Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to respond to his review requests about its homelessness and housing allocation priority decisions. We found there was delay in the Council’s responses to Mr X’s requests which caused him distress and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him a remedy to recognise the injustice its actions caused Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed completing reviews of its homelessness and housing allocation priority band decision when he requested them in early December 2023 and early January 2024. He says the Council:

• gave him the wrong priority on its housing allocation register, and did not respond when he asked it to review his priority in December 2023;
• wrongly decided he was not in priority need and failed to acknowledge his review request from early January 2024; and
• wrongly told the Ombudsman it had offered him temporary accommodation on 17 January 2024, when it did not.

2. Mr X says the Council had all the information about his medical condition from the beginning and it could have arrived at its decision before May 2024 and without him having to ask for a review.
3. Mr X wants the Council to:

• accept it failed to quickly respond to his review requests; and
• change its policies and procedures to ensure this does not happen to anybody else.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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

7. We have decided not to investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s temporary accommodation offer. This is because we had already told Mr X we would not consider his complaint about this as part of another investigation into his complaints.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and written information Mr X provided about the complaint;
• copies of the communications Mr X received from the Council, provided by Mr X;
• relevant law and guidance; and
• the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Jurisdiction and Guidance on Remedies.
9. Mr X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness law and guidance

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

The relief duty and interim accommodation

11. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
12. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant 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)
13. Examples of applicants in priority need include people with dependent children, pregnant women, people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems or disability, and victims of domestic abuse.
14. The relief duty ends when the applicant accepts or refuses an offer of accommodation which is suitable and likely to be available for at least 6 months, or, failing this, if 56 days have passed since the Council accepted the relief duty.

Review and appeal rights for homeless applicants

15. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:
• their eligibility for assistance;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage; and
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end.
16. Councils must complete reviews within eight weeks of the date of the review request, for reviews about:
• eligibility for assistance; and
• decisions that an applicant is not in priority need.
17. Councils must advise applicants of their right to appeal the outcome of the review to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

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. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their application, including decisions about their housing priority.
21. Leicester City Council’s housing allocation policy says it aims to complete reviews within 56 days. This is in line with statutory guidance, which says reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline and suggests 8 weeks is reasonable.
22. The Council’s allocation policy has three bands:
• Band 1- highest priority;
• Band 2- includes those to whom the Council owes a homelessness duty; and
• Band 3- the lowest priority.

What happened

23. In early December 2023 Mr X was evicted. He rang the Council for help. It gave him information about a Council-run homeless shelter in its area. It arranged an appointment to assess his homelessness application. It also wrote to him on this day to say it had decided to prioritise him within Band 3 (the lowest band) on its housing allocation register.
24. Three days later, Mr X complained and asked the Council to review its decision about his housing band priority.
25. In early-January 2024, Mr X attended the appointment the Council had arranged six weeks earlier, to assess his homeless application. At the appointment the Council told him it would increase his priority on its housing register from Band 3 to Band 2. Following the appointment, the Council told Mr X:
• it had accepted the relief duty because he was homeless and eligible;
• it did not consider him to be in priority need, so it would not provide him with interim accommodation while it owed the relief duty; and
• he had a right to seek a review of its decision within 21 days and may want to seek legal advice.
26. Three days later, Mr X asked the Council to review its decision that he was not in priority need and so had not offered interim accommodation.
27. Three days after this, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint from December 2023. It told Mr X:
• it would soon increase his priority on the housing register from Band 3 to Band 2. It said it would backdate this to the date of his appointment when it had accepted the relief duty; and
• he could still seek a review of its decision that he was not in priority need, within 21 days of the decision.
28. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman the same day. He said the Council had failed in its homelessness duties to him and its decision that he was not in priority need was wrong.
29. Two weeks later, Mr X provided further information to the Council to support his request for review of its decision that he was not in priority need. He also told the Council that it had not acknowledged his review request.
30. The following week, in late-January 2024, Mr X made a complaint to the Council. He said it had taken too long to respond to his December 2023 request for it to review its decision about his priority on its housing allocation register.
31. In late February the Council wrote to Mr X and told him he was now placed in Band 2 and this decision was backdated to 4 January 2024.
32. In early March 2024 the Council issued another decision. It said that it ended it relief duty towards Mr X and that it was because it considered he was not in a priority need.
33. In April 2024 the Council emailed Mr X and told him his review was going to be late. In response Mr X sent a letter from his GP about his medical condition. He said that he had the information during the early January meeting, but the Council did not consider it at the time.
34. In early May 2024 the Council completed a review of its decision dated 4 March 2024. The reviewer overturned the Council’s original decision and decided Mr X was in priority need. It arranged accommodation for him from that date. At the same time, it reviewed his priority on its housing register and awarded band 1, backdated to January 2024.

My findings

Housing allocations

35. Mr X disagreed with the Council’s 6 December 2023 decision to award Band 3 priority on its housing register and asked for a review. The Council should have completed the review within eight weeks. However, in February 2024, it awarded band 2 priority, based on it accepting a relief duty on 4 January 2024 and this decision also carried a right of review.
36. The Council did not complete its review of the housing register decision until May 2024. It said this was due to a backlog of review requests. That delay was fault.
37. In its review decision, the Council awarded band 1 and backdated this to January 2024. This was in accordance with the information the Council had at the time and was not fault. Mr X has now been rehoused.

Homelessness

38. The Council decided Mr X was not in priority need in January 2024. Mr X asked for a review of that decision. The Council should have considered the review within eight weeks, which would have been by 3 March 2024.
39. The Council told us that it had agreed an extension with Mr X and it considered that because of this it was not at fault for the delay. We disagree because:
• the Council send the email informing Mr X his review would be late in early April 2024, so already four weeks after the review was due; and
• Regulation 9 of The Homelessness Regulations 2018 sets out the timescales for issuing the review decision and says “or within such longer period as A and the reviewer may agree in writing.” That requires a request from the Council to Mr X asking for a longer period and a specific new length of time for the review agreed in writing. This did not happen.
40. The Council did not complete the review until May 2024. This delay was fault. This caused frustration and uncertainty for Mr X.
41. Mr X says the Council had full medical evidence in January 2024, so it should have decided he was in priority need without him having to ask for a review. The Council told us, its decision that he was in priority need was based on a GP letter dated April 2024, so that information was not available to it in January 2024.
42. Although the Council said it did not have reason to believe Mr X was in priority need and therefore did not have a duty to provide interim accommodation, it told us that temporary accommodation had been provided from January 2024 pending the outcome of the review. However, Mr X told us the homeless centre had turned him away. There is a conflict of evidence about what happened in relation to the homeless shelter and we have previously decided not to investigate that further.

Agreed action

43. Within one month of our final decision the Council will:
• apologise to Mr X for the faults identified in how it handled his review requests, and the distress and uncertainty this caused him at an already difficult time. 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; and
• pay Mr X £200 to recognise the distress and uncertainty the Council’s faults named in this decision caused him; and
• share our decision with relevant staff members and remind them that if there are likely delays in the review process the Council can ask the complainant for an extension which must be done before the original due date of the review and must be done in writing.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

We found there was fault in how the Council handled Mr X’s review requests which caused him distress and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and to pay him a remedy to recognise the avoidable distress and uncertainty its actions caused him.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman