Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled his housing application. The Council failed to properly consider its homelessness duties to Mr X, or his priority for social housing under its allocation policy. This fault meant Mr X and his family lived in unsuitable accommodation for eighteen months longer than they needed to. The Council agreed to apologise, make a direct offer to Mr X of its next suitable available property, and pay a financial remedy. It will also provide an update on its backlog of housing priority decisions, issue reminders to its staff, and produce an action plan to prevent recurrence of the same fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council handled his housing application made in March 2023. He says the Council:
• did not meet its duties to him as a homeless person. It did not properly consider whether he was homeless because his housing was no longer reasonable for him to occupy due to his disability;
• delayed in considering his application and awarding him the correct priority on its housing register;
• failed to find him suitable permanent housing. Mr X bid on Council properties, but the Council wrongly said he was not the highest bidder, or that properties were not suitable for his needs; and
• did not properly respond to his complaint about these issues, because it directed him to the wrong Ombudsman service when it issued its final response.
2. Because of this Mr X says he remained in unsuitable accommodation which caused him serious harm and distress. He also spent avoidable time and trouble complaining. He wants the Council to find him suitable permanent accommodation immediately, apologise, and pay compensation for the distress caused.

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. 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.
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
8. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
9. 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

10. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy, and guidance.
11. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness law and guidance

12. 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.
13. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
14. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council:
• 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)
15. Councils must complete an assessment if they “have reason to believe” an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness.

The relief duty and interim accommodation

16. 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)
17. A council must secure 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 (for example, if they have dependent children, or are vulnerable due to serious health problems or disability). This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
18. 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.

The main housing duty and temporary accommodation

19. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally 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 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
20. The accommodation a council provides until it can end the main housing duty is called temporary accommodation. If a council ends its interim accommodation duty, but then goes on to accept the main housing duty, it still has a duty to provide temporary accommodation. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a council provides it.

Suitability of accommodation

21. 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 and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
22. The duty to provide suitable accommodation is immediate, non-deferrable, and unqualified. (Elkundi, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2022] EWCA Civ 601)
23. Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable has a statutory right to ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability within 21 days of being notified of the decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 202). There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.
24. If a council’s review decides temporary 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)

Housing allocations law and guidance

25. 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))
26. 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))

The Council’s housing allocation policy

27. The Council places applicants who qualify to join its housing register in a priority band, from Band A+ (highest priority) to Band C- (lowest priority).
28. Band A+ is “emergency and top priority”. So far as is relevant to this complaint, Band A+ is only for people who have a “life and death risk to their wellbeing”. This includes where someone has a severe medical or welfare need to move, and this is an emergency.
29. Band A is “urgent and high priority”. This is for people who the Council has decided have reasonable preference for housing or are living in unsatisfactory conditions, but do not qualify for emergency Band A+. This includes where someone has a severe medical or welfare need to move, but without the emergency status of those in Band A+.
30. Priority within bands is by date order according to when the applicant was placed in that band.
31. Where an applicant has mobility issues, the Council arranges an assessment by an Occupational Therapist (OT) to decide their mobility level from the following.
• Mobility 1 – they use a wheelchair all the time, both indoors and outdoors.
• Mobility 2 – they cannot manage steps or stairs and do not rely on a wheelchair indoors, though they may use one some of the time.
• Mobility 3 – independent but can only manage one or two steps.
32. The Council says where an applicant is Mobility 3, it will not shortlist them for unsuitable properties, such as those with stairs, unless the best solution for them would be to install a stairlift.

What happened

33. At the start of 2023, Mr X was living in private rental accommodation with his wife and children. Mr X is blind. Following a worsening in his sight, Mr X made a housing application to the Council in March 2023, which said he:
• was blind and this had worsened;
• had fallen on the stairs several times in his current property, injuring himself, and needed a property where he did not have to climb stairs; and
• although stairs caused him difficulty, he would be able to manage one or two steps.
34. In October 2023, after chasing by Mr X, the Council arranged an assessment by an Occupational Therapist (OT). The OT:
• recommended Mr X was ‘Mobility 3’ under the Council’s housing allocation policy, as described at paragraph 31; and
• recommended Mr X needed a stairlift to reduce the risk of falls and contacted Mr X’s private landlord to see if they were willing to make adaptations to the property. The landlord said they were planning to sell the property so would not make adaptations, so the OT then recommended Mr X’s only option was to be rehoused.
35. At the end of October 2023, eight months after Mr X’s application, the Council issued a decision about his priority band. The Council:
• decided Mr X should be in Band A for medical reasons, with a priority date of 20 June 2023;
• classified him as Mobility 3 and said, “we will only consider you for properties all on one level”; and
• recorded his family needed a four-bedroom property.
36. Mr X asked the Council to review its decision as he felt he should be in Band A+, with a priority date of March 2023 when he first applied. The Council quickly amended his priority date to March 2023 and said it would review the banding. Four months later, in March 2024, the Council issued its review decision. It decided Mr X should be in Band A+. It also said it would consider him for both ground floor properties, and those with lifted access.
37. In June 2024, Mr X complained to the Council. He said the Council was not treating his case as urgently as it should, and he was still living in an unsuitable home despite bidding on multiple Council properties. He had also told the Council in December 2023 his landlord had now served his family with notice to leave but the Council had not acted on this. The Council responded in July 2024 and did not uphold his complaint, so he escalated this to Stage 2.
38. In July 2024, the Council issued its final complaint response. It said it had properly considered bids Mr X had made on social housing, in terms of both the suitability of the properties for him, and his priority on the Council’s list. However, it accepted it was at fault in that it had not properly considered its homelessness duties to him, said it would now progress this, and offered £250 for the delay. The following day, the Council wrote to Mr X to say it had accepted the relief duty as described at paragraph 16. Mr X then came to the Ombudsman.
39. In October 2024, the Council told Mr X it had accepted the main housing duty and would secure him temporary accommodation, as described at paragraphs 19 and 20. The Council placed the family in temporary accommodation that it considered suitable for them a month later, in November 2024.

What I have and have not investigated

40. Mr X complains about events from March 2023, when he made his housing application. The law says we cannot investigate events which happened more than 12 months before somebody complained to us, unless we decide there are good reasons it took them longer to complain. Mr X first came to the Ombudsman on 26 July 2024, so we would usually only look at what happened from 26 July 2023. I have investigated events from March 2023. The Council took longer than it should have to process the application which delayed Mr X in being able to approach the Ombudsman. Therefore, there is good reason to look back further.
41. I can consider any continuing injustice caused by the Council’s faults before Mr X brought his complaint to us. The Council placed Mr X in temporary accommodation in November 2024, after he came to us. I have considered the injustice caused to Mr X up to this point because I consider this to be continuing injustice arising from faults in handling his March 2023 application.
42. However, I cannot consider new issues which arose after Mr X came to us. The law says councils must have reasonable opportunity to respond to a complaint before we look at it. Therefore, I did not consider new events after we started our investigation in September 2024. Mr X says although the new November 2024 accommodation is more suitable than his previous, it is still not suitable due to issues related to his mobility. He also says he wants a permanent Council home not temporary, because it takes time to learn his surroundings as a blind person, so he does not want to keep moving. The suitability of his new home is a new issue so I cannot consider it. Also, as described at paragraphs 23 and 24, Mr X has a statutory right of review, and then appeal to court, about the suitability of this temporary accommodation.

My findings

Housing allocations

43. After Mr X made a housing application in March 2023, under its allocation policy the Council should have assessed the application within 28 days. It did not complete its assessment and decide his housing band until October 2023, a delay of seven months. This was fault.
44. The Council’s allocation policy says it will consider review requests within eight weeks. Mr X asked for a review in November 2023 and the Council did not complete this until March 2024, a delay of eleven weeks. This was fault.
45. The Council said delays in processing the application and review were due to a significant backlog of cases. If the Council had followed its allocation policy timescales, I decided it would have placed Mr X in Band A+, with a priority date of 1 March 2023, from the end of March 2023. I considered the properties Mr X bid on during the delay before his correct banding decision in March 2024. I decided whether he missed a suitable property because he was in the wrong band, or because of any other fault by the Council:
• Property A, bid in October 2023. The Council said Mr X was 16th on the list for this property. However, at the time he had received no decision about his priority, so this was not prioritised correctly. The Council said it decided the property was not suitable for Mr X’s mobility needs regardless. However, the OT assessment carried out for this property only said it was not suitable for a wheelchair user, which Mr X is not. There was no proper consideration of suitability for someone with Mobility 3, who did not use a wheelchair. The Council told us this was because Mr X may need a wheelchair in future, but its records do not show it thought this at the time. The Council also said it decided Property A would need a stairlift installed for Mr X, but it decided this was not suitable because stairlifts are often not suitable for a blind person. Again, its records did not reflect this. In fact, as described at paragraph 34, its October 2023 OT assessment had decided Mr X should have a stairlift in his current property, this just was not agreed to by his private landlord. There was fault in how the Council considered the suitability of Property A for Mr X. There remains uncertainty about whether Mr X could have been the highest suitable bidder if the Council had considered this properly.
• Property B, bid in January 2024. The Council gave this property to an applicant in Band A+ with a priority date of late-April 2023. If it had completed Mr X’s review on time, he would have been higher on the list than the successful applicant. I cannot say if the Council would have given Mr X this property, because there was no OT assessment of whether it was suitable for someone with mobility needs, or Mr X’s needs specifically. There remains uncertainty about this.
• Property C, bid in February 2024. The Council decided the property was not suitable for the adaptations Mr X would need to live there. 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 a council followed to make its decision. If we decide it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision. I am satisfied based on the Council’s records that it properly considered its decision this property was not suitable for Mr X.
46. Mr X said even after March 2024 when the Council awarded him the correct priority, it wrongly considered whether properties were suitable for his needs and whether he was the highest bidder. I found no fault with how the Council considered bids Mr X made for Property D in June 2024, Property E in July 2024, and Property F in August 2024.
47. The Council’s allocation policy says for someone in Mr X’s position (in Band A+ with need for a four-bedroom property), it usually expects it will rehouse them under its allocation policy within six months. It also says it will make a direct offer to Band A+ applicants who have been waiting longer than this. Mr X should have been in Band A+, with a priority date of 1 March 2023, from the end of March 2023. Therefore, when he came to the Ombudsman in July 2024, he had already been waiting ten months longer than the indicative timescales the Council sets out in its policy. The Council confirmed it did not consider making him a direct offer in this time. The Council told us its policy about this does not reflect its current practice. It said due to its short supply of housing it can no longer rehouse people within the timescales set out in its policy, so it is unable to consider direct offers within those timescales. However, the Ombudsman can only consider whether the Council followed its published policy. This policy is still in place so any failure to follow it is fault.
48. Of the six properties I considered, there are two where I found there remains uncertainty about whether Mr X could have been the highest suitable bidder if the Council had acted without fault. Also, the Council confirmed it made three direct offers to other applicants during the relevant period. The Council recorded two of these three properties were suitable for Mobility 3 applicants, but offered them to applicants who would have been lower on the list than Mr X if there had been no delays in his application and review. I therefore decided on the balance of probabilities it is likely Mr X missed out on the offer of a suitable property due to the Council’s fault. The Council should use the discretion allowed to it under its allocation policy to make a direct offer to Mr X, of its next available property which it considers to be suitable for his family. However, the Ombudsman recognises the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. Mr X needs a large property to accommodate his family, which is suitable for his individual needs. We cannot say how long it may take for a suitable property to become available.

Homelessness duties

49. Based on the information in Mr X’s March 2023 housing application, I consider from this point the Council had “reason to believe” Mr X may be homeless. This is because it should have considered whether it was reasonable for Mr X to continue to live in his property where he could not use the stairs and had injured himself repeatedly. The Council failed to properly consider this, which was fault.
50. Mr X told the Council in December 2023 that his private landlord had served his family with notice to leave. After this, the Council still did not consider its homelessness duties properly, within the correct timescales. The Council did not progress this until July 2024, after Mr X complained. This was fault.
51. The Council rang Mr X in July 2024, the day after its final complaint response in which it accepted it had not considered its homeless duties. The Council’s records show on this phone call Mr X raised again the issues with his private property not being suitable for his needs as a blind person. The Council recorded it told Mr X it could arrange him emergency accommodation, but this was temporary and would depend on what was available on the day. Mr X refused emergency accommodation and said he needed social housing instead because of his medical conditions. It was later this same day the Council wrote to Mr X to say it had accepted the relief duty.
52. The Council told us it considers this phone call was an offer of interim accommodation which Mr X refused, not because it was unsuitable, but because he preferred social housing. Therefore, it considers after this point Mr X made a choice to remain in his unsuitable private rental. I do not agree with the Council’s position about this. According to legislation and statutory guidance, if the Council wanted to offer Mr X interim accommodation, it should have written to him to explain it had accepted the relief and interim accommodation duties, with an offer of a specific, named accommodation. If Mr X had then refused this offer, and the Council considered the refusal to be unreasonable, it could have decided to end the relief and interim accommodation duty. Instead, the Council only gave Mr X vague information over a phone call that it could look for emergency accommodation available on that day. It did not explain its duties to Mr X or what his rights were. Indeed, the Council did not know if it had suitable accommodation to offer Mr X because it did not consider offering any specific accommodation to him. Therefore, it did not properly consider its interim accommodation duty when it accepted the relief duty, which was fault.
53. After the Council accepted the relief duty, it then should have accepted the main housing duty after 56 days, but it only accepted this in October 2024 after Mr X chased this. This was further fault.
54. I decided if the Council had properly considered its homelessness duties from the point of Mr X’s March 2023 application, it would have:
• accepted the relief duty and interim accommodation duty to Mr X by the end of March 2023; and
• accepted the main housing duty and temporary accommodation duty to Mr X by the end of May 2023.
55. The duty to provide suitable interim or temporary accommodation is immediate. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, I consider it reasonable the Council should have housed Mr X in alternative temporary accommodation by May 2023 if it had followed statutory homelessness legislation. When the Council eventually considered what accommodation it could offer Mr X under its main housing duty, Mr X accepted an offer of temporary accommodation. The Council’s fault meant the family lived in unsuitable accommodation for 18 months longer than they needed to.

The Equality Act 2010

56. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport, and the carrying out of public functions.
57. The Equality Act 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. 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.
58. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act, or of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
59. Mr X is disabled, which is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
60. The Council did not properly consider:
• whether it was reasonable for Mr X to continue to live in his property based on his disability when he first approached the Council for help; or
• the suitability of all the properties Mr X bid for. It did not consider whether they may have been suitable for someone with Mobility 3, (or with Mr X’s needs specifically), as opposed to just considering the needs of wheelchair users.
61. Therefore, I am not satisfied the Council had due regard to Mr X’s individual circumstances, as a disabled person, in the decisions it made about his housing. This means it did not properly consider its duties to him under the Equality Act, which was fault.

Complaint handling

62. The Council directed Mr X to the Housing Ombudsman instead of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman after it closed his complaint. This was incorrect. However, I do not consider this caused Mr X significant injustice or delay, as he was still able to approach us the following day. An apology is enough to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Action

63. Our guidance on remedies says where a complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation, we are likely to recommend a monthly payment of between £150 and £350. Considering Mr X’s circumstances, the duties to him under the Equality Act, that his wife and children experienced injustice, and the impact on his family, I decided the financial remedy should be £350 per month.
64. Within one month of our final decision the Council will:
1. apologise to Mr X for the impact of the faults we have identified. Our guidance on remedies sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this in making its apology;
2. put in place a system to ensure that when it next has an available property it considers to be suitable for Mr X and his family, it uses the discretion allowed to it under its allocation policy to make him a direct offer;
3. pay Mr X £6,300 to recognise the 18 months the family spent avoidably living in unsuitable accommodation from May 2023 to November 2024;
4. provide the Ombudsman with an update on its backlog of housing priority decisions and review decisions. If there is still a backlog, it will explain what steps it is taking to address this;
5. issue a reminder to its housing and homelessness staff about its duties under the Equality Act 2010, and share our findings about this in this case; and
6. issue a reminder to its staff who respond to complaints about housing and homelessness, about the difference between the Housing Ombudsman and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, and where to direct complainants.
65. Within three months of our final decision the Council will produce a dated action plan of any changes needed to its processes or staff training, to ensure it has systems in place to properly consider and record its consideration of:
1. the suitability of properties for housing applicants with the full range of mobility issues;
2. its homelessness duties when presented with reason to believe it may not be reasonable for someone to continue to occupy their accommodation due to their disability; and
3. its homelessness duties when someone says they have received notice of eviction.
66. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

67. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to my recommendations for actions it should take to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman