Summary: Miss B complained about the actions of the Council in respect of her homeless and housing applications since 2022. We found fault with the Council for delays in reviewing her banding and resolving her homeless application properly. In addition to the direct offer of housing recently made to Miss B, the Council has agreed to apologise and pay her £1200. It has already reviewed its allocations policy.

The complaint

1. Miss B complained that the London Borough of Bromley (the Council):
• failed to award her Band 1 priority in March 2022 when she approached the Council as homeless;
• failed to take action on her homeless application between August 2022 and February 2024;
• failed to correct the banding decision until July 2024 despite a review being carried out in May 2024;
• offered her unsuitable temporary accommodation in August 2022 and March 2024; and
• failed to base its decision in June 2024 (that the temporary accommodation offered was suitable) on correct facts: that Miss B’s son had started school the previous September, she did not drive and the journey of 70 minutes on the bus each way was too long.
2. This has caused Miss B to live in unsuitable accommodation for much longer than she should have done.

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 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)
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. The events between 2020 and 2022 are too old for me to investigate now. Miss B was directed to the Ombudsman in August 2022 but did not complain to us until May 2024. I consider it was reasonable for her to complain to us sooner. I have included the events as background information. I have investigated the complaint from September 2023 (the date Miss B contacted the Council again after August 2022) until May 2024 when Miss B complained to us.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Miss B 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

Homelessness

8. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with 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)

The relief duty

9. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

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)

Review rights

11. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:

• giving notice to bring the housing duty to an end;
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

Suitability of accommodation

12. 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 accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
13. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
14. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider, among other matters:

• the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district;
• the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household; and
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)

Housing Allocations

15. 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))
16. 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))

17. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

Choice based lettings

18. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. This scheme has four bands of priority from the highest Band 1, to the lowest, Band 4.
19. Band 1 is for those households with a high level of housing need where an urgent move is required to significantly improve their quality of life or free up accommodation. Examples of situations in this category include:

• People who are owed a prevention duty, where all other options have been explored and where priority is required to prevent homelessness within a specific timescale.
• Households overcrowded by two or more bedrooms.

20. Band 2 is for households with a moderate level of housing need where a move is necessary but not urgent. This includes:
• People owed a relief duty and placed in temporary accommodation under the homeless legislation.
• People to whom the main housing duty is owed.
21. The scheme says that in respect of multiple needs, where a person qualifies for priority under more than one reasonable preference category their application will be placed in the highest band.
22. The scheme says that all applications in Band 2 or below will be reviewed every 12 months. Reviews of decisions on a housing application including banding must be made within 21 days of the decision.

What happened

Background

23. Miss B had first approached the Council in 2020 for housing assistance, following a relationship breakdown when she moved into her mother’s house with her young child. This house was already overcrowded with other family members. Miss B and her child slept on the sofa in the living room. Her child has additional needs.
24. In March 2022 she contacted the Council about her housing situation. The Council asked for more information. On receipt of this the Council accepted the relief duty towards her and drew up a personal housing plan. In June 2022 it offered her interim accommodation. Mis B refused the accommodation as it was too far away from her mother, whom she cared for. She made a complaint.
25. In August 2022 the Council responded saying its duty to provide her with interim accommodation had ended due to her refusal of the accommodation. Miss B said she did not want temporary accommodation. She just wanted to get on the housing register in order to bid for something suitable.
26. On 9 August 2022 the Council accepted the main housing duty and sent out a notification letter with a right of review. It made the same offer of temporary accommodation. It also placed her in Band 2 of the housing register with an effective date of 17 August 2020. In respect of her complaint the Council directed her to complain to us.
27. The Council withdrew the offer of temporary accommodation on 15 August 2022 as Miss B had not responded again.

2023

28. There was no further action on the case until Miss B contacted the Council in September 2023 to complain about her housing situation. She queried whether she was in the right priority band as she had been living in a severely overcrowded property for three years and she personally lacked two bedrooms. The Council sent a general reply saying she was out of time to request a review of her banding but could send in new evidence at any time.

2024

29. Miss B contacted the Council again in January 2024 raising the same concerns about her housing situation. The Council noted that it had not sent her a letter in August 2022 discharging its housing duty as she had refused an offer of temporary accommodation. It considered offering her alternative temporary accommodation.
30. Miss B said she did not want temporary accommodation as it was always unsuitable. The last offer had been too far from her son’s school. She needed to be within walking distance of his school as he did not like using buses. In March 2024 the Council made another offer of temporary accommodation. Miss B said it was not suitable because it was 70 minutes away from her son’s school and she did not drive.
31. In April 2024 Miss B sent in new medical information and queried her banding again. She said she should be in Band 1 because she lacked two bedrooms. The Council said she was in the correct band as she should was entitled to temporary accommodation under the homeless legislation. She was referred to the housing options team to consider a further offer of temporary accommodation, but the Council repeated that her banding would not be changed as temporary accommodation was the appropriate solution for her situation.
32. After an Occupational Therapist reviewed Miss B’s housing needs the Council confirmed she was in the correct priority band: Band 2 from 17 August 2020.
33. Miss B submitted a request to review her banding.
34. The Council offered the same temporary accommodation as it had done in March 2024. Miss B refused as it was too far away from her child’s school. In June 2024 the Council sent her a letter discharging its housing duty on the basis of the refusal of temporary accommodation. The Council said her son had not yet started school so could start at a different one nearer to the new accommodation. Miss B disputed the decision immediately saying her child had started at school the previous September.
35. The Council agreed to review the decision, and an officer visited her at her mum’s house as part of the process. The Council was considering whether she was eligible for Band 1 accommodation because she was lacking two bedrooms and living in severely overcrowded accommodation. After the visit the Council concluded she should be in Band 1, initially from the date of the visit in June 2024 as this was the date her inclusion on the register changed from a homeless applicant to an allocations applicant.
36. However, Miss B said it should be her original date of 17 August 2020. The Council referred the matter to a senior officer to review and decide. The review took place at the end of July 2024. The Council recognised that it should have sent a discharge of duty letter in August 2022 when Miss B refused the offer of temporary accommodation, but it failed to do so and then let the application drift until Miss B got back in contact over a year later. It considered she could have been assessed under the allocations legislation much earlier.
37. The final decision was that Miss B’s banding was now correct but as a remedy for the failure to end its duty in August 2022 and then the lack of action on the case, it agreed to backdate her Band 1 priority to 10 March 2022 when she provided updated evidence about her circumstances.
38. Miss B complained to us in May 2024. We decided to investigate in July 2024.
39. In response to my enquiries the Council accepted that in addition to the failure to send a discharge of duty letter in August 2022 it also failed to consider Miss B’s son’s schooling in March 2024 when it made an offer of temporary accommodation. It has now made a direct offer of social housing.
40. It also provided information to show that had Miss B been in Band 1 from March 2022, there were around 50 properties she would have got had she bid on them. These included two she had actually bid for. There were also five properties she would have been successful on, if she had placed a bid with her Band 2 priority.

Analysis

Homeless application

41. The Council only responded generally to Miss B’s contact in September 2023: it did not engage with her current housing situation or pick up she had an open homeless situation. This was a missed opportunity to consider her entitlement to Band 1 priority or pick up the error with her homeless application (the failure to issue a formal decision and right of review in August 2022). This was fault.
42. The Council did notice the error in January 2024 and took action to put that right by offering Miss B alternative temporary accommodation. However, it failed to properly consider her circumstances, in particular the fact her child had started school and the accommodation was more than 70 minutes away from the school by bus. Even when Miss B raised this concern, the Council dismissed it without consideration and insisted the property was suitable. This was fault which caused Miss B injustice as she was not provided with a viable housing option to escape the overcrowded conditions in which she was living.
43. The Council also delayed in providing a formal decision regarding the temporary accommodation, not writing to her until June 2024, despite her refusing the property in March 2024. This exacerbated her distress and frustration.

Housing allocations

44. Miss B raised concerns about her banding in September 2023, January 2024 and several times between April and June 2024. The Council did not review the banding until June 2024. After visiting her mother’s property, the Council agreed she should be in Band 1 due to the overcrowding.
45. Given that applications on the housing register should be reviewed at least every 12 months to check circumstances have not changed and that Miss B had been questioning her banding consistently since September 2023, I consider the Council should have reviewed her situation sooner. The failure to do so was fault.
46. I understand the Council considered she was in the right band as a homeless applicant and temporary accommodation was the appropriate way to resolve her situation. I am not convinced by this argument for the following reasons:
• The Council’s allocations policy allows for multiple needs to be considered and if an applicant is eligible for more than one priority category the highest one should be awarded.
• The Council had failed to resolve her situation through temporary accommodation because it had not considered her circumstances properly, dismissed her reasons for refusal and delayed in providing a formal right of review.

Injustice

47. In addition to the distress and frustration caused by the identified fault, Miss B has missed out on moving to more suitable permanent accommodation at a much earlier stage. The Council has identified one property she bid on after September 2023 which she would have got had she had band 1 priority. I also acknowledge that there were properties she could have successfully bid on with band 2 priority during this period to relieve her situation.

Back to top

Agreed action

48. I welcome the Council’s recognition of fault and the direct offer of housing it has recently made to Miss B. However I consider a symbolic payment in line with our Guidance on remedies is also appropriate for the injustice she has experienced. I recommended the Council, within one month of the date of my final decision:
• apologises to Miss B and pays her £1200 (8 months from September 2023 to May 2024 @ £150 per month).
49. The Council has agreed to this and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
50. I also recommended that the Council should review the operation of its allocations policy where homeless applicants may be eligible for a higher priority due to overcrowding or other circumstances and if necessary, makes its approach clear in that policy. The Council has explained that the entire allocations policy has been reviewed very recently and still contains the discretion in exceptional circumstances to escalate priority or make an offer outside of the banding system where it considers there are grounds to do so. I have agreed that a further review is unnecessary.

Back to top

Final decision

51. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Miss B and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman