation, owner occupiers who already own a residential property in the UK or abroad, or part own a property under the Shared ownership scheme; will not normally qualify for entry on to the housing register. This includes applicants who own a property but have chosen to rent it out. Applicants who own a residential caravan, mobile home or houseboat are also considered owner occupiers.
16. In exceptional circumstances and at the council’s discretion, homeowners may be granted access if:
• The applicant has a serious medical condition and is no longer able to remain in the property as they have a need for adapted or specialized housing and they do not have sufficient funds or access to a grant to make it suitable, and/or are unable to afford suitable alternative accommodation in the private rented sector.
17. In such cases recommendations will be required from Occupational Therapists and Social Services as to need, and reasons why the current home cannot be adapted/the applicant cannot access a grant.
18. The Scheme sets out its customer service standards. The Council aims to complete an initial assessment of application for housing within 33 working days and a further assessment, for example in medical cases, within 33 working days. The Scheme aims to reply to letter and email enquiries within ten working days and return telephone calls within one working day.
19. In response to our enquiries, the Council said the usual actions open to the Council to assist someone facing homelessness are:
• Retain current accommodation
• Assisting with rent arrears or shortfall in rent
• Complete affordability checks to explain to customers what they can afford
• If the property is not suitable for medical needs, signpost to disabled support grant funding to adapt to the home.

What happened

20. On 18 April 2022 Ms D applied to the Council’s housing needs register. She lived in a shared ownership property with her children including a disabled child. She detailed her oldest child’s (S) medical condition and disability which was made worse by his accommodation. She said she had medical evidence to support her case. On 27 April Ms D asked the Council what supporting documents she should send. The Council replied that it did not want any documents at that stage. It would ask for any evidence once it has processed the application further.
21. On 22 June Ms D completed a homeless application to the Council. On 27 June the Council’s homeless team emailed Ms D asking her to contact them by 4 July or it would close the application. On 4 July the Council closed the case because it had not heard from Ms D.
22. On 24 July Ms D emailed the Council for an update on her housing needs register application. She received a standard response about processing times.
23. On 15 August Ms D put in a new, second, homeless application to the Council. She sent the Council evidence from her mortgage provider two days later. She also asked how she could add information about her child’s medical condition. That same day the Council asked Ms D for more evidence about her impending homelessness. She sent more information on 24 August. The Council spoke with Ms D on 31 August and accepted a Prevention Duty for her homeless application. It completed a personalised housing plan. It agreed to look into whether Ms D could remain in her home and, if not, to provide advice and support finding secure accommodation.
24. On 8 September Ms D emailed the Council for an update on her case. The Council said it did not send a reply because it had previously sent Ms D an email about processing times.
25. On 4 October Ms D made a formal complaint to the Council. She was concerned she would become homeless and could not find suitable alternative accommodation. On 10 October Ms D asked her allocated housing officer to call her.
26. On 11 October the Council made a decision on Ms D’s housing needs register application. It said she had no housing need because she was a homeowner. A few hours later the Council sent an updated letter which set out the same decision but worded differently, it explained that while Ms D had a housing need she was ineligible to join the housing register because she owned a property. Because she was ineligible there was no need to ask for further information from her including medical information. The next day Ms D told the Council it was wrong. She needed to show medical evidence because the allocations policy stated homeowners with a medical need are eligible to join the housing register. She then asked for a formal review of the decision.
27. On 13 October Ms D complained to the Council about the time taken to decide her housing needs register application and overall poor communications. On 18 October the Council responded. It accepted there had been a lack of contact with Ms D. It had agreed on 31 August to advise and assist her. It accepted there had been no contact on the homeless case and apologised. The allocated officer had left the Council and a new officer would contact Ms D within seven days. Ms D told the Council on 19 October she had heard from her new allocated officer but they were unfamiliar with her case. She sent a stage two request. The next day Ms D asked her allocated officer how they would help her. The officer emailed the personalised housing plan to Ms D. Ms D also completed a vulnerability and suitability assessment.
28. On 15 November the Council issued its stage two response to Ms D. It accepted it had failed to tell Ms D her original allocated officer had left, but as it allocated a new officer who had contacted her the following day, it did not uphold this element of her complaint. The Council upheld Ms D’s complaint about information not being stored correctly on its system and reassured her there was no GDPR breach. It did not uphold Ms D’s complaint about the length of time taken to respond to her complaint.
29. On 15 November the allocated officer asked Ms D to send extra information within seven days.
30. On 7 December Ms D asked the Council about the result of her formal review. On 16 December the Council sent its initial review findings. It said it needed to clarify some points with the Housing Team, before reaching a full decision. The same day, Ms D disputed the review result and sent in extra evidence.
31. On 19 December the Council sent a further review decision to Ms D. It explained that homeless and housing needs register applications were separate processes. It accepted it was taking longer than usual to process housing need register applications, this was because of a high demand on the system. It had put Ms D’s case to the Head of Housing and found that it needed an Occupational Therapist (OT) housing needs assessment before it could decide if Ms D is an “exceptional case”. The medical evidence provided by Ms D did not show whether her child needed a new home to meet their needs (adaptations etc). It would review any extra evidence alongside the OT report.
32. On 20 December the Council told Ms D she had a new allocated officer. On 30 December Ms D told the Council that no-one had contacted her. On 2 January the Council said the officer would contact her. On 9 January the officer emailed Ms D. The Council also told Ms D the same day that it needed an OT housing needs assessment. Ms D gave further information to the Council in January. She also advised the Council the County Council were not helping her with an OT report and she would have to get a private one. The Council received the OT report at the end of January.
33. On 1 February the Council reached its final review decision. It accepted Ms D was eligible to join the housing needs register as an exceptional case. It placed her in Band D with a priority date of 18 April 2022. Ms D said she did not agree and considered she should be in Band A. The Council explained it placed her in Band D because of the open homeless application and medium medical need needing a three-bedroom property. Ms D withdrew her homeless application as she considered this was affecting her banding on the Housing Needs Register. Ms D’s banding changed to Band C.
34. The Council has allocated Ms D a new housing officer. Ms D remains in Band C, medium welfare or medical need due to S’s OT report.

Was there fault by the Council?

35. The Council delayed deciding Ms D’s housing needs register application. Its target is 33 working days, which means it should have decided by 3 June. Instead Ms D received a decision on 11 October after formally complaining to the Council about delay and poor handling if her case. This is fault.
36. The decision sent by the Council on 11 October 2022 failed to consider whether Ms D’s application had “exceptional circumstances”. It said she was ineligible to join the housing needs register because she was a homeowner. However, the policy says that in exceptional circumstances, at the Council’s discretion, it can allow a homeowner onto the housing needs register if the applicant has a serious medical condition and meets the requirements of the policy. I have seen no evidence the Council considered whether it should exercise discretion when initially assessing the application. The guidance for staff does not refer to the option of exercising discretion for homeowners and so some staff would be unlikely to know this was an option. While the decision to allow a homeowner on to the housing needs register is at the Council’s discretion it cannot fail to even consider if this applies to an application. This is fault.
37. The Council later told Ms D the application was on her behalf and not her disabled child, so the first decision was correct. That is wrong. The application was for Ms D and her children, children cannot make an application in their own name. Ms D made it clear from the outset she wanted the Council to consider medical issues as a reason for her application alongside other reasons she had to leave her home. The Council failed to do so until Ms D asked a Review. The Council should have considered whether Ms D’s application was an exceptional case before it made its decision in October 2022. It should have asked for extra medical evidence and an OT report. Had it done so, and worked within its 33 working day target, Ms D would have been able to provide that information within six weeks. That means the Council, had it acted without fault, would have been able to reach a fully informed decision by the end of July and placed Ms D onto the housing needs register and able to bid for a home from that time. Instead, Ms D had to ask for a Review and wait until 1 February 2023 for a decision that took account of her circumstances and was in line with the Council’s policy.
38. The Council decided it had a duty to assist Ms D under the prevention duty on 31 August 2022. It completed a personalised housing plan but then took no further action. The Council should have worked with Ms D to identify practical and reasonable steps to help Ms D secure suitable accommodation as detailed above, it did not. This is fault.
39. The Council’s communications with Ms D were poor. It has admitted the lack of contact with the housing team generally and delay in responding to Ms D’s appeal and complaint. The Scheme states the Council will respond to telephone calls within one working day, there are several examples where the Council did not return Ms D’s calls. On one occasion, Ms D resorted to attending the office in person to speak to someone from the homeless team. The Council is at fault.

Did the fault cause an injustice?

40. Ms D had to wait six months longer than necessary for a full decision that took account of Council policy on her housing needs register application. She was put to unnecessary time and trouble pursuing her case. This also caused Ms D distress.
41. I have considered whether Ms D lost an opportunity to successfully bid for a new home during the six month delay. The Council provided a list of properties stating the priority band and date of the successful bidders for each property. The list shows the successful bidders had a higher priority band or earlier date than Ms D. She has therefore not missed a property because of the Council’s fault.
42. The Council’s failure to communicate with Ms D caused her extra distress and anxiety.

Back to top

Agreed action

43. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council agreed to:
• Apologise to Ms D for the delay in making a full decision on her housing application in line with policy and personal housing needs and failing to respond to correspondence.
• Pay Ms D £300 for the avoidable distress caused by the Council’s delay in making a full decision about her housing need.
• Clarify guidance and provide training to staff to prevent recurrence.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have completed my investigation. The Ombudsman has found the Council at fault, causing injustice to Ms D and her family.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman