Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of their daughter, Y’s, housing case. We have found fault by the Council. It failed to consider the suitability of Y’s interim and temporary accommodation, wrongly suspended her housing application and did not properly consider reviews of the medical evidence she presented. It also failed to answer Mr and Mrs X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment in recognition of the injustice caused and to consider making Y a direct offer of accommodation if it finds Y would have been made an offer of suitable accommodation, save for the fault we found.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of their daughter, Y’s, housing case. They complain that:
• Y’s housing bidding application was suspended between February 2020 and November 2020. It was suspended again in March 2021 and remains suspended.
• In May 2021 Y moved to interim (later temporary) accommodation outside the borough and this left her vulnerable because of her mental health illness.
• Wrongly placed Y’s housing bidding application in Band 3 until December 2021.
2. Mr and Mrs X state that absent of fault by the Council, there is a strong possibility that Y would have secured permanent accommodation through the normal bidding process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated matters from February 2020 onwards. I have decided to exercise discretion and investigate matters from this date because I consider there are good reason why Mr and Mrs X did not complain sooner as the issues and the Council has provided evidence covering this period.
7. I have not investigated how the Council managed Y’s housing case before February 2020. These parts of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint are late. I consider it was reasonable for Mr and Mrs X to have complained to us sooner and so there are no grounds to exercise discretion and investigate them now.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. As part of my investigation I have:
• considered Y’s complaint and information provided by Mr and Mrs X;
• considered the Council’s response to our enquiries;
• considered the relevant legislation, guidance and council polices;
• considered the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies; and
• set out my initial thoughts on the complaint in a draft decision statement and I considered comments received from Mr and Mrs X.

Back to top

What I found

9. Councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
10. Councils have a legal duty to place applicants in their own areas so far as reasonably practicable. (Housing Act 1996, Section 208, Homelessness Code of Guidance, sections 17.47-17.54)
11. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) sets out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, it has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
12. Temporary accommodation is accommodation provided to homeless applicants as part of a council’s main homelessness duty.
13. Council’s must assess whether accommodation is suitable for each household individually. Whether accommodation is suitable will depend on the relevant needs and circumstances of the homeless person and their household. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, 17.4 and 17.9)
14. As the duty to provide suitable accommodation is a continuing obligation, councils must keep the issue of suitability of accommodation under review. If there is a change of circumstances the council must reconsider whether the accommodation remains suitable.
15. 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 the right to ask for a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided under the main housing duty. We refer to these rights as s202 reviews. (Housing Act 1996, s202)

Housing Allocations

16. 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))
17. Most Councils’ allocations schemes use either a points or banding system to prioritise between applicants. Section 166A(3) of the Housing Act 1993 sets out that councils 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.

18. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. The Council places housing applicants into one of four bands according to their housing need. Band 1 is the highest priority and Band 4 is the lowest. It can also award a priority star to recognise severe medical or welfare need.
19. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
20. 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;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

What happened

21. The following is a summary of key events. It does not include everything that has happened.
22. Y has a diagnosis of mental health illnesses. Her mother, Mrs X is her carer. She also receives support from her family and professionals including a social worker and a consultant psychiatrist.
23. In November 2018 Y made a housing bidding application to the Council. It registered her application and awarded it priority band 3. Miss X was given a bidding number to allow her to bid on properties she was eligible for.
24. In September 2019 Y made a homelessness application to the Council. The Council suspended Y’s housing bidding application while it considered her homelessness application.
25. In February 2020 the Council decided Y was not in priority need and it closed her homelessness application.
26. Y’s housing bidding application remained suspended and in September she complained to the Council. The Council did not reply to her complaint but did reactive her housing application later that month.
27. In February 2021 the Council received a referral from Y’s social worker saying she was homeless.
28. The Council accepted a homelessness application from Y and provided her with interim accommodation. This was a hotel near her carer and family.
29. In March the Council suspended Y’s housing bidding application while it considered her homelessness application.
30. In April the Council moved Y to new interim accommodation. This was a room in a property with shared facilities. The property was outside the borough and significantly further away from Y’s carer and support network.
31. In May Y’s reablement social worker wrote to the Council. She explained Mrs X could not travel to Y’s new accommodation as it was too far. She said that without this support Y would end up in hospital. She explained that Y’s mental health was declining and that she was in a state of confusion and paranoia.
32. The Council acknowledged the letter from Y’s reablement social worker and said it had written to Y asking her to provide any further medical information she would like to have considered. It said Y had not replied. It copied Y into the email and gave her a final deadline to provide this. Y did not reply
33. The Council asked its independent medical adviser to consider supporting medical information provided by Y’s reablement social worker. The adviser decided the information did not suggest Y was significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary person and so it said no medical priority should be given to her housing bidding application.
34. In June Y sent the Council an email which explained she was receiving care from her local NHS Trust, that she had a social worker and was receiving help from a counsellor and her local Southwark Team for Early Psychosis (STEP).
35. In August the Council decided it owed Y the main housing duty. It also gave Y a new bidding number so she could bid for accommodation. These details were confirmed in writing to Y. It awarded her housing application priority band 3 and said she was eligible to bid for a one bedroom properties.
36. In September Y’s Care-Coordinator asked the Council to review its decision to award her application priority band 3. The request explained Y’s care needs and that these are met by her carer, family and professionals who are all based in the borough. The letter said further supporting information was available on request.
37. In October the Council told Y that its review found her housing application was given the correct priority banding. Y’s housing application remained in band 3.
38. Also, in October the Council suspended Y’s housing application for one day. It is unclear why it did so.
39. In November Y Mrs X challenged the Council’s decision about Y’s priority banding. It said the Council’s view was wrong. The letter explained Y receives a care package from Social Services and care from her local NHS Trust. The letter also explained the impact on Y of her temporary accommodation. It said the accommodation was unsuitable as it is too far away from her support network and has shared facilities which Y cannot cope with.
40. Mr and Mrs X followed up the review request with a formal complaint about the result of the previous review. They complained about the Council’s handling of Y’s housing case from 2018 onwards.
41. Also, in November the Council received letters Y’s Care-Coordinator and Consultant Psychiatrist confirming Y has a diagnosis of psychotic illness and she is receiving care for this. The letters disagreed with the Council’s view that Y does not have a medical need to move.
42. In December the Council sought supporting medical information from professionals working with Y.
43. Later that month the Council told Y that it had completed a new review which considered information provided by those supporting her. It awarded Y’s application priority band 2 with a priority star on welfare grounds. It also told Mr and Mrs X that it could not consider their complaint as it did not have a record of Y giving her consent for them to make a complaint on her behalf.
44. Also, in December and following the review of Y’s case the Council’s Housing department asked its Housing Benefit team to investigate Y’s case. It found that Y’s claim to housing benefit was not transferred to her temporary accommodation, and this was why rent arrears had accrued. The error was rectified, and the arrears cleared.
45. In January 2022 Mr and Mrs X wrote to the Council providing details that Y gave her consent for them to pursue their complaint of November 2021. The complaint now included concerns about Y’s housing bidding application being suspended because of an error with her Housing Benefit application which resulted in her housing application being suspended. They said her application was still suspended despite the arrears being cleared once the Housing Benefit error was rectified. The Council did not reply.
46. In February 2022 the Council moved Y to new temporary accommodation within its borough.
47. Also, in February records show Y made a bid for accommodation using the bidding number given to her in August 2021. She later withdrew the bid. Mr and Mrs X dispute Y made a bid.
48. In July 2023 Mr and Mrs X made a new complaint to the Council about Y’s housing application remaining suspended. The letter reiterated the same grounds of complaint and stated that Y’s housing bidding application remained suspended.
49. In August the Council replied. It dealt with the complaint at Stage Two of its complaints process. It said:
• Y’s housing bidding application was suspended in March 2021 when she made a homelessness application. Her application remained suspended for this reason until the Council decided her homelessness application in August 2021.
• However, Y’s housing bidding application remained suspended because she had rent arrears for her temporary accommodation. The rent arrears were an error.
• The Council sought supporting medical information from Y and liaised with her Social Worker to encourage Y to provide this before it made a decision to award her housing bidding application priority band 3 in August 2021.
• The review decision of October 2021 was flawed because it was based on the information available in August 2021.
• No other information was available until the Council liaised with professionals working with Y as part of its December review of her banding. The new information provided grounds to increase the priority banding awarded to her application.
• The reason for Y being moved to temporary accommodation outside the borough are not clear.

The Council did not uphold the complaint.

50. Unhappy with the Council’s actions Mr and Mrs X complained the Ombudsman.
51. We made enquiries of the Council. In its response it said:
• Y should have been given a change of circumstances form to complete following its decision on her homelessness application in February 2020. It acknowledged this did not happen resulting in Miss X’s housing bidding application remain suspended until late September 2020.
• Y was given a new housing bidding application bidding number following its decision on her homelessness application in August 2021. It would appear Y has been using her old bidding reference number since then. Her old bidding number is suspended because she was given the new number.
• Y was moved from her hotel interim accommodation to the room in a shared property because the Council only places homeless applicants in hotels where there is no alternative accommodation. It will move them once alternative accommodation is found. It had no information to suggest a shared property was not suitable for Y. It did not carry out a formal suitability assessment for the accommodation before Y’s move there or after.

Finding

Suitability of interim and temporary accommodation

52. Y was moved to out of borough accommodation in April 2021, at which point it was being provided to her as interim accommodation by the Council. The Council has not provided any information detailing how it decided the accommodation was suitable for Y’s needs. This is fault.
53. The Council has also failed to explain why it needed to place Y in accommodation outside the borough or what consideration, if any, it gave to the suitability of Y living further away from her carer and those supporting her. The Council has not provided any records showing it considered whether accommodation over an hour away from her carer and support network was suitable for Y. This is fault.
54. In May 2021 Y’s reablement social worker raised concerns with the Council about the suitability of her interim accommodation. I have seen no evidence the Council reviewed the suitability of the interim accommodation. While I acknowledge that Y did not have a statutory right of review, the law makes clear any accommodation provided must be suitable. The Council should have considered the concerns of Y’s reablement social worker and documented its decision. This is fault.
55. In August 2021 the Council said it owed Y the main housing duty. This meant Y’s out of borough accommodation was now classed as temporary accommodation and accordingly, Y had review and appeal rights about the suitability of the accommodation. I have seen nothing demonstrating that it informed Y of her rights. This is fault.
56. In September 2021 Y’s Care-Coordinator contacted the Council saying Y needed a higher priority banding for her housing application for reasons including being away from her carer and support network. I would have expected an intervention by a professional involved in Y’s care to have triggered a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation. I have seen nothing to suggest it did. This is fault.
57. In December 2021 the Council concluded that Y had a medical need to move from her current accommodation because it was having a negative impact on her mental health. I consider this means the Council accepts the accommodation was unsuitable for Y. This is injustice.
58. Y was moved to alternative accommodation in February 2022. Again, the Council has provided no records explaining why she was moved. The reasons for the move should have been recorded.

Priority banding

59. The Council decided in December 2021 that Y’s housing bidding application should be awarded priority band 2 with a priority star for welfare needs. It made its decision after receiving evidence from Y’s Consultant Psychiatrist and Care-Coordinator. The Council can only award medical priority when it has sufficient evidence to do so.
60. However, I consider the Council should have sought this information from professionals working with Y sooner. In May Y’s reablement social worker wrote to the Council about Y’s mental health. I have seen nothing to suggest the Council sought additional information from her social worker or that it asked its Social Services department about Y’s medical needs.
61. I acknowledge the Council asked Y to provide medical evidence to support her application and that she did not do so. However, the Council was aware from Y’s reablement social worker that she was struggling with her mental health and so, considering this, the Council should have sought additional information itself.
62. Furthermore, the Council did not seek additional information when it reviewed its decision in October 2021. Y’s Care-Coordinator made the request but it does not appear the Council asked her to provide any further information. Instead, it relied on the report of its independent medical adviser which was based on the limited information provided in May.
63. I consider that, on the balance of probabilities, Y’s priority banding would have increased to band 2 with a priority star sooner if the Council had sought information as set out above.

Suspended housing bidding application

64. Y’s housing bidding application was suspended between February 2020 and September 2020. The Council accepts this was because it did not ask Miss X to complete a change of circumstances form following its decision on her homelessness application. This is fault which prevented Y from bidding for permanent accommodation for seven months.
65. Evidence provided by the Council shows Y’s current housing application was only suspended for one day in October 2021. The Council’s replies to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint said otherwise. It should have thoroughly investigated this matter, so the correct information was provided. While it is unclear why her application was suspended in October, I do not consider a suspension of one day prevented Y from bidding for permanent accommodation.
66. Mr and Mrs X say Y’s housing application remains suspended. I do not agree. Y’s current application is not suspended, and it appears Y was able to make a bid in February 2022. I note that Y’s previous housing bidding application is not active because her new application is and this has perhaps caused confusion. Y was told she had a new housing bidding application number in the Council’s letter confirming it owed her the main housing duty.

Complaint

67. Mr and Mrs X made a stage two complaint request in January 2022 and provided a consent form signed by Y giving them authority to make the complaint on her behalf. The Council did not reply to their complaint. This is fault. It has caused Mr and Mrs X frustration and necessitated them making a further complaint to the Council. This is injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

68. To remedy the injustice caused to Y, the Council should within one month of my final decision:
• Apologise in writing to Y for the fault I have found;
• Pay Y £3600, made up of:

1. £2500 for failing to provide Y with suitable interim and temporary accommodation between May 2021 and February 2022. This payment recognises the impact on Y of living in unsuitable accommodation, as detailed in correspondence from professionals caring for her. The payment has been worked out at £250 per month during this period and considers Y’s vulnerabilities and the impact on her of living outside the borough.
2. £1000 for the uncertainty and frustration caused by the Council failing to award the correct priority banding to her housing bidding application and for her application being incorrectly suspended for the periods February 2020 -September 2020 and given the incorrect priority banding between August 2021 and December 2021.
3. Backdate the award of priority band 2 with a priority star for welfare to 24 August 2021, when the Council determined her homelessness application.
4. Check its records to see if Y would have been the first placed bidder on any suitable one bedroom properties offered by the Council between August 2021 and December 2021. The Council should view Y’s application as being in band 2 with a priority star during this period. If the Council finds Y would have been offered a suitable property it should agree to make Y a direct offer of the next suitable property that becomes available.
5. Apologise in writing to Mr and Mrs X and pay them £100 in recognition of the frustration and avoidable time and trouble caused to them in pursuing Y’s complaint on her behalf.

69. Within three months of my final decision the Council should:

6. Send a guidance note to officers dealing with temporary accommodation that housing applicants should be notified about their right to request a review of the suitability of their interim accommodation at the point it becomes temporary accommodation.
7. Send a guidance note reminding officers dealing with the suitability of interim and temporary accommodation that they should be recording their consideration of the individual circumstances of the applicant and how those factors influenced the officer’s decision that accommodation was or was not suitable.
8. Send a guidance note to officers deciding awards of medical priority that officers should request information from medical professionals and social services when it is known that an applicant is receiving support from those services and cannot provide documentary themselves, such as in cases where the applicant has deteriorating mental health.

Final decision

70. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman