Summary: Miss C complained about the Council’s handling of her housing register application and the direct offers it made to her. She also complained about disrepair in a property she accepted. We found the Council properly assessed the family’s needs and offered properties in line with its Allocations Policy. It gave her information about her review rights for its decisions but failed to do so on her final property offer. This did not cause an injustice as Miss C was aware of her rights. We cannot investigate Miss C’s concerns about disrepair as this relates to the Council’s role as a landlord.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss C, complained about the Council handling of her family’s housing situation since Autumn 2021. The key issues of her complaint were:
• the way the Council dealt with her application for a transfer from her housing association property which became unsuitable because of her daughter’s medical needs;
• the Council made a direct offer of an unreasonable property and failed to give her information about review rights. She also disagrees with its decision the property was suitable following its review; and
• her landlord’s unreasonable expectation that she should move into the property when it was of substandard condition, and its failure to resolve all of the disrepair problems or make the property habitable to date.
2. As a result, Miss C said her family experienced distress and uncertainty as they were living in unsuitable accommodation, which was a risk to her daughter’s health.

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. 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)
4. We 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)
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
6. 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)
7. 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

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have investigated Miss C’s complaint about how the Council handled her housing application, assessed her housing needs, its direct offers of accommodation and suitability decision from Autumn 2021 to May 2023.
9. I have not investigated Miss C’s complaint about the condition of the direct offer she accepted in March 2023 and the landlords handling of her disrepair concerns. This is because such matters are outside our jurisdiction and should be brought to the Housing Ombudsman’s attention.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Miss C’s complaints and the Council’s responses;
• discussed the complaints with Miss C and considered the information she provided;
• considered the information the Council provided to my enquiries; and
• the relevant law, guidance and policy to the complaint.
11. Miss C 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

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

12. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
13. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
14. If, having made inquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible, and in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.
15. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
16. If a council ends its interim accommodation duty, but then goes on to accept the main housing duty, it still has a duty to provide temporary accommodation.
17. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household.  This duty applies to interim and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

Housing Allocations

18. 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))
19. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds; and
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
20. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:
• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
21. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))

Reviews of housing decisions

22. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
23. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:
• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process;
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker; and
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.
24. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
25. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. He may 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.
26. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5))

The Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme

27. The Council’s Scheme sets out how it considers eligibility for housing applicants. If it finds an applicant is in need and eligible for support, it prioritise its applicants in Bands based on their personal circumstances. The bands are:
• Band A – Urgent Need for Re-housing.

This includes where emergency or temporary accommodation is not an appropriate response to meet the need due to Medical Priority.

• Band B – Homeless Households.
• Band C – Unsatisfactory Housing Conditions.
• Band D - Threatened with Homelessness or living in Insecure Accomodation.
2. In circumstances where the Council has found an applicant or a member of their household has a medical priority, it will allocate a category of property which best meets their assessed needs. These are:
• A – Wheelchair accessible throughout
• B – Wheelchair accessible – essential rooms
• C – Lifetimes Homes
• D – Easy Access (level approach to the entrance, wider doorways, may have internal flight of stairs – suitable for provision of stair lift)
• E- step free
• E+ - Minimal steps (no more than four steps to access the property)

What happened

29. This is a brief summary of the key events which took place.
30. In 2021 Miss C was living in a two maisonette with her children, which had several stairs leading to the front door.
31. In autumn Miss C’s daughter had surgery and was discharged from hospital. This impacted her ability to walk, and she was issued a wheelchair. She required further support and treatment to regain her ability to walk and mobilise safely independently.
32. Miss C asked the Council for help to be moved to a different property which her daughter could access. She said they were living with Miss C’s mother in the interim.
33. The Council considered whether a homelessness application should be started for Miss C, but agreed with her this would not be appropriate considering the uncertainty the living conditions and location of interim accommodation would cause. A housing register application was started for Miss C.
34. The Council considered Miss C’s housing register application under its Allocation’s Scheme and an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessed her daughter. It found her family needed a two-bedroom property under category E+, which could be ground floor or with a lift. The OT also recommended for the property to be one level and with space to allow for adaptations to the shower if required.
35. The Council informed Miss C of its housing decision and explained she could bid for properties, and it would provide one direct offer of accommodation. It also explained if she refused its offer and it found it to be suitable, her priority band would be reduced.
36. The Council nominated Miss C for a housing association property, but Miss C told the Council it would not be suitable, which the Council accepted based on the information she provided.
37. In late 2021 Miss C told the Council her daughter no longer needed a wheelchair and asked it to reassess the family’s housing needs.
38. The Council arranged for the OT to review the case. The OT considered the medical information from the hospital and the information Miss C had provided the Council. He recommended a property need for category A – wheelchair accessible throughout.
39. Shortly after, the Council nominated Miss C for another two-bedroom property and told her the housing association would contact her with the offer.
40. Miss C says she was not contacted by the housing association. The Council said it was told by the housing association that Miss C had not responded to it and the property would be offered to someone else.
41. Miss C became entitled to a three-bedroom property due to a change in family circumstances.
42. Miss C moved back to her maisonette as her daughter could manage the internal stairs with support, but struggled with the external stairs.
43. Miss C told the Council she agreed with her Band A housing need, but she disagreed with the need for a wheelchair accessible property category she had been allocated as this limited the number of properties she could bid for.
44. Miss C’s Band A priority was changed to Band C following her agreement to remove her medical priority. However, Miss C asked for her medical priority to be included again soon after as the reduced priority meant she would not be successful in bids on properties. Her Band A priority was reinstated.
45. In May 2022 the Council arranged for its OT to review Miss C’s daughter’s needs as its Social & Physical Disabilities Panel (the Panel) was schedule to consider her case. The OT considered she had further surgery and treatment planned which would impact her. He found her mobility had improved and she could manage some internal stairs with support, but would struggle with external stairs. He recommended she needed a property with minimal steps to access, which if needed could facilitate a ramp. This was set as a Property Category C - Lifetime home.
46. The Panel considered Miss C’s case. It told her it had decided she should be allocated Band A, with a property need of a Category E+ - Minimal steps to access. She could bid for properties in this Band, and it would make one direct offer to her. It also said she could appeal its decision within 21 working days.
47. In Autumn 2022 the Council made a direct offer of another property to Miss C, which Miss C refused.
48. The Council’s OT assessed Miss C’s daughter in late 2022. He found she did not need a wheelchair, but recommended a property with minimal steps to access, a garden and disabled parking.
49. The Council and Miss C discussed the suitability of the direct offer she had refused. The Council initially found it was a reasonable offer as it had parking and was on the ground floor with access to a garden area. However, following Miss C’s representations regarding her daughter’s distance to her school, the Council agreed to withdraw its offer.
50. In February 2023 the Council made a further direct offer of a three-bedroom property to Miss C, which was through its housing partnership.
51. Miss C was invited to view the property. She said she attended the viewing but found part of the property was derelict, dirty and had mould, she was unable to view all the property as parts were boarded up.
52. The Council’s housing provider (landlord) told Miss C the property was in its voids process and works to bring the property up to standard would take place before she moved in. Miss C accepted the Council’s direct offer.
53. Miss C was given the keys to the property in Spring 2023 and moved her belongings to the property. She said the property was in a state of disrepair and had mice droppings. She told the Council the property was unsuitable and a health risk to her daughter. She provided a letter from her daughter’s hospital sharing its concerns.
54. The Council discussed Miss C’s concerns with the landlord and offered to move her family to a hotel for three weeks until further repair works could be completed. The landlord inspected the property and arranged further works and for pest control to attend.
55. Miss C asked the Council for a suitability review of the property. Her request was late as she said it had not informed her about her review rights when it offered the property.
56. In May 2023 the Council and the Landlord found the property to be of a lettable standard and suitable to meet Miss C’s family’s needs. It also told her the pest control contractor had completed its assessment and found little or no evidence of mice. However, it agreed to complete some further repair works.
57. The landlord moved Miss C to another property temporarily and arranged for her belongings to be moved or put in storage.

Miss C’s complaint

58. Miss C complained to the Council in September 2022. She said it had failed to rehouse her family and asked for a review of the Panel’s decision in May 2022. This was because she disagreed with the category E+ recommendation which limited the number of properties available for her to bid on. She said its decision was wrong because:
• the OT assessment in 2021 and her daughter’s needs had changed as she could manage stairs, but not as many as in their previous property;
• the council had failed to get medical evidence to reach its view and the OT had not seen her daughter in subsequent reviews; and
• she had not been told she could provide medical evidence before the Panel considered the case.
59. In response the Council did not uphold her complaint and found its Panel’s decision had been properly considered. It explained:
• it had considered the information on Miss C’s housing file, her views on her daughter’s needs, the OT assessor’s recommendations, its medical adviser’s view, and views of several other services and agencies involved with her daughter’s care before it reached its decision;
• its decision was for Band A priority with a property need of category E+. It found this was in line with the medical recommendations and it could not offer other properties; and
• it had offered properties available to Miss C. However, following her representations it agreed these were not suitable, and she had failed to respond to the housing associations contact about one property, but it had not reduced her priority as a result.
60. In January 2023 Miss C complained to the Council about its direct offer of the property in autumn 2022, which she believed was unsuitable, and its lack of responses to her communication in late 2022.
61. In response the Council told Miss C it had found the property suitable to meet the family’s needs, but changed its view when it became aware her daughter had an Education, Health and Care Plan. It apologised for the lack of responses to her communication in late 2022 as its officer was away.
62. In Spring 2023 Miss C complained to the Council again about the condition of the direct offer it made in February 2023, which she had accepted. She said:
• she was not allowed to view all of the property before accepting it;
• the property was unsuitable due to disrepair and a health risk to her daughter; and
• she raised issues about the landlord’s actions to address the conditions of the property.
63. In response the Council did not uphold Miss C’s complaint. It said it had inspected the property and found the property was of a lettable standard, but it agreed some works needed to be carried out. It believed these could be done while Miss C was in the property and did not agree there was a health risk to her daughter. It had offered to move her to a hotel and the landlord had since moved her temporarily to another property while works were completed.
64. Miss C asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaints as she believes the Council has caused delays in her family moving to a suitable accommodation since Autumn 2021.
65. Miss C has since told us she has brought her complaint about her landlords handing of repairs and pests to the Housing Ombudsman’s attention.

Analysis and finding

66. Miss C complained about matters which occurred since Autumn 2021. Part of her complaint is therefore late, as concerns should be brought to our attention within 12 months of the matters complained about. However, I have found it appropriate to exercise my discretion to consider her complaints from January 2022 as she has continued to raise her concerns with the Council.

Miss C’s Priority Band and Property needs category

67. Miss C agreed she should be allocated Band A priority but disagrees with the Council’s decision her family needed a category E+ minimal steps access and how the Council reached its views.
68. The Council arranged for an OT to assess Miss C’s daughter shortly after she was discharged from hospital in autumn 2021. It asked its OT to complete further reviews in late 2021 and before its Panel considered her housing case in May 2022. A further OT assessment took place in late 2022.
69. I acknowledge Miss C’s view was her family’s property needs were different to what the Council decided as her daughter’s mobility improved, and the OT did not see her in subsequent reviews. This meant she was not able to bid on properties in other categories and therefore limited the number of available properties to her.
70. In this case, the difference between the Council’s views on Miss C’s daughter’s needs and Miss C’s view was largely a matter of how many stairs she could manage.
71. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to reach a view on what property category Miss C should be assigned. I can only consider the process the Council followed to reach its decision.
72. I have not found fault in the process the Council followed. This is because, before it reached its decisions, it obtained and considered Miss C’s views, its OT’s assessments and reviews, its medical advisor’s view, and views and medical information from other professionals involved with her daughter’s care. It was therefore entitled to reach its view and allocate Miss C to property category E+ minimal steps.
73. I am also conscious the Council Policy say it will take account of the applicant’s or their family current and likely further medical needs. In this case, the Council considered Miss C’s daughter had ongoing treatments in hospital which it believed may impact her needs going forward.
74. The Council’s Allocation Scheme says it will allocate properties to applicants in line with the assessed priority and property category. It cannot allocate properties outside the assessed need. It was therefore not at fault for telling Miss C she cannot bid for properties in other categories or Bands, unless she wished for her housing register application to be considered without medical needs.

Direct offers (refused)

75. Miss C complained about the direct offers she received from the Council, as she believed these were unsuitable.
76. Miss C’s family’s assessed property needs were initially a wheelchair accessible property. However, this changed to be category E+ minimal steps following the Council’s reviews of her daughter’s needs and Miss C’s representations.
77. Based on the evidence available, the Council made direct offers for three properties Miss C did not accept, these were:
• A two-bedroom ground floor property. The Council accepted the property was not suitable following her representations;
• A nomination to a housing association for a two-bedroom ground floor property. It is disputed the housing association made contact with Miss C. However, Miss C disagreed it was suitable and would not have accepted it as it was two bedrooms, and her family needs were changing to a three-bedroom property shortly after. This did not impact her bidding or offers she received; and
• A three-bedroom ground floor property which Miss C did not find suitable. The Council initially found it suitable, but agreed it was not suitable after Miss C’s told the Council about her daughter’s Education, Health and Care plan and concerns about the distance to her school.
78. I have found no fault in the Council’s decisions to offer the three properties to Miss C. It did so as it believed these would meet the needs of her family. However, following Miss C’s representations, it accepted her refusals on each occasion and did not reduce her priority as a result.

Direct Offer (Accepted)

79. Miss C accepted the Council’s offer of a three-bedroom property provided by the Council’s housing partnership in 2023. She said she accepted the offer as she was assured the landlord would complete repair works before she moved in.
80. I cannot consider the landlord’s handling of the repairs or steps to assess or address pest issues in the property. However, I can consider Miss C’s concerns around the viewing and her suitability review rights which remained the Council’s responsibility.
81. I understand Miss C viewed the property which was in line with the Council’s Allocations Policy. However, she was unable to view all the property as parts were boarded up.
82. Normally, I would expect an applicant should be able to view all of the property they are to accept or refuse. However, in some circumstances this may not be possible as repairs are needed, and part of a property is unavailable for viewing as a result.
83. I cannot say whether Miss C would have refused the property, if she had been able to view all of it. However, it is clear the property met the size, rooms and location needs it had assessed Miss C and her family to be entitled to. I have therefore not found fault by the Council for making its direct offer, nor her ability to only view parts of the property.
84. I acknowledge Miss C felt pressured into accepting the property. However, if she found the property to be unsuitable based on its location, size or rooms she could have asked the Council for a suitability review, which would have been the appropriate process.
85. Based on the evidence available, I found the Council failed to tell Miss C about her review rights in its offer of this property. However, I am not satisfied this fault caused Miss C an injustice. This is because:
• the Council informed her of her review rights in each of her previous direct offers and its Panel’s decisions. She had requested reviews of the Council’s decisions and direct offer of a property within the last year of its offer;
• Miss C was therefore aware of her review rights, even though the Council have failed to formally share her review rights with her on this occasion; and
• the Council considered Miss C’s complaint about the suitability of the property. It found its offer was in line with the assessed property needs for her family. It also found, following its pest control assessment, there was no evidence of an ongoing pest problem in the property.
86. I am also conscious the Council offered to place Miss C and her family in a hotel for a few weeks while the repairs it agreed was necessary were completed, and her landlord provided an alternative accommodation until further works were completed.

Back to top

Final decision

87. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault by the Council in how it reached its decisions on Miss C’s housing needs and its property offers. It did fail to give her review rights information on its final property offer, but this did not cause an injustice as she was aware of her rights.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman