Summary: Mr V complains the Council has not given his medical need to move home enough priority and has also not decided his homeless application. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint because of the delay in the homelessness decision. The Council’s proposed remedy is suitable to remedy the injustice to Mr V.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr V, complains:
• he has supplied the Council with a lot of medical information in support of his housing transfer request. But the Council has not taken this into consideration;
• the Council has not supplied him or his representative with details of how the allocations scheme works. The contact telephone number on the Council’s letter is not answered;
• the Council has delayed deciding his homelessness application.

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 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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr V;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• spoken to Mr V;
• sent my draft decision to Mr V and the Council and considered the response I received..

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Housing allocations

6. 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))

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

7. The scheme says that:
• applicants will normally need to have lived in the Borough for at least three years;
• it would place applicants on its older persons’ queue with no recognised housing need, in Band D (the lowest band);
• in exceptional circumstances, a manager could waive the normal priority rules.

Homelessness

8. 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)

What happened

Background

9. Mr V lives in adapted accommodation in another part of the south-east. In 2021 he was diagnosed with vascular dementia. He is now seeking a move to accommodation in the Council’s area, as he has relatives who live there.

The medical information

10. In January 2022 Mr V made a housing register application to the Council. In his application, he described his circumstances, saying he:
• wanted to move near to his sister and her family who lived in Wandsworth, so she could provide care, as his health conditions were only going to get worse;
• felt lonely and isolated;
• had recently split up from his wife. But her family still lived near him and he had received threats from them. He would feel much safer living near to his family.
11. Mr V supplied medical information with his application and further medical information in March.
12. The Council sought the opinion of its medical advisor in April. The advisor’s view was Mr V was likely vulnerable. In June the Council:
• registered Mr V’s application on its housing register at its Band D;
• contacted the council where Mr V lived asking it to carry out an assessment of Mr V’s care needs and a mental capacity assessment, to aid its housing allocation decision;
• wrote to Mr V’s GP.
13. The council where Mr V lives advised its view was he could care for his own needs in his current home and had full mental capacity.
14. Mr V’s GP surgery confirmed its understanding was Mr V could manage his own washing, dressing, laundry, cooking and administering his medication.
15. The Council confirmed Mr V’s Band D priority on its housing allocation list.
16. Mr V complained. The Council’s response advised it was partially upholding his compliant as it had not considered all the information he provided with his application (this was about the threats to Mr V). But it did not agree that it had not taken his medical information into account.
17. After the complaint, the Council contacted the police, but did not establish any circumstances serious enough to warrant a move. Mr V remained with a Band D priority.
18. In October the Council provided its second stage complaint response. It advised:
• due to Mr V’s feelings of isolation and wanting to be near his support network, it had waived its Allocation Scheme’s normal requirement for an applicant to have lived in the Borough for three years;
• but it had not awarded him any medical points, so his application remained at Band D on its register.

Information about the allocation system

19. One of Mr V’s complaints is about a lack of information. I asked the Council about this. Its response advised:
• its June letter registering Mr V’s application gave information about its register and how it decided on priority. It also gave information about how to bid;
• it also sent this information in its October complaint response;
• the scheme was also on its website.

The homelessness application.

20. In April 2022, a Council officer suggested to Mr V that, based on his circumstances and concerns, he might want to consider making a homeless application to the Council.
21. In mid-April the Council completed a personal housing plan (see paragraph 8) for Mr V. This noted he:
• needed to move closer to family for support due to his medical conditions;
• would need to start looking for alternative (private rented) accommodation.
22. Mr D complained to the Ombudsman. He advised the Council had not decided his homelessness application. In response to my enquiries, the Council advised:

“The Council recognises and apologises for the delay with the homelessness application decision. It has taken time to obtain responses from the relevant professionals, awaiting documentation. If on completion of our enquiries, we accept a main housing duty, then we can consider backdating Mr [V]’s registration on the housing register.”

Analysis

The housing register application

23. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We would 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.
24. My decision is the Council has correctly applied its allocation scheme in regard to Mr V’s application. Mr V clearly has disabilities. But the Council sought advice from a range of professional organisations. Its investigations did not establish a current need for him to move. I cannot criticise the merits of that decision.
25. The Council has recognised it did not consider all the information Mr V gave about his reasons for wanting re-housing. There is also evidence of some delay in making a decision on the application. But, given the decision reached, these issues are unlikely to have had a significant injustice, so no further action is warranted.

The homelessness application

26. The Council has delayed in deciding Mr V’s application. My decision is that was fault. The injustice flowing from this delay is contingent on the Council’s decision. But its proposed remedy of backdating the start date of a successful application is a suitable proposed remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. The Council has agreed that, within a month of my decision, it will make a decision on Mr V's homeless application. If it finds him to be homeless, it will backdate the start date of entitlement to the date Mr V made his application.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I uphold this complaint, as I have identified fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to my recommendation, so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman