Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not award her the correct priority banding on its housing register and it did not properly consider her circumstances when she moved to temporary accommodation as her property was in disrepair. We do not find fault with the Council’s handling of her case or how it made its decisions according to its allocations policy.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council did not award her additional priority for her housing register application and she says she had to wait longer than she should have to secure alternative accommodation. This caused her significant distress and frustration for her and her family when they remained in an unsuitable property that was in disrepair.

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 significant injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We also consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, 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 discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered her views.
6. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.
7. Miss 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

Law and administrative background

Temporary accommodation

8. Temporary accommodation is accommodation provided to homeless applicants as part of a council’s main homelessness duty.
9. Certain decisions councils make about homelessness carry a statutory right of review. The review decision then carries a right of appeal to court on a point of law. Homeless applicants have a right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, s202)

Housing allocations

10. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises housing applicants, and its procedures for allocating properties. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14)). Applicants have a right to request a review of a council’s decision about the priority band they have been awarded.

The Council’s scheme

11. The Council is part of a sub-regional scheme called ‘Property Pool Plus’ across five nearby council areas, including Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council. The scheme gives applicants the opportunity to bid for council and housing association properties across all council areas.
12. The allocations scheme places applicants who qualify to join the housing register in a priority band from Band A (urgent priority) to Band F (lowest priority), depending on their level of housing need.
13. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band A to the following:
1. Health/Welfare (Urgent)
2. Homeless (owed the main homeless duty)
3. Overcrowded (2 or more bedrooms)
4. Homeless (owed the relief duty) and are in priority need and are likely to be owed the main homeless duty.
14. Applicants in Band A are prioritised in order of the reasons for their housing need. As listed above, a) has the highest priority under this band.
15. Under Band A Health and Welfare (urgent), this could include:
• Applicants with severe long terms health conditions causing substantial disabilities who are unable to enter or leave their home and are unable to access all the essential facilities in their current accommodation;
• Applicants with exceptional welfare need, including severe incidents of violence where other temporary resolutions are not possible and where continued occupation of their current dwelling could place lives at risk;
• Applicants temporarily or permanently displaced from their accommodation through the intervention of Private Sector Housing/Environmental Health teams dealing with Category 1 and/or 2 hazards in the premises.
16. The scheme awards Band B (high priority) for Health/Welfare (High) including Disrepair.

The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS)

17. Councils have powers under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (England) Regulations 2005 to take enforcement action against private landlords where it has identified a hazard which puts the health and safety of the tenant at risk. The purpose of the HHSRS is to assess how a hazard affects the health of an individual and aims to remove hazards that are serious enough to cause harm. However, the assessment is a matter for the officer’s professional judgement.
18. Where it identifies a Category 1 (serious) hazard, councils must take appropriate enforcement action. This may include serving an improvement notice setting out what the landlord must do to stop the hazard. Councils can also choose to take action with regard to less serious Category 2 hazards if they think it is necessary. But they are under no duty to do so.

Summary of key relevant events

19. This is not intended to be a detailed account of each communication between the parties or an exhaustive chronology of everything that happened. There has been extensive communication between Miss X, a Councillor who represented her, and the Council.
20. Miss X and her family lived in a private rented property, “House 1”.
21. In June 2022, Miss X submitted an application to join the Council’s housing register. She stated the poor condition of her house was affecting her family’s health.
22. In early July, the Council’s Environmental Health Officer (“EHO”) visited and confirmed several issues of disrepair at House 1. The Council awarded Miss X Band B (high priority) under “Disrepair” when assessing her application.
23. At the end of July, the EHO served an Improvement Notice to Miss X’s landlord at House 1, identifying Category 1 and 2 hazards. It listed out work required to reduce or remove these.
24. Miss X and her Councillor raised several ongoing concerns to the Council with her urgent request to be rehoused, mainly relating to:
• Her unacceptable living conditions as her landlord had continually not carried out the required repairs, causing her children to be unwell;
• The lack of available properties to bid on; and
• Her priority banding and position on the register impacting her chance at successful bids, and requests to give her the highest priority (Band A Health and Welfare) for any immediate suitable properties.
25. The Council responded to Miss X and her Councillor:
• The EHO assessed the disrepairs and recognised while it was not ideal, in their professional view they were not so serious to warrant emergency action. The EHO deemed it was safe for them to continue to occupy. They rated the damp and mould hazards as relatively low level and the EHO would monitor progress. The Council said there was no imminent risk of harm, with appropriate action taken through the Improvement Notice.
• It understood her reasons for an urgent move but confirmed it had to allocate properties according to its allocation scheme to ensure it treated all applicants fairly. To allocate a property out of turn to Miss X would be at the detriment of other applicants whose housing needs may be worse, or if they were the same, had been waiting for accommodation longer.
• The Council explained the limited supply of social housing compared to its high demand, and general waiting times to secure a property. It also explained the bidding process in detail, her position, and outlined how it had allocated previous properties to priority bandings higher than hers or on the register before her. It noted Miss X’s desire to be in a certain area for personal reasons but informed her she could increase her chance of securing a move sooner if she widened her search area. The Council agreed to various meetings and calls with the Councillor about the issues, and the EHO continued to actively try to resolve the disrepair issues.
26. At the end of October, Miss X submitted a homeless application as her landlord issued a Section 21 eviction notice. The Council accepted the prevention duty. In her Personal Housing Plan, it said it would increase her priority to Band A when the notice expired in late December. The Council later confirmed it was an invalid eviction notice as the landlord issued it within six months of an Improvement Notice, but it would change her priority when it said it would.
27. In late November, the EHO issued another Improvement Notice to Miss X’s landlord. It identified low level Category 2 hazards.
28. In mid-December, the Council placed Miss X and her family in temporary accommodation due to a gas mains supply issue in the cold weather. They moved back to House 1 after around a week when it had been fixed. The EHO continued to pursue outstanding disrepair issues.
29. In late December, the eviction notice expired and the Council changed Miss X to Band A as it accepted the relief duty to her. This was the fourth priority sub banding under Band A.
30. In January 2023, the Council further explained to Miss X and her Councillor her new banding, her position on properties she bid on compared to others, and how it prioritised allocations according to housing need and length of time on the register.
31. Miss X sent a GP letter to the Council to consider for her application. It said she needed better housing to stay near her support system. The Council assessed it did not contain information indicating an immediate need to move.
32. In late January, Miss X sent further GP letters referring to her children being unwell, and the GP’s view their poor living conditions made it worse. The Council considered this and noted the GP based this on photos and Miss X’s view. It sought advice from the EHO who had seen the property. The EHO advised the Improvement Notice remained appropriate with no significant concerns or changes to any hazards. The Council took this into account and decided Miss X did not meet the criteria for Band A under Health and Welfare.
33. At the end of January, the Council moved Miss X’s family into temporary hotel accommodation for a few days as her children were ill. The Council said it used its discretion to offer this, as the EHO confirmed there were no grounds to take emergency action or a need for the household to move. They moved to another hotel for over a week and then into another temporary self-contained accommodation.
34. In early February, Miss X formally complained to the Council. She said the Council had not acted in the best interests of her family and had no empathy. She had concerns it was acting in response to her bringing wider issues to its attention.
35. In mid-February, the Council accepted the main duty to Miss X and confirmed this through a letter. It also said her temporary accommodation was now under the new duty and offered a right to review its suitability. It gave her additional priority to reflect this under the second highest sub banding under Band A.
36. At the end of February, the Council sent its Stage One response. It did not uphold her complaint. It said it acted appropriately in the handling of her case. It apologised for some minor inconsistencies and misunderstandings but concluded it was not to her detriment towards securing a property. The medical information sent did not support the Health and Welfare banding and confirmed her banding was correct.
37. Although she was in temporary accommodation, it noted she could have stayed in House 1 as the EHO said it was suitable for habitation and remained available. It said it did not have a legal obligation to offer temporary accommodation in January and it had acted beyond its statutory responsibilities to her.
38. At the start of March, the Council offered Miss X a property. It told her the options open to her should she accept or refuse and her right to seek a review of its suitability if she wished. She refused because of the location for personal reasons. The Council later accepted it as a reasonable refusal and withdrew the offer.
39. It allowed Miss X to resume bidding on properties and agreed a way forward for future bids relating to location. The Council confirmed with Miss X if a suitable home was found and she refused it, it would end its homelessness duty to her. It would then reassess her housing application and banding accordingly.
40. Miss X complained to us. She added her frustration about the short notice given to her for the moves to temporary accommodation, affecting her children.
41. In mid-March, the Council made a final offer of a property to Miss X for “House 2”. The Council wrote to her outlining the consequences of accepting or refusing and her right to a suitability review. She accepted the property. Miss X said she did not receive this letter and said the Council later told her she could not refuse the property.
42. Between April and June, Miss X and her Councillor contacted the Council and the housing association (the owner and landlord of House 2) about its condition as she said it should have sorted the issues before offering it them. It needed extensive repairs works before they could move in, and they were still waiting.
43. In mid-May, Miss X escalated her complaint to Stage Two, after advice from us to complete the Council’s complaints process before we would consider it.
44. In mid-June, the Council sent a final response to Miss X’s complaint. It clarified its view she had not met the sub banding criteria for Band A Health and Welfare. The Council said she had now accepted a property and understood she was in regular contact with the housing association about the ongoing repair works for House 2. It advised if she remained dissatisfied, she could raise a complaint with the housing association directly.
45. Miss X has since raised a formal complaint with the housing association about the condition of the House 2 from the start and ongoing repairs that remain outstanding.

Analysis

Banding decisions

46. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. 
47. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide what banding priority councils should award to applicants. Our role is to decide whether the Council followed guidance and considered relevant information when it made its decisions in relation to Miss X’s application. If we considered it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question the decision.
48. The Council initially awarded Miss X Band B under “Disrepair” when she first applied to the housing register, in line with the allocation scheme. Miss X later sent GP letters to support her application. The Council explained how it assessed them and why it gave more weight to the EHO’s view on the conditions of House 1. The Council took this into account and decided she did not meet the high threshold for additional priority under Band A Health and Welfare. I am satisfied it appropriately considered the relevant information at the time. It was a decision the Council was entitled to make on the evidence seen, and I do not find fault in its decision making process.
49. The Council changed her to Band A when it accepted the relief duty to her. I note the Council said it should not have with an invalid eviction notice, but it honoured this agreement. This led to an increase in her priority sooner. It also moved her up the sub banding (to the second highest) when it later accepted the main duty. These were appropriately in line with the allocation scheme as the changes reflected her circumstances at the time.
50. After moving into temporary accommodation, Miss X said she should have qualified for the highest priority at this point as Band A Health and Welfare criteria included: “applicants temporarily displaced from their accommodation through the intervention of Environmental Health teams to deal with Category 1 and/or 2 hazards in the premises”. The Council explained she did not meet this.
51. The move was a discretionary decision offered by the Council as her children were ill at the time, not because the EHO had intervened. The Council consistently said the conditions did not merit an immediate house move. The EHO’s assessment supported this as they rated the damp and mould hazards as relatively low level. Miss X disputes this and said it caused her children to be ill. I understand Miss X’s concerns about the potential effect these had on her family’s health, but this was the professional judgement of the EHO who visited and had monitored the situation. It is not my role to judge the seriousness of any disrepair. Without evidence of fault in how the Council assessed it, I cannot question the merits of this. I do not find fault in the way the Council made its decisions on her priority banding as it was in accordance with its scheme.

Complaint about the handling of her case

52. Having reviewed the evidence, I consider the Council were generally responsive to Miss X and her Councillor’s continuous concerns, with matter of fact communication in a professional tone.
53. It gave them advice, in-depth explanations of processes and its scheme and how it had applied it to her situation accordingly and fairly. It recognised her desire to be rehoused but explained the limitations of what it could do for her as it had to act within the allocations scheme. This is what we expect of councils.
54. Miss X had concerns the Council did not want to help her family as she had raised wider concerns to its attention (not part of this investigation). I do not consider this the case here as the evidence shows it followed its allocations scheme, with a reasonable level of communication by the Council with her and her Councillor and took practical steps where it could. While she disagreed and was dissatisfied with the Council’s responses and explanations to her ongoing situation, I do not see evidence of significant concerns that would amount to fault.

Temporary Accommodation and Final Offer

55. The Council said House 1 remained available and safe to occupy for Miss X, in the EHO’s assessment. It later responded to Miss X’s changing situation and offered her temporary accommodation when it was not legally obliged to. I do not find fault.
56. Miss X complained about late and short notice with the moves. I recognise the distress and frustration caused by the disruption of moving, but I balance this against the nature of temporary accommodation. The Council has to work with what it has at the time, there was no guarantee of how long they would be in it and where they could move to next. It depended on availability, and I do not consider this to be fault directly by the Council.
57. Miss X accepted House 2 in March 2023 and could not move in for a further three months due to work needed.
58. While Miss X said she did not receive a final offer letter about House 2, I have seen a copy of it. But I note after she refused the first property, the Council had told her it would end its homelessness duty to her if she refused its next offer. On the balance of probabilities, I consider Miss X was aware of the options to her and the consequences of refusing House 2, and it was open to Miss X whether she did or not. I do not consider this fault by the Council, and this is in accordance with its allocations scheme.
59. It was also open to Miss X to ask the Council to rejoin the housing register to bid on other properties because of the length of time and amount of work required at House 2 before she could move in. The housing association had responsibility for House 2 when it was offered and for the required repair works afterwards. This was outside of the Council’s control and Miss X has now raised a complaint directly to the housing association.

Back to top

Final decision

60. I do not uphold the complaint about the Council’s actions or how it handled Miss X’s case and her priority banding. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman