Summary: There was some fault by the Council for the way it handled Ms X’s housing application, however this has not caused injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the way the Council handled her housing application, namely:
1. A Council officer spoke to her in an unprofessional way during a telephone call.
2. The Council did not properly consider her autism when considering her for private rented accommodation.
3. She had to wait a long time for the Council to provide her with accommodation.

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 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

4. As part of this investigation, I considered the information provided by Ms X. I discussed the complaint over the telephone with Ms X. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information received in response. I sent a draft of this decision to Ms X and the Council for comments.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

5. 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.
6. 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)
7. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with 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 (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

The relief duty

8. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is known as the relief duty. The relief duty will come to an end in the following ways:
• The applicant has suitable accommodation available that has a reasonable prospect of being available for at least six months.
• 56 days have passed since the authority became subject to this duty, except where the applicant has been served with a s21 notice, in which case the duty continues for as long as they continue to occupy the property subject to the notice.
• The applicant has become homeless.
• The applicant has refused a suitable offer of accommodation that would have been available for at least six months.
• The applicant has become intentionally homeless from any accommodation that was made available by the authority exercising functions under this section.
• The applicant is no longer eligible.
• The applicant has withdrawn the application. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The main housing duty

9. 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)

The Council’s housing allocations policy

10. The Council operates a choice based lettings policy. The Council places applicants into three Bands depending on their priority for housing. Applicants in Band one have the highest priority.
11. The Council can place some applicants it owes a homelessness duty to into Band one. To be placed into Band one the Council must have owed the applicant a homeless duty (this includes the relief and main housing duties) and the applicant must have dependent children/vulnerable adult and have not worsened their own housing circumstances.

What happened

12. Ms X is autistic and in September 2021, applied to the Council for homelessness assistance. She was living at her mother’s, Ms Y’s property, however the property was overcrowded and one of the adults living there had complex mental health issues which meant Ms X could not stay at the property long term.
13. The Council carried out an assessment and produced a PHP for Ms X. One of the steps the Council agreed to take to assist Ms X was to process her homelessness application.
14. In March 2022, the Council increased Ms X’s priority to Band one on its housing register. This was in response to Ms X providing the Council with information that her circumstances had worsened at home.
15. In September 2022, Ms X was offered two properties through the Council’s housing register. Ms X refused these as they were too far away from her mother’s property. The Council accepted Ms X’s reasons for refusal.
16. In early October 2022, Ms X refused another property on the housing register and the Council suspended her housing register application. The Council reinstated Ms X’s application shortly after and made Ms X another offer of accommodation through its housing register. Ms X refused this property also due to its location. The Council agreed to accept the refusal and said it would now only consider Ms X for properties in one area of the city at Ms X’s request. The Council explained this would limit the properties Ms X would be eligible for.
17. In November 2022, Ms X and Ms Y had a telephone conversation with the officer dealing with her case. Ms X said the officer was rude as they asked Ms X why she could not get a friend to drive her children to school. Ms X also said the officer put the telephone down on Ms Y.
18. In January 2023, Ms X with the assistance of Ms Y, made a formal complaint. Ms X complained about the telephone call with the officer dealing with her case. Ms X also complained the Council was not considering her disabilities and asked for a housing assessment.
19. The Council responded to the complaint in early February 2023. The Council said:
• Ms X was currently in Band one on the housing register and eligible for two bedroomed properties. However as she only asked to be screened for properties in one area of the city this would reduce the number of properties which met her needs.
• Housing in the private sector would be the fastest way for Ms X to find a property. The Council said it had a team which could help Ms X to settle into private rented accommodation and help overcome affordability issues.
20. Ms Y responded to the Council shortly after and said private accommodation was unsuitable for Ms X due to the lack of security and prosect of having to move again. Ms Y said by offering private accommodation the Council was not considering Ms X’s autism. Ms Y also mentioned the telephone call from the original complaint which had not been addressed in the response. Ms Y provided the time and date of the telephone call.
21. The Council provided its final response on 14 February 2023. The Council said:
• If Ms X could widen her areas of choice she could receive an offer of accommodation sooner.
• By only accepting a social let property, Ms X was lengthening the time it could take to obtain accommodation.
• An offer could take some time if Ms X wished to wait for a social let in a particular area of the city. Unfortunately, a Band one priority was time limited and would almost certainly be amended if Ms X was not receptive to all housing options.
• The Homelessness Prevention Team could listen to the telephone call if they could be provided with the date and time of the call.
22. On 3 March 2023, Ms Y resubmitted her complaint about the actions of the Council officer on the telephone call. The Council responded and said Ms X had exhausted its complaints process and could go to the Ombudsman.
23. In May 2023, the Council offered Ms X a property through its housing register. This was a two bedroom property near to Ms Y’s house. Ms X accepted the offer.

Analysis

Complaint a) A Council officer spoke to Ms X and Ms Y in an unprofessional way during a telephone call.

24. The Council confirmed in response to our enquiries that it did not record external calls and only kept internal ones for one month. The Council also said it had spoken to the officer involved about the incident to provide learning. On balance I am unable to say what was said on the telephone call and given the Council has already spoken to the officer involved I am unable to add anything to this through further investigation.
25. There was some fault with the way the Council communicated its response about this issue to Ms X. Firstly in its initial complaint response it did not address this part of her complaint. In addition, in its final complaint response the Council told Ms X it could listen to the call if she provided the date and time. This was not correct as if the call was external it had not been recorded and if it was internal, one month had passed before Ms X raised this matter as a complaint so the recording would not have been available. While this was fault, I am satisfied it did not cause Ms X injustice.

Complaint b) The Council did not properly consider Ms X’s autism when considering her for private rented accommodation.

26. I am satisfied the Council was not at fault. From the information seen, the Council never made Ms X an offer of private rented accommodation, it only provided her with information about choosing this option in order to get rehoused.
27. The Council agreed that Ms X could restrict her choice to one area of the city to be rehoused and moved her into Band one due to medical issues. It also made her four offers of accommodation through its housing register which were refused.

Complaint c) Ms X has had to wait a long time for the Council to provide her with accommodation.

28. I have not found the Council at fault here. The Council made Ms X four offers of accommodation through its housing register which Ms X refused. As Ms X restricted her area of choice to one part of the city it was likely it would take longer to rehouse her.
29. I am satisfied however that the Council was at fault for how it handled her homelessness application. Ms X applied as homeless in September 2021. The Council said in its response to my enquiries that it never had owed Ms X the main housing duty and managed to provide her with a tenancy through its housing register under the relief duty. The relief duty should only last for 56 days. As the Council had not relieved Ms X’s homelessness it should have promptly made enquiries and decided whether it owed her the main housing duty.
30. While this was fault I do not think it caused Ms X significant injustice. This is because if the Council had decided it owed Ms X the main housing duty, it could only have offered Ms X accommodation in the private sector to end her homelessness sooner. Ms X has been clear that she would not have accepted this type of accommodation. Ms X was also already in the highest Band on the Council’s housing register at this stage so could not have received any extra priority on the housing register to increase her chances of obtaining a social let.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation and found there was some fault by the Council but this did not cause any injustice to Ms X, therefore no remedy is recommended.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman