Summary: There was fault by the Council when considering a homeless application and when assessing an application for medical priority. The Council has taken a new homeless application. This, as well as apologising and paying towards the complainant’s uncertainty remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complains the Council did not make contact before closing a homeless application and did not make a decision on whether the main housing duty was owed.
2. Mr X also complains the Council has not taken all the information into account when assessing medical information for a housing register application. Mr X says this has meant he has been living at friends and families houses, which are not suitable for his medical needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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

5. I read the papers put in by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him.
6. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
7. Mr 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

Homeless application

Key facts

8. Mr X contacted the Council on 11 November 2021 to say he was homeless, as he had been asked to leave by his partner and was staying with family. He gave his fathers telephone number as a contact number. Mr X told the Council he had an injury that limited his mobility and mental health issues.
9. The Council said a caseworker would contact Mr X and that he needed to provide documents and identification to the Council.
10. The Council has said ‘between 15 November 2021 and 10 January 2022 the caseworker tried 5 times to contact Mr X, leaving 3 voicemails, and there was no response. The Council closed the case and reopened it on 8 February 2022 when Mr X made contact again’.
11. The Council assessed Mr X on 21 February 2022. The form noted that Mr X had physical and mental health issues.
12. The Council sent Mr X a Personal Housing Plan (PHP) on 26 April 2022 and accepted the relief housing duty. This plan contained incorrect dates and asked Mr X to provide documents, which he did not send. The Council said that as Mr X did not send in the required documents (Identification, medical information, proof of homelessness) no decision was made on whether the Council owed him the main housing duty. The Council said ‘an assessment was carried out but the caseworker was waiting for documentation from Mr X to decide on whether he was in priority need (and so should be offered interim accommodation), these were not received. The case was discussed with a previous Senior Officer who has now left the Council so we cannot find any further notes on why a decision was not made on whether he was in priority need at the time’.
13. On 26 September 2022 the Council wrote to Mr X, ending its duty as it could not contact Mr X and he had not supplied the information it asked for. The Council kept this letter on file as they had no address for Mr X and told him he had a right to a review of the decision.

The law and guidance

14. 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 tell 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)
15. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person (the relief duty). When a council decides this duty has ended, it must tell the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
16. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188) An example of an applicant in priority need is someone who is vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age.
17. 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 (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). 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, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
18. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:
• their eligibility for assistance
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end
• giving notice in cases of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate.

My analysis

19. Mr X complains the Council wrongly closed his homeless application in February 2022. I find no fault on this point, the Council had tried to contact him and had not received documents from him. It also re-opened the application when he made contact.
20. There is little information about the process the Council followed when dealing with Mr X’s homeless application after February. There is evidence of fault on the following points:
• wrong dates on the PHP.
• Delay in sending the PHP.
• There is no information on whether a decision was taken on whether Mr X was in priority need and so should have been provided with interim accommodation.
• The housing officer should have tried to contact Mr X before sending a letter saying she was closing the case.
21. The Council has said that Mr X did not send in the documents the Council needed. Or, Mr X could have made a new homeless application when the case was closed or he could have asked for a review of the decision. Mr X has explained to me on the telephone that he kept trying to contact the Council but couldn’t get in contact with his caseworker. Mr X said he did not know he had to send the documents to the Council or request a review. From the information I have, it is clear that Mr X struggled with the process of making a homeless application and the Council did not notice this. The Council simply closed his case rather than making contact to see why Mr X had not sent in documents or had not spoken to the officer as he missed telephone calls.

Housing register application

Key facts

22. Mr X also made an application to the housing register. Mr X complains about the priority banding the Council gave him.
23. Mr X explained that he has mobility problems, for which he gets the highest rate of Personal Independent Payments (PIP) and a mobility vehicle.
24. The Council explained it put Mr X’s application in band D. The Council’s medical advisor said that ‘Tenure is not a medical matter. The applicant's mental health issue is not severe or unstable enough to warrant urgent, enhanced psychiatric care. There is no evidence of any significant unstable degree of neurological compromise. The applicant is not permanently dependent on mobility aids. Urgent specialist care is not needed. No medical priority applies. The evidence also does not suggest that the applicant would be deemed to be vulnerable if homeless’.
25. Mr X asked for the review of the Council’s decision on his medical priority. The Council’s housing allocations policy gives the following priority bands:
• Band C:

Significant medical factors, the Council’s medical adviser has confirmed in writing the applicant is suffering from a medical condition that means that it is difficult but not impossible for them to continue to occupy the current property. The medical adviser has recommended that early re-housing is required.

Existing band D, the applicant has been placed in band D and has also been assessed by the Council’s medical adviser as having moderate medical factors.

• Band D:

Moderate medical factors, the Council’s medical adviser has confirmed in writing that the applicant is suffering from a medical condition that means it is difficult but not impossible for them to continue to occupy the current property. The medical adviser has recommended that eventual re-housing is desirable.

Single people, the applicant is a single person living with family or in any other shared accommodation including hostels and sofa surfing or are of no fixed address.

26. The Council confirmed on 18 October 2022 that Mr X should remain in Band D. The letter said ‘the medical decision in June 2022 was that no medical priority was made’. However, it also said Mr X’s band on the housing register was ‘D for the following reasons’. The letter then included a table which had two lines, moderate medical priority and single people’.

My analysis

27. Mr X has complained the Council has not taken all the information into account when assessing medical information for a housing register application.
28. The Council has clarified that ‘the line in the table on the letter of 18 October with moderate medical priority was only included the officer pasted an extract from the policy which are 2 of the points for Band D criteria. These are separate criterion and Mr X was not placed into Band D due to both of these, it was just that the officer pasted in the beginning of that section. I accept this explanation, that Mr X would not have been placed in Band C at this point because of moderate medical priority.
29. But, I cannot see any evidence the Council’s medical advisor took account of all the evidence when making a decision on medical priority. The advisor said that ‘Mr X is not dependant on mobility aids’. Mr X gets the highest rate of Personal Independent Payments (PIP) and a mobility vehicle. So, I cannot say the decision on medical priority was taken without fault.
30. In addition, the Council’s caseworker has recently visited Mr X because of his complaint and said that ‘Mr X finds it very difficult to walk, he uses two walking sticks’ and did not consider his current accommodation suitable. The caseworker helped Mr X to fill in a homeless application. The Council has said that Mr X will need to put in a new medical form for his new medical evidence to be submitted and refer himself to Occupational Therapy so his housing needs can be assessed.
31. It is clear from the recent assessment that Mr X’s current accommodation is unsuitable for him and that he has medical needs. I cannot say the Council’s previous decision on his medical evidence was without fault. There is no record of the evidence used by the medical assessor.

Conclusion

32. There has been fault by the Council. In order to remedy the faults, I consider the Council caseworker should help Mr X to complete a new medical form (the Council has said it will do this) and an Occupational Health referral for his applications for rehousing. This should be as well as deciding whether Mr X needs any further reasonable adjustments made to help him with the process for rehousing.
33. Mr X can stay with his parents or friends at present, so while the delays will have been inconvenient for him, he has remained in housing throughout the process. I do, however, consider Mr X is due an apology from the Council for the faults and a payment for his uncertainty that if the faults had not occurred, it is possible that he would have been rehoused earlier.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. Within one month of the date of the decision on this complaint the Council should:
• Apologise in writing to Mr X.
• Pay £500 to Mr X for his distress.
• Complete the medical reassessment of Mr X, including assisting him with the forms if required.
• Assist Mr X to make a referral to Occupational Therapy if he agrees to this.
• Assess whether Mr X needs any reasonable adjustments to help with the rehousing process.
35. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is upheld as there was fault by the Council. The actions above remedy the injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman