Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his housing and homelessness applications: its assessment of his housing and occupational therapy needs; delay in completing a suitability review; agreement about the discharge of its housing duty; and his suspension from the housing register. We have found fault by the Council in suspending Mr X from the housing register for a period, causing injustice. We have not found fault by the Council on the other parts of the complaint. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by apologising to Mr X, allowing an additional period during which it will not discharge its housing duty if he refuses an accommodation offer, and making a payment to reflect the distress caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I am calling Mr X, is unhappy about the way the Council has dealt with his housing and homelessness applications. He complains the Council:
1. is using an out of date and insufficiently detailed Housing Health and Disability Team (HHDT) assessment to make decisions about suitability of accommodation;
2. unreasonably refused to carry out an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment;
3. delayed carrying out a review of the suitability of his temporary accommodation;
4. unreasonably reneged on its agreement in October 2021 it would not discharge its housing duty if he refused accommodation offers; and
5. wrongly suspended him from the housing register for some months in 2022.
2. Mr X says:

• he missed the opportunity to bid on a number of properties while he was suspended from the register:
• he is being offered unsuitable accommodation because of the inaccurate HHDT assessment;
• the suitability review did not consider the OT assessment; and
• the Council should review and update his HHDT assessment, with his involvement, so it fully reflects his medical and other needs and the type of property suitable to meet his needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these.
4. 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, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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

6. I spoke to Mr X, made enquiries of the Council and read the information Mr X and the Council provided about the complaint.
7. I invited Mr X and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Legislation and statutory guidance

8. A council’s powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness are set out in Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities.

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.
10. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
11. A council 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)

Suitability of temporary accommodation

12. The law says a council must ensure temporary accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for their needs (Housing Act 1996, section 206).
13. An applicant who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202).
14. The council must complete the review within eight weeks of receiving the review request. This period can be extended but only if the applicant agrees in writing.
15. If the council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, it must provide suitable accommodation.
16. If the applicant wishes to challenge the review decision, or if a council takes more than eight weeks to complete the review, the applicant may appeal on a point of law to the County Court (Housing Act 1996, sections 202 and 204)

The Council’s published scheme

17. 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))
18. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which allows applicants to choose which properties to bid for. It also has the power to make direct offers to anyone registered on the housing register.
19. Its scheme says:
1. applicants are expected to accept offers of properties that meet their specified housing and medical needs as assessed by the Council;
2. the Council will have discharged its homelessness duty, and no longer owe a duty to provide housing, to a homeless applicant who refuses a reasonable and suitable offer;
3. in considering what is reasonable, the Council will have regard to the overall supply of accommodation and demands by all priority groups. It will normally take into account:

• the number of bedrooms required;
• any essential requirement concerning the type or location of housing; and
• affordability.
4. properties are in short supply and are allocated to meet need, Particular preferences beyond an assessed need may be better met by alternative housing options outside of the allocation scheme.

Assessment of housing and medical needs

20. The scheme says:

• these assessments are completed by the Council’s Housing Health and Disability team (HHDT), which is made up of healthcare professionals experienced in housing issues;
• the Council may seek and consider information from medical professionals but it remains responsible for making the assessment decision, not an applicant’s health professional; and
• it will not ordinarily re-assess health and independence needs unless it can be diagnostically proven these have changed significantly within the previous three months.

Suspensions from the housing register

21. The scheme specifies certain categories of applicants who may be suspended from the housing register. This includes applicants in temporary accommodation with more than four weeks arrears or who left their accommodation without making an arrangement to repay arrears.
22. The Council may waive or modify the requirement for repayment of arrears in exceptional cases, where rehousing is urgent or to meet the Council’s objectives.

What happened

23. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

Complaint background

24. Mr X made a homelessness application to the Council. In July 2017, the Council accepted it owed him the main housing duty and provided Mr X with temporary accommodation – a studio flat (TA 1).
25. Mr X asked for a suitability review. The Council’s HHDT completed an assessment of his housing and medical needs in August 2020. In April 2021 the Council decided on review, TA 1 was unsuitable for Mr X as he needed separate living and sleeping areas.
26. Following the review, Mr X was assessed as needing a one-bedroom property, no higher than the second floor.

2021: direct offers of permanent accommodation

27. The Council made Mr X a number of direct offers of permanent accommodation. He did not consider any of these were suitable. He made specific requests to the Council about the type of property he wanted, said the Council had not properly assessed his needs and complained about the direct offer process. He had a meeting with the Council about his concerns.
28. In October 2021, in its response to Mr X’s complaint the Council said:

• it had decided it would not discharge its housing duty to him if he declined an offer of housing because it felt the threat to end its duty did not benefit Mr X or the Council;
• Mr X was free to consider, view and if appropriate decline offers of accommodation whether made as a result of him expressing interest through the Council’s choice based letting system or a direct offer; and
• it hoped this approach would allow Mr X to feel more able to consider different types of available homes free of the concern the Council would end its responsibility to rehouse him and remove his temporary accommodation.

February/March 2022: Mr X’s request for a suitability review of TA 2

29. The Council offered Mr X alternative one-bedroom temporary accommodation (TA 2). In February 2022 Mr X asked for a suitability review of TA 2. The Council agreed to withdraw this offer and continued looking for another suitable property for Mr X.

March 2022: Mr X’s request for a review of his HHDT assessment

30. In March Mr X asked the Council to review its assessment of his housing and medical needs. He said he needed two bedrooms and disagreed with the assessment of the floor level.
31. The Council considered the care assessment Mr X submitted. It suggested obtaining an independent medical opinion but as Mr X did not want to wait, it was agreed the review would be completed without this.
32. The Council completed the review in May 2022. It decided its suitability recommendations – that Mr X needed a one-bedroom property no higher than the second floor – were correct.

August 2022: Mr X’s suspension from the housing register

33. Mr X found he was unable to bid for properties. When he complained about this, the Council told him he was suspended until a debt for temporary accommodation (which he had not moved into) was cleared.
34. In September the Council said the complaint about the debt was being investigated and the suspension (which had been in place from April) would be lifted until this was completed.
35. On 7 October it told Mr X there had been a mistake and that he would be shortlisted for properties in spite of the arrears on the temporary accommodation. It apologised for the error.

2022: Mr X’s request for a suitability review of TA 3

36. Mr X moved to alternative temporary accommodation – TA 3 – in July 2022. He asked for a review of its suitability. This review took 208 days – from 13 July 2022, when the request was made, to 7 February 2023, when the review decision was issued.
37. The information seen about the conduct of the review shows:

• In August, the Council agreed Mr X’s solicitors’ request for more time to make representations for the review;
• In September the solicitors asked the Council to wait for Mr X’s medical report before completing the review;
• Mr X’s solicitors sent further information to the Council in October. They asked the Council to delay making its decision until they were able to send the medical report, together with an OT assessment. It was agreed the medical evidence should be provided by 31 October;
• The solicitors sent the further evidence on 2 November. They said they wanted to submit additional information from Mr X’s social worker, including an updated care plan. This was provided on 25 November. The review officer said they would try to make their review decision by 9 December; and
• On 9 December Mr X’s solicitors provided further information for the review.

38. The Council’s reviewing officer sent Mr X’s solicitors a letter on 16 January 2023 confirming they were minded to conclude Mr X’s current temporary accommodation was suitable for his needs. They asked for any further representations by 24 January. Mr X’s solicitors sent a response on 25 January.
39. On 7 February the Council issued its review decision confirming it was satisfied TA 3 was suitable for Mr X.

February 2023: Mr X’s request for an OT assessment

40. Mr X asked his social worker to arrange an OT assessment of his sensory needs. The social worker explained an OT’s role was to assess the need for physical adaptations to accommodation and asked for more information about the type of OT support Mr X was looking for.
41. The social worker explored the possibility of an assessment of sensory processing difficulties but was told this was only arranged by the NHS for those with learning difficulties. It was suggested Mr X may need to ask his GP for a referral to a private OT providing this type of service.
42. In March, the Council’s OT completed an assessment of Mr X’s functional difficulties in his home environment. This identified his difficulties using the oven and sink in the kitchen and low doorways because of the need to bend down because of his height, the short bath exacerbating his back pain because of his height and communal stairs exacerbating his back pain.

February 2023: The withdrawal of the October 2021 agreement

43. In January 2023 the Council made Mr X a direct offer of accommodation which he refused.
44. In February 2023 it told his solicitors:

• Its approach in its letter of October 2021 was considered to be in Mr X’s best interest at that time, to maximise his chances of being rehoused in settled accommodation;
• Mr X could not stay on the housing register indefinitely. The Council had to discharge its main housing duty to him at some stage; and
• It accepted Mr X had chosen to refuse the January 2023 direct offer. But any further accommodation offers meeting his assessed housing need, verified by an OT on an accompanied viewing would discharge its duty, subject to his right to request a suitability review.

My view – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

Complaint (a) out of date and insufficiently detailed HHDT assessment

45. I have not found fault by the Council in the way it completed its assessment of Mr X’s current housing and medical needs. In my view, the Council properly considered the further information Mr X provided about his needs in the period from August 2020 to February 2023 before deciding what changes, if any, should be made to its assessment.
46. This is because:

• Following the Council’s HHDT assessment in August 2020, Mr X had the opportunity to submit any further information he wanted the Council to consider about his housing and medical needs as part of the suitability review of his temporary accommodation in April 2021. His assessment was updated in April 2021 and his housing need changed from a studio to one-bedroom property;
• The Council completed a further review of its assessment of his housing and medical needs in 2022. It considered the further information Mr X provided before completing this review; and
• The Council also considered the further information Mr X submitted at the end of 2022 in support of the further suitability review completed in February 2023.

Complaint (b) refusal to carry out an OT assessment

47. I have not found fault by the Council regarding its response to Mr X’s request for an OT assessment.
48. This is because:

• I have not seen any information showing Mr X asked the Council for an OT assessment before February 2023;
• Mr X’s solicitor told the Council in October 2022 they would submit an OT assessment for the suitability review, but I have not seen any indication a request was made and refused by the Council at that stage;
• Mr X’s social worker responded promptly to Mr X’s request for an OT assessment in February 2023 and explained the type of OT assessment the Council could arrange; and
• The Council’s OT completed an assessment of Mr X’s functional difficulties in his current accommodation in March 2023.

Complaint (c) delay in temporary accommodation suitability review

49. I have not found fault by the Council in the time taken to complete the suitability review Mr X requested on 13 July 2022.
50. This is because the information seen shows the eight-week timescale for completing the review was extended by written agreement with Mr X’s solicitor.

Complaint (d) the October 2021 agreement

51. I do not consider the Council unreasonably or wrongly withdrew the concession it agreed in October 2021. In my view, it properly reviewed the concession in February 2023, and gave Mr X notice of, with reason for, its withdrawal.
52. This is because:

• the law says councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer;
• the Council agreed in October 2021, as a concession, not to discharge its duty to Mr X if he refused a suitable offer. It told him at the time this was agreed in the hope it would help him be more open to considering accommodation offers; and
• the Council reviewed this concession, in February 2023, 18 months later. Mr X had not accepted any permanent accommodation offers during this period. The Council decided to withdraw the agreement, explained why and gave advance notice it would not apply to any further direct offers made to Mr X.

Complaint (e) suspension from the housing register

53. The Council has accepted, and I agree, it was fault to suspend Mr X from its housing register between April and October 2022.
54. It says Mr X did not miss out on an offer of permanent accommodation because of this. None of the one-bedroom properties available for allocation during this period would have met his assessed suitability criteria or, being on estates and without outdoor space, his additional stipulations.
55. But I consider the suspension caused Mr X frustration, distress and uncertainty about whether he had missed out on a suitable offer of permanent accommodation during this period.

Agreed action

56. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults and, within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr X for wrongly suspending him from the housing register from April to October 2022. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making its apology;
2. apply its October 2021 concession for a further five months only from the date of this final decision; and
3. pay Mr X £150 to reflect the distress and uncertainty caused by his suspension. This is a symbolic amount based on our guidance on remedies.
57. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

58. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council on part (e) of the complaint, causing injustice. I have not found fault on the other parts of the complaint. The Council has agreed to take the above action as a suitable way to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman