Summary: Mr X says the Council’s financial remedy for its mistakes in assessing his housing priority is not enough. We found the remedy was not sufficient. The Council has agreed to pay an increased remedy to take account of the impact on Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to give him the correct housing priority leading to him missing out on an offer of a property. The Council has offered a suitable property which Mr X accepted. It also offered a financial remedy for the injustice caused. However, Mr X says the remedy does not take account of the significant impact on his life and personal relationships.

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, 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).
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

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated matters from April 2022 when the Council’s policy regarding priority changed.
5. I have not investigated matters before April 2022, as Mr X received a final response regarding his earlier complaint made in February 2022. But he did not raise a complaint with the Ombudsman.
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. Mr X did not raise a complaint with the Ombudsman about these matters within 12 months and I do not consider there are good reasons for the Ombudsman to investigate this now.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the documents it provided. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

Homelessness

9. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council when
• 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)

The main housing duty

10. 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).

Background

11. In November 2021 Mr X applied to the Council to join its housing register. He was living at his sister and brother in law’s home in the living room, sleeping on the sofa. Mr X and his wife had divorced. He has two children, and agreed with his wife to share custody.
12. The Council assessed Mr X’s housing application in February 2022 and advised him that his priority was band 2 starting from February 2022. It considered he had a need for a one bedroom property.
13. In February 2022 Mr X applied to the Council as homeless because he was threatened with homelessness. The Council accepted Mr X was homeless, eligible and in priority need. Mr X also complained to the Council about the delay in considering his application.
14. The Council upheld part of his complaint. It agreed there had been a delay in assessing his application. It backdated his priority start date to November 2021.
15. In April 2022 the Council’s Housing Allocations policy changed. If a person was threatened with homelessness and in priority need, the Council would place them in band one priority on the housing register.

What happened

16. In September 2022 Mr X complained to the Council that he was still living at his sister’s home. He had mental and physical health conditions which were being made worse. He had lost his job. The Council’s housing solutions officer had advised him in May 2022 that she would move him to priority band one. But he said she had not contacted him since then and he had been unable to speak to her despite trying many times. He also said the Council had not advised him what to do about providing evidence of his custody arrangements.
17. Mr X chased the Council’s complaint response on 25 October as it should have responded within 20 working days at stage one of its complaints procedure.
18. The housing needs manager called Mr X on the same day and agreed the Council should have increased his priority from April 2022 and it would amend this.
19. The Council completed its response to Mr X’s stage one complaint on 31 October 2022. However, this letter was not sent until 17 November. It upheld the complaint. It said that Mr X’s housing register application would now reflect his current circumstances. It agreed the contact and support Mr X received from his housing solutions officer was not acceptable. It said it would pass the case to another officer. The Council apologised for the distress it had caused Mr X.
20. Mr X complained further in late November that he had now found out he had lost extra priority he would have received for being in employment if the Council had assessed his priority correctly earlier. But because of the Council’s delay in correctly assessing his priority he believed he had missed out on offers of properties, because he had been second or third on the list. He considered the Council had neglected him and discriminated against him. He asked the Council to escalate his complaint and to consider whether he had a two bedroom need rather than a one bedroom need because he had joint custody of his two children.
21. On 1 December 2022 a senior housing needs manager responded to Mr X agreeing that his housing solutions officer had not responded in a timely manner. He confirmed that a new officer would carry out a full assessment.
22. Mr X replied that his complaint was about missing out on potential offers because he would have had higher priority when he was working if the Council had properly assessed his priority.
23. The Council says it intended to respond to Mr X’s further points by 9 December 2022, before it could be escalated to stage two of its complaint procedure if Mr X remained dissatisfied. However, the head of service did not respond due to being on sick leave.
24. On 2 March 2023 the Council sent a further stage one response. It said that it had reviewed his housing application. This assessment had been delayed further from December 2022 due to the officer being on sick leave. The Council agreed Mr X had been disadvantaged due to its delays in correctly assessing his application. It said if it had correctly assessed his application, it would have made him an offer of accommodation before now. It should have reassessed his priority following a change in its housing allocations policy in April 2022. As Mr X was someone who was threatened with homelessness, and in priority need for assistance, it should have revised his priority to band one. It did not do this until 25 October 2022. As a result the Council said Mr X missed out on a property which would have been offered to him in May. The likely tenancy start date would have been 25 May 2022. The Council apologised for the error and the impact this would have had on him. The Council offered to remedy its fault by:
• Making an offer of a two bedroom property.
• Paying him £150 for each month that he was not housed due to the Council’s error. This was for a 10 month period from May 2022 to March 2023 so it would pay £1500.
• It would take steps to make staff aware of the complaint and the impact of its errors. It was also planning to restructure the service and provide sufficient resources to ensure mistakes such as this did not happen again.
25. The Council made Mr X an offer of a property in March which he accepted.
26. However, Mr X was not satisfied with the financial remedy offered and asked the Council to reconsider on 6 March 2023. The Council responded on 9 March that it considered the remedy it had offered was fair and in line with a similar Ombudsman’s remedy on another case.
27. On 10 March 2023 Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint to its stage two review stage.
28. The Council passed the request for a review to its chief auditor and a response should have been sent by 16 March. However, there were changes in the Council’s procedure which led to the response being delayed by four weeks.
29. Mr X told us he chased the Council for a response in March and April. The Council replied explaining there was a change in its complaints process. It said it had regularly updated him and explained the issue, and he was not the only one affected.
30. Mr X replied that he had only received updates after he chased the Council. He believed he had been extremely patient given the history of the case.
31. On 19 April 2023 the Council advised Mr X it had allocated the case to a manager for the stage two review. The deadline for the response was 5 May 2023.
32. Mr X chased a response on 10 May 2023 because he had not received a reply. He said the Council was deliberately disregarding his concerns discriminating against him. He said he had started his complaint 13 months earlier but the Council had not resolved it or given it any kind of priority. He said it was causing him stress and anxiety and was affecting his mental health condition.
33. The Council replied to Mr X apologising for its failure to update him. It said it had carried out a review in April, but the director of law and governance now needed to consider the recommendations. She would respond by 18 May. While the Council agreed it had taken longer than expected, it had not taken 13 months.
34. On 19 May 2023 the Council responded at stage two. It did not consider it should investigation further. And it did not agree it should increase the level of the remedy it had offered. But it did extend the remedy period by a further month in view of the delay in offering suitable accommodation. Therefore, the total amount offered was £1650. The Council also said its Housing Needs Service would carry out a review within 3 months to see how it could improve complaint handling timescales to ensure responses were sent within the required time.
35. Mr X accepted the Council’s offer on 23 May. He emailed and called the Council the following week to ask when it would make payment. The Council replied he had called and emailed it three times without waiting an appropriate time for response. It said that the process was likely to take about four weeks as a cabinet member would need to authorise it.
36. The Council updated Mr X on 26 June and advised it had taken longer than expected delayed due to a change in management. It asked Mr X to agree the wording in a proposed letter.
37. Mr X agreed and chased the Council after a week to find out when the payment would be made.
38. The Council apologised again that it was taking longer than anticipated. It expected to make payment within 7 to 10 working days.
39. However, the Council did not make payment by 19 July as stated. So Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.
40. The Council apologised for the further missed deadline and stated this was due to a delay in the authorisation process. It could not say when it would make the payment.
41. Mr X withdrew his agreement to the proposed remedy.

Analysis

42. I have considered the Council’s offer of a financial remedy and whether it was an appropriate amount in view of the injustice caused by its fault. I have taken account of the Ombudsman’s Guidance on remedies. I do not consider that the Council’s remedy is sufficient because the impact on Mr X missing out on an offer of suitable accommodation was significant.
43. Mr X states that he no longer has a relationship with his sister and brother in law because of the extended time he stayed at their home. He now does not have the family support that he would have had if the Council had not been at fault and offered a property in May 2022. His relationship with his ex wife also worsened because he could not take responsibility for the children according to their custody agreement. He was unable to care for or see his children because they could not stay with him or visit him. He said his mental health worsened and was severely affected throughout the period.
44. I note the Council has referred to another Ombudsman decision 22002575 when considering the remedy it would pay. In that case the injustice was distress about the possibility of a child coming to harm while the family remained in a property that posed a danger because of child’s disability. However, I do not consider that decision is directly comparable to Mr X’s case and to his injustice.
45. In Mr X’s case he was vulnerable due to his physical and mental health condition and remained in unsuitable accommodation (sleeping on a sofa) for much longer than was necessary. He was forced to live apart from his children for whom he had caring responsibilities. His long term relationships were, and continue to be affected. I have therefore recommended an increase from £150 per month to £250 per month for each month that Mr X was in unsuitable accommodation which could have been avoided if it was not for the Council’s fault.
46. I consider the Council’s complaint handling and communication was poor in this case. There were significant delays in responding to the complaints and it does not appear there was any action between December 2022 and March 2023. There was delay at the final stage from 10 March 2023 to 19 May 2023. There was also significant delay after Mr X accepted the Council’s offer of a financial remedy in May 2023. The Council had not paid this by August 2023, when Mr X had complained to the Ombudsman. These delays were fault. I note the Council has changed its processes and that there have been periods of officers being on leave. But this affected Mr X and caused further anxiety and stress.
47. When Mr X chased the Council for a response or updates, which he had been promised, he received replies which he found harsh and degrading. I consider the tone of some of the Council’s email responses was abrupt and did not appear to recognise the impact of the long delays Mr X had experienced which were the Council’s responsibility. I consider there was fault here.
48. Mr X has complained the Council discriminated against him in the way it treated him, particularly when it responded to his emails.
49. The Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
50. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act are:
• age;
• disability;
• gender reassignment;
• marriage and civil partnership;
• pregnancy and maternity;
• race;
• religion or belief;
• sex; and
• sexual orientation.
51. The Ombudsman cannot find that a body in jurisdiction has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find a body at fault for failing to take account of their duties under the Equality Act.
52. While I have found the Council was at fault for the reasons I set out earlier, I have not seen evidence the Council failed to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.

Back to top

Agreed action

53. As a remedy for the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, I recommend that within six weeks of my decision the Council pays Mr X
• £250 per month for the 11 months that Mr X missed out on an offer of a property, so a total of £2750
• £200 for the time and trouble he was put to during the delayed and extended complaint process.
54. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman