Summary: Mrs C complained about the Council's decision she was not eligible to bid for a two-bedroom property and its housing support when she contacted it about being homeless. Mrs C says she has had to sofa surf with her husband and they are not always able to stay together which is stressful and harmful to her health. We have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action of an apology and improved record keeping in addition to a symbolic payment it had offered provides a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs C, complains about the Council's decision she is not eligible to bid for a two-bedroom property despite at first telling her she could. Mrs C also complains about the Council's housing support when she contacted it about being homeless.
2. Mrs C says because of the Council's fault, she is sofa surfing with her husband and they are not always able to stay together despite him being her main carer. Mrs C says this is stressful and is having a harmful impact on her 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. 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 read the papers provided by Mrs C and discussed the complaint with her. I have also considered information from the Council. I have explained my draft decision to Mrs C and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities sets out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. 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. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent 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 (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18).
8. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33).

Housing allocations

9. 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)).
10. 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
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others

(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

11. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties.
12. 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.

What happened

13. The following is a summary of key events. It does not include everything that happened.
14. Mrs C was registered on the Council’s housing register from 2005. The Council completed several medical assessments from 2017 onwards which did not result in an award of medical priority. Mrs C was therefore registered with a non-priority Band C and was entitled to bid for one bedroom properties. This is in accordance with the Council’s allocations scheme which allows one bedroom for an adult couple.
15. Mrs C contacted the Council in February 2023 to say she and her husband were at risk of homelessness following the end of a private tenancy. Mrs C told the Council they were staying with family and friends but had no fixed address and were sleeping ‘here, there and everywhere’. Mrs C said she suffered from various health issues and disabilities and provided the details for her GP.
16. The Council’s medical adviser recommended in March that Mrs C would be considered significantly more vulnerable that an ordinary person if homeless due to the need for help with the activities of daily living and the use of a walking aid. The medical adviser recommended a ground floor property or any floor of a property if there was a lift. There was no reference to a second bedroom.
17. The Council completed its assessment of Mrs C’s homelessness application and wrote to her accepting a prevention duty towards the end of March. The Council noted Mrs C’s privately rented property was no longer available as her landlord had decided to sell and she was temporarily living with friends and/or family. The Council explained if this situation changed and Mrs C became homeless, she should revert to it as a different duty would apply. The Council’s letter set out Mrs C’s right to request a review of this decision.
18. The Council also completed a Personal Housing Plan (PHP) and enclosed this with its letter above. The PHP confirmed the Council had awarded Mrs C a reasonable preference under Band B1 on the Housing Register and she should bid for properties using this Band and also look for private rented accommodation. The PHP stated Mrs C was eligible to bid for two bedroom flat accommodation but noted there were long waiting times and she was more likely to be able to access a privately rented property. The Council listed the support it was able to provide including financial help to support a move to alternative accommodation and its rent deposit scheme and list of letting agents.
19. There is an internal Council email in early April that makes clear Mrs C and her husband would only be eligible for a one bedroom property unless a medical assessment had been completed which confirmed they needed two bedrooms. The email also noted Mrs C had advised they were sofa surfing.
20. There followed contact with Mrs C about the size of property she was eligible to bid for but the Council has not provided a record of this contact. However, Mrs C complained to the Council in early and mid-April that she had been told she was awarded priority to bid for two bedroom properties but had since been told she could only bid for one bedroom properties. Mrs C explained she required a separate bedroom to her husband due to her medical condition.
21. The Council responded to Mrs C’s above complaints in early May. This acknowledged Mrs C was initially assessed as having a two bedroom need based on the information she had provided during the March assessment. The Council noted she was later advised this was an error and she was eligible for a one bedroom property. The Council further noted Mrs C had been advised to contact her GP and provide any supporting information for her request for a two bedroom property. The Council confirmed once this information was received it would refer the matter to its medical adviser for their recommendation. The Council also noted Mrs C had stated she was now sofa surfing and had been advised about the possibility of temporary accommodation although there was a high demand for this accommodation and few self-contained properties in the immediate area. This meant she may well be placed outside of the area and possibly in a hotel which may not be ideal. The Council asked Mrs C to contact her case worker if she wished to consider this option.
22. Mrs C contacted the Council in early May to say any property needed to be on the ground floor and provided a letter of support from her GP about the need for a two bedroom property. This explained Mrs C suffered from chronic pain which disturbed her sleep and meant she had to sleep separately from her husband.
23. The Council referred the matter to its medical adviser. The Council’s medical adviser concluded in mid-May there was no medical condition which precluded sharing a bedroom and a second bedroom was not medically essential. The Council provided the outcome to Mrs C towards the end of May. Mrs C sought a review of this decision. Mrs C also escalated her complaint towards the end of June.
24. The Council’s Case Review Panel met to consider the request for two bedroom accommodation in July and considered the information provided but did not uphold the appeal.
25. The Council provided a response to Mrs C’s escalated complaint at the start of August and apologised for the delay. The Council accepted it had advised Mrs C she was eligible to bid for two bedroom properties following its homelessness assessment in March without obtaining a recommendation that a second bedroom was required from its medical adviser. The Council confirmed the outcome of the medical advisers’ referral and the outcome of her appeal to the Case Review Panel. The Council confirmed Mrs C was eligible to bid for one bedroom properties and provided details of the relevant section of its allocation policy.
26. The Council also wrote separately to Mrs C towards the end of August with the outcome of her appeal following its Case Review Panel. This advised Mrs C it had considered the available medical information, the medical advisor’s report and her reasons for the appeal. The Panel had concluded she was not eligible to bid for two bedroom properties. The Council explained it considered one-bedroom accommodation was sufficient and adequate for Mrs C’s needs based on her family composition and her situation was not deemed to be exceptional such as to merit an additional bedroom.
27. In its response to my enquiries the Council acknowledged the incorrect information provided to Mrs C about being able to bid for two bedroom properties would have caused her inconvenience and offered £100 to recognise this.

My consideration

28. The Council has already accepted there as an error in advising Mrs C she was eligible to bid for a two bedroom property and offered £100 for her inconvenience. It is clear Mrs C was made aware of the error within a relatively short period of time and so I consider the Council’s offer of £100 would be a reasonable and proportionate way to remedy her inconvenience and raised expectations in relation to this part of her complaint subject to the addition of a suitable apology.
29. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
30. The Council subsequently considered the recommendation of its medical assessor with the additional supporting information provided by Mrs C in reaching its decision she was not eligible for a second bedroom. The Council followed the appropriate procedures when making this decision and I cannot therefore criticise it.
31. However, I am concerned about the Council’s record keeping in relation to its ‘reasonable enquiries’ made during Mrs C’s homelessness application. Given the limited information provided by Mrs C about the nature of her temporary living arrangements I would expect to see evidence of further enquiries on this point to inform its consideration of whether it owed a prevention or relief duty. The Council should have made a contemporaneous record of this consideration and any accommodation offered to Mrs C with her reasons if she rejected this offer for example because she had made her own arrangements to stay with family. In the particular circumstances of this complaint, I do not consider any fault here has caused Mrs C an injustice. I have taken into account that Mrs C was made aware of her right to seek a review of the Council’s decision it owed a prevention duty only and that if her circumstances changed she should contact the Council and the situation would be reviewed included the possibility of the Council offering interim accommodation.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. In addition to paying the £100 already offered by the Council, it will take the following action within one month of my final decision:
1. write to Mrs C to apologise for the error in advising her she was eligible to bid for two bedroom accommodation; and
2. provide guidance to relevant staff to ensure an adequate record is kept of homelessness enquiries.
33. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation as I have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action above together with the action it had already proposed provides a suitable remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman