Summary: Mr X complains the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with his housing application, an agreement to make him as direct offer of alternative accommodation and in responding to his complaints of Anti-Social Behaviour at his property. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with these matters so have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to here as Mr X complains there were failings in the way the Council dealt with his housing application as it has allowed him to remain in accommodation, he considers unsafe for him due to his mental health. This is because of a neighbour’s Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) and tenants using and dealing drugs in the block of flats where he lives. Mr X says the Council has failed to take account of the medical evidence submitted to support his housing application.
2. Mr X also complains the Council agreed to make him a direct offer of accommodation. But this has been delayed, so he remains in unsuitable accommodation. Mr X says this has caused him distress and impacted on to his mental health.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. I have investigated Mr X’s complaints about his housing application and direct offer from the Council from 2022 onwards. And the way the Council has responded to his complaints of ASB by his neighbour. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaints about the suitability of the accommodation he was offered in 2020. I have not investigated Mr X’s concerns about issues at the block of flats he lives in before 2022. The final part of my statement explains my reason for not investigating these matters.
4. I have however referred to these matters to provide background to Mr X’s current situation and complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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)
7. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
8. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
9. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information.
11. Mr X 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

Summary of relevant law and Guidance

Homelessness

12. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of several decisions, this includes the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

Housing Allocations

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))

The Council’s Housing Allocation Policy

14. The Council assesses housing applicants into one of four priority bands. Band 1 is the highest and Band 4 the lowest priority. Under the Council’s policy it will make a direct offer of alternative accommodation to an applicant in certain circumstances. This can include to resolve an urgent need to be rehoused.

Background information

15. What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
16. Mr X became homeless in 2018 and applied to the Council for assistance. The Council accepted a housing duty towards Mr X and arranged temporary accommodation for him. The Council offered Mr X the tenancy of a Council flat in 2020. Mr X became a secure tenant, and the Council placed his housing application in band 4.
17. The Council confirms Mr X was aware he had the right to refuse the offer of the flat and/or seek a review of the offer if he considered it unsuitable. But Mr X did not do so.
18. In 2020 Mr X reported to the Council and Police there were tenants in the block of flats selling drugs. The matter was investigated, and action taken to remove the tenants involved.
19. In 2021 there were concerns about Mr X’s behaviour, actions and threats made so the Council referred him to a mental health partnership for support. Mr X refused the support offered. Mr X’s behaviour continued, and he was referred again for support for his mental health. The Council made a safeguarding and adult care referral, but Mr X refused the offers made for specialist support.

Events leading to the complaint

20. The Council held a multi-agency ASB case conference in December 2021 chaired by its ASB service to look at the support available to Mr X. Mr X sent the Council medical information about his mental health. Mr X also complained a tenant in a flat beneath his was causing a noise nuisance and impacting on Mr X’s mental health and behaviour.
21. In January 2022 the Council’s Neighbour Enforcement team (NET) told Mr X to complete diary sheets in line with its procedures to assess the noise nuisance. Mr X refused to complete the diary sheets. The NET offered to help Mr X use a noise app instead, but Mr X did not respond.
22. The Council decided in March 2022 it would make Mr X a direct offer of alternative accommodation due to issues around Mr X’s behaviour. The reason to do so was to offer Mr X accommodation where any known issues that may impact on him would not be a concern. The Council confirmed the offer would be of a one bedroomed flat. But such properties were not readily available in the area Mr X wanted to live so it may take some time for the direct offer. Mr X agreed to a referral for mental health support.
23. The NET closed the ASB case as Mr X had not responded or reported further issues. In July 2022 Mr X reported further noise from the tenant impacting on Mr X’s mental health. The NET sent Mr X diary sheets to fill in and sent a warning letter to the tenant about the allegation. Mr X made further reports of noise and NET sent the tenant another warning letter.
24. The Council updated Mr X’s housing application in August 2022 and moved him to band 3 due to the effect the alleged ASB was having on his mental health. The Council told Mr X of his right to request a review of the decision on his banding but he did not do so. Mr X complained to the Council he should be rehoused somewhere more suitable, and it had failed to consider the impact of his current accommodation and issues onto his mental health.
25. The Council replied to Mr X and explained its direct offer to him. The Council confirmed it had reconsidered his situation based on information provided. But it still considered a direct offer the most appropriate way to rehouse him somewhere suitable. The Council did not consider it necessary to increase Mr X’s banding.
26. Mr X made further complaints about noise, and drug use at the block of flats. Mr X said his mental health was deteriorating and the Council ignored letters from his GP. The NET contacted Mr X about the noise, but Mr X refused to complete diary sheets or use the noise app. The NET agreed to add Mr X to the waiting list for noise recording equipment. Officers spoke to the neighbour who denied making any unreasonable noise.
27. Mr X complained to the Council again about the noise nuisance and said he was not coping living in a block of flats. Mr X considered the Council was discriminating against him due to his mental health and gender by not moving him to other accommodation. Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision about his banding.
28. The Council responded to Mr X. It confirmed that it agreed to make him a direct offer and had fully considered his mental health when deciding to find him alternative accommodation. The direct offer would help it identify a property in his desired location where any known issues relevant to his mental health would be avoided where possible. Mr X had requested a property near the city centre, not in a high-rise block, with no neighbour above or below him and in an area where there was drug or alcohol use or supply. The Council said there was a limited stock of such accommodation that met the criteria so he may be waiting for some time for an offer to be made.
29. The Council agreed to reconsider Mr X’s housing application as a service request as he was out of time to request a review to see if it should change his banding. The Council confirmed the NET had responded to Mr X’s noise nuisance complaints and provided him with access to a noise app to record the noises he complained about. The NET would then review the recordings to see if it should take any action.
30. In December 2022 the Police needed to attend Mr X’s accommodation due to his behaviour. The Council made further mental health referrals to provide support to Mr X. Mr X complained to the Council about disrepair at his flat and said he needed to move. The Council arranged for a temporary repair at the flat to make it safe. It encouraged Mr X to use the noise app to record the alleged noise nuisance as it was unable to use its noise recording equipment.
31. The Council reviewed Mr X’s housing banding in January 2023. It told Mr X he had been correctly banded in band 3 and confirmed the Council was still trying to find a suitable property to offer him directly. The Council had not managed to find anything, but a direct offer should resolve the difficulties he had been experiencing at his current accommodation.

The Council’s comments on the complaint

32. The Council confirms it considered all relevant information provided by Mr X when assessing his housing application. The Council can only award medical priority on health and welfare grounds in bands 1 and 3. The Council does not consider Mr X’s situation justifies a band 1 priority. Mr X may qualify for band 2 priority if he applied as homeless, but Mr X has not wanted to pursue such an application. The Council considers Mr X’s most likely route to be offered alternative accommodation remains through a direct offer.
33. The Council says the accommodation was repaired to its lettings standards when allocated to Mr X and there were no particular issues at the address or in the block of flats. The Council has responded to Mr X’s complaints of disrepair at the property and arranged repairs caused by a leak.
34. The Council says it decided to make Mr X a direct offer of alternative accommodation to move him somewhere away from ‘triggers’ to help his behaviour and actions. The Council accepts it has taken time to make an offer due to the lack of properties becoming available in the area Mr X wants to live. Most of its properties are in blocks of flats which will affect Mr X’s mental health. The Council says Mr X wants to choose where to live but that has not been possible due to the terms of the direct offer. Mr X has also added additional criteria which was not previously agreed such as not living in a flat with a neighbour above or below him.

My assessment

35. The documents provided show the Council responded to Mr X’s concerns about his accommodation and impact on to his mental health. The Council has acknowledged that Mr X’s current accommodation does not help ‘triggers’ that affect his mental health and has agreed to make a direct offer. This is according to its Housing Allocations policy. So, there is no evidence to suggest the Council has discriminated against Mr X to keep him in unsuitable accommodation on mental health grounds or due to his gender. Rather the Council has taken action to help Mr X move when possible.
36. The Council confirms it agreed the terms of the direct offer and Mr X has wanted to add additional criteria. This has limited the availability of suitable properties. It is unfortunate the Council has not been able to offer Mr X a suitable property yet. But it is still looking and will make an offer when it can. In the meantime, the documents show it has been responding to Mr X’s complaints about ASB and advised him of the procedures to follow so it can investigate further. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in its response to Mr X’s complaints of ASB. Mr X will need to engage with the NET and provide the evidence in support of his allegations of noise nuisance.
37. The documents also show the Council responded to Mr X’s allegations of drug dealing and usage at the block of flats and taken the necessary action.
38. The Council agreed to relook at Mr X’s housing banding even though he was out of time to request a review. The Council reviewed the medical information provided by Mr X. But considered his banding was correct and it will not increase his priority. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make. As it has reviewed all the information provided there is no evidence of fault in the way it has reached its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I am completing my investigation. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it has dealt with Mr X’s housing application, direct offer of alternative accommodation and responded to his complaints of ASB at his property.

Parts of the complaint I have not investigated

40. I have not investigated Mr X’s concerns about the suitability of accommodation he was offered by the Council in 2020 to relieve its housing duty towards him after accepting him as homeless. This is because Mr X had the right to refuse the offer or request a review of the suitability of the accommodation if he consider it unsuitable. I consider it was reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right of review at the time of the offer.
41. I have not investigated Mr X’s concerns about issues at his accommodation before 2022. This is because Mr X is late bringing a complaint to us about these matters, and I consider it was reasonable to expect him to have done so before now.
42. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about disrepair at his accommodation . This is because the Council is acting as a social landlord, and we are unable to investigate such matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman