Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his housing register application and requests for homelessness assistance. We have found fault, causing injustice by the Council in failing to: communicate properly with Mr X; and properly consider all the medical information provided in May 2024. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by apologising and making a payment to Mr X to reflect the upset, frustration and uncertainty caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his housing register application and requests for homelessness assistance. He says the Council failed to properly:
1. consider his disabilities. It discriminated against him;
2. communicate properly with him. He had eight different caseworkers over the period of his application. The initial caseworkers were unhelpful, failed to call him at any stage, despite his request for phone contact, and had limited email contact with him. Communication delays were caused because a replacement caseworker worked three days a week;
3. consider the medical information he provided and award him the correct number of points. Because of this he was required to request reviews of his medical points which caused delays. Had the information been properly considered at the outset, he would have been awarded the correct points and offered suitable accommodation sooner;
4. explain the basis on which points were awarded and the change in rules about residency criteria; and
5. investigate his complaints. The investigations were not independent. The stage one officer worked with the caseworkers complained about, and the stage two officer carried out their investigation before contacting him about the complaint. His complaint about discrimination was not properly investigated or addressed.
2. Mr X wants the Council to pay him redress for the upset and impact on his mental health its failures caused and make service improvements.

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.
4. 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)
5. 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)
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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. 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

What should have happened

Homelessness law and guidance

1. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
2. Someone is threatened with homelessness if they have a valid section 21 notice to leave a private tenancy which expires within 56 days. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. This is called the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
3. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
4. 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)
5. If councils are satisfied applicants are homeless and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation. This is called the relief duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
6. If, at the end of the relief duty, 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. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
7. 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)

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

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. The Council published a revised allocations scheme in 2024. This says:

• it applies to all allocations on or after 8 April 2024;
• no points from previous allocation schemes would be retained; and
• all existing applicants as at 8 April would be reassessed for qualification and priority although no changes would be made to their existing priority date.

11. Council officers within the housing options service assess and prioritise housing applications and medical issues.

The 2024 scheme criteria for those eligible to join the housing register

12. The previous scheme had said applicants not resident in the borough when they made their application and who had not lived in the borough for three of the five previous years before applying, could not join the register.
13. The 2024 scheme says people who cannot join includes:
1. applicants not resident in the borough on the date of the application and who had not continuously lived in the borough for at least five years from the date they applied for housing. It also provided that:

• applicants must continue to live in the borough if they wished to remain on the register; Exceptions might be made in certain cases, including if they were resident in a hospital; and
• an exception to the residency requirement applied to accepted homeless applicants under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996.
2. people applying for housing who have fewer than 100 points under the scheme.

Housing points under the 2024 scheme

14. The scheme awards 100 points to every applicant continuously resident in the borough for at least five years at the date of the application or who met one of the eligibility exceptions
15. It also awards points for
1. Medical priority where the Council considers the accommodation of an applicant was unsuitable because of a medical condition. The three categories for medical points are:

• category A – a maximum of 200 points;
• category B – an award of 80 points where current housing conditions are having a major adverse effect on an applicant’s medical condition; and
• category C – an award of 40 points where the current housing conditions are having a moderate or variable effect on the applicant’s medical condition.
2. Welfare points where Council considers housing or other circumstances affect the welfare needs of the applicant. The three categories for welfare points are:
• category A - 150 points. A very high award rarely made;
• category B - 80 points for serious circumstances; and
• category C – 40 points for moderate welfare needs.
3. Statutory homeless applicants. 10 points awarded to applicants threatened with homelessness or owed the main housing duty.

Sheltered housing

16. The scheme says applicants interested in sheltered housing must apply and be assessed to decide if sheltered housing is suitable for their needs.
17. If assessed as suitable, the applicant will be placed on the sheltered housing list which has three priority categories. All offers are made as direct offers. The sheltered housing list categories, which don’t affect rehousing bidding points, are:

• category A - high;
• category B- medium; and
• category C - low

Reviews and complaints

18. The scheme says:
1. review requests:

• applicants not satisfied with a housing allocation decision can request a review within 21 days of the decision; and
• internal reviews will be processed within 56 days unless an extension has been agreed.
2. complaints: these are investigated and responded to under a two stage procedure;
• stage one – locally by the service area in which the complaint originated; and
• stage two - by the corporate service team.

Equalities

19. The Council’s policy says it will ensure people are treated fairly and equally and the allocation scheme and its operation does not discriminate unlawfully against any particular group.
20. It also refers to the Equality Act 2021 and the Public Sector Equality Duty. This requires councils to give due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination between those who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
21. Protected characteristics are: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; race; religion or belief; sex and sexual orientation.

What happened

22. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

Background

23. Mr X lived in private rented accommodation. In February 2023 he contacted the Council for advice on his concerns about disrepair and retaliatory action by his landlord.
24. In April 2023 the Council assessed Mr X’s application for housing assistance. On 18 April it confirmed by letter it accepted it owed him the prevention duty. Mr X had not yet been served with notice requiring him to leave his accommodation. But the landlord had refused to carry out repairs and increased the rent to an unaffordable amount.
25. On or about 18 May 2023 Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register. He also completed a medical form with information about his mental and physical health conditions.

June to July 2023: assessment of Mr X’s housing application

26. Mr X contacted the Council by email on 28 June. He said he’d called to speak to a case worker because he had heard nothing since making his application six weeks ago. He had been told the request for a medical officer assessment had only just been sent and this could take six weeks to complete.
27. The Council told Mr X on 4 July, there had been a delay requesting the medical assessment.
28. The medical assessment was then completed immediately and on 5 July the Council informed Mr X of the outcome of his housing register application. It said:

• his application to join the register had been accepted and he had been awarded 100 points under its allocations scheme; but
• only applicants with a minimum of 120 points were currently being considered for rehousing.

29. The Council did not award any medical points. It set out its medical officer’s advice. This referred to the information considered and Mr X’s medical conditions and said:

• the issue was the suitability of Mr X’s current accommodation. It was contended this was unsuitable because it was in a state of disrepair which was causing Mr X a lot of stress;
• whilst the stress of the current living conditions was acknowledged, it was recommended the landlord complete the repairs as soon as practicable; and
• no medical priority applied. The case could be reviewed by the medical officer if the repairs were not resolved.

30. The Council told Mr X he could appeal against the medical award within 21 days.

July 2023: Mr X appeals against the medical priority decision

31. Mr X asked the Council to review its decision about the medical award. He said it had not taken into account all his relevant medical information.
32. He also told the Council he had now been served with a section 21 notice by his landlord requiring him to leave his accommodation by 26 September 2023.
33. The Council confirmed it had asked its medical officer to re-assess his medical information.

September 2023: outcome of the review

34. The Council’s medical officer issued a re-assessment on 5 September. This set out the information considered and recommended:

• medical points be awarded to reflect the variable impact the current home situation was having on Mr X’s management of his mental health;
• it was anticipated moving to a different home that met his needs would better support a sustained recovery, prevention of relapse and contribute towards his overall mental stability and wellbeing; and
• Mr X be placed in medical category C and awarded 40 medical points.

35. The Council’s reviewing officer wrote to Mr X on 5 September. They set out the medical officer’s recommendation and confirmed they considered the recommended award was appropriate.
36. On 20 September the Council confirmed Mr X’s total points award of 140 and he could now bid for one-bedroom properties.

September to October 2023: Mr X’s contact about the S21 notice

37. On 27 September Mr X asked the Council if it had considered the S21 notice which required him to leave his accommodation by 26 September. It did not respond to this request.
38. Mr X told the Council on 9 October his landlord had now issued proceedings with a court date of 8 November 2023. He asked for a call back.
39. The Council replied by email the same day. It said it had referred the possession proceedings to its homelessness team to see what support could be provided for him.
40. On 10 October the Council told Mr X it had awarded him a further 10 points for homelessness. It advised him to contact its homelessness team about support.

October 2023: Mr X’s advice request

41. On 11 October Mr X asked to speak to his housing officer by phone. He said he was concerned whether a residential stay for medical treatment outside the borough would affect his housing application.
42. The officer replied by email on 12 October. They said they would be on annual leave until 6 November and could not phone him. But he would have to live at his address within the borough to stay on the register. If he moved from this address, his application would be re-assessed in accordance with the allocations policy.
43. Mr X replied to the officer the same day. He said he was unhappy they had not phoned him as requested.
44. The homelessness team completed an assessment of his homelessness application with Mr X on 23 October 2023. Mr X confirmed he disputed the validity of the S21 notice and was defending the possession proceedings. The Personal Housing Plan confirmed he had been advised about the process for applying for sheltered housing and referred to a team who would actively look for other secure accommodation options for Mr X.

January 2024: Contact with Council’s sheltered housing team

45. Mr X had applied, and been accepted, for sheltered housing.
46. The sheltered housing team told the housing options service team it had recently spoken to Mr X about his request for sheltered housing. It said it was likely to be six to nine months before it could offer Mr X a property. But it had told him he could be prioritised for an earlier offer if the position with the court action and eviction changed.

March 2024: changes to the Council’s allocations scheme

47. The Council told Mr X by letter on 27 March 2024 changes had been made to its allocations scheme. It said applicants with less than 120 points would no longer be able to bid for accommodation. It confirmed the details of his provisional points total of 150 under the new policy, which was the same as his previous total.
48. It also told Mr X he could request a review of this assessment within 21 days if he believed it was incorrect, or his housing needs had changed.

April to May 2024: New medical information and assessment

49. On 23 April, Mr X submitted a recently completed report about his mental health conditions to the Council for a re-assessment of his medical points award.
50. The Council referred this to its medical officer who completed a re-assessment on 8 May. This said they had considered Mr X’s own declarations and the report and referred to Mr X’s health issues identified in the report. And that:

• the issue was the suitability of Mr X’s current accommodation which it was contended was unsuitable on the grounds of Mr X’s difficulties with his landlord;
• they acknowledged this difficulty, but it was not primarily a medical matter. There was nothing to suggest the current accommodation was unsuitable for Mr X’s medical needs; and
• medical priority did not apply

51. The Council sent the medical assessment decision to Mr X on 20 May. It told him:

• although he had not been awarded any medical points on this occasion, it had not removed the previous award of medical points; but
• if he submitted any further medical information for re-assessment his points would either remain the same, be increased, decreased or removed altogether.

52. It did not tell Mr X he could ask for a review of this decision.

June 2024: Mr X’s housing register account is blocked

53. Mr X accepted an offer of sheltered housing on 3 June. After visiting the property, he realised it was not suitable for him and declined the offer.
54. On 5 June Mr X told the housing options service team he could not log into his account to bid for properties.
55. On 6 June the Council advised him this was because it understood he had accepted an offer of sheltered housing.
56. In response, Mr X said:

• had they checked with him, they would have found out this was incorrect;
• the team had been obstructive and unhelpful regarding his housing register application from the outset;
• they had not spoken to him once despite his numerous requests;
• he had informed them numerous times he was autistic and needed to speak to people to understand what things meant. They had ignored his disabilities and discriminated against him; and
• he wanted the team manager’s contact details.

57. The team told Mr X on 6 June they had been advised he had now declined the offer and his account would be re-activated.

Mr X’s contact with the team manager

58. The manager contacted Mr X on 6 June and spoke to him about his concerns on 7 June. The manager then sent Mr X an email on 10 June confirming:

• they had discussed Mr X’s view he had not been awarded the correct medical priority. As requested, a review of the assessment had now been initiated. This could take up to 56 days to complete;
• how Mr X could make a formal complaint;
• they had talked about the new housing allocations scheme. The manager enclosed a copy of the new scheme and referred to the relevant criteria; and
• his request for a new housing options officer had been agreed, and the officer’s contact details. The officer had been told that Mr X might need more detailed explanations on occasion and to ensure requests for phone calls were returned.

59. The new officer contacted Mr X on 10 June to introduce themselves.

The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint

60. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council about the way it had handled his housing application and requests for assistance. In its stage one complaint response, the Council:

• set out a record of all its email contact with Mr X from 17 May 2023 to June 2024. It said there was only one occasion where it could see a request for a call had not been returned.
• accepted, regarding his request for a call about the impact of being away from the borough, this was an important concern. The officer going on leave should have arranged for someone else to call him; and
• confirmed his account was blocked on 3 June in accordance with its usual practice because he had accepted an accommodation offer. It didn’t know he had subsequently declined the offer after his visit to the property on 5 June. His account was re-activated on 6 June.

61. The Council also said:

• the medical advisor determines what points are applicable and there is a review procedure;
• it is standard practice to advise applicants submitting further medical evidence for re-assessment that points can be increased, decreased or removed altogether; and
• it had not seen any evidence of discrimination. It asked Mr X to provide any evidence of this, and it would deal with it appropriately in accordance with its policy.

62. The Council offered Mr X a payment of £75 as redress for its communication failures.
63. Mr X was not satisfied with this reply. In its final complaint response on 24 July, the Council:

• upheld the findings in the stage one response;
• provided details of its equal opportunities policies; and
• did not uphold his complaint about discrimination. It said it had published policies in place to support those with vulnerabilities and disabilities.

64. Mr X then brought his complaint to us in July 2024.

Events from July 2024

65. On 13 August 2024, a medical officer completed a review of Mr X’s medical priority. They confirmed they had considered all the medical information on Mr X’s file and the medical officers’ previous assessments, and spoken to Mr X. They recommended:

• Mr X be placed in medical category B (80) points to acknowledge the major impact his current accommodation was having on him by exacerbating his significant mental health issues. The current stress of the eviction process was having a major adverse effect on his medical conditions. Treating professionals had confirmed the impact of stress on Mr X in relation to his mental and physical health symptoms and risk of relapse;
• it was anticipated a move to more suitable accommodation would result in improved mental and physical health and reduce the risk of relapse;
• a new welfare category C with an additional 40 points

66. Mr X was offered, and accepted sheltered housing, with a tenancy starting on 4 November 2024.

My view – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

a) Failure to properly consider his disabilities and discrimination

67. I have not found fault by the Council on this part of Mr X’s complaint. This is because:

• the Council has policies in place to support those with vulnerabilities and disabilities and ensure the allocation scheme and its operation does not discriminate unlawfully against any particular group;
• Mr X was asked to provide the Council with specific details of any failure to consider his disabilities or of discrimination against him, so it could investigate this. He did not do so; and
• I haven’t seen any information showing Mr X asked the Council to make reasonable adjustments for a disability in its communication with him before his contact with the team manager in June 2024. The manager then confirmed the adjustments agreed.

b) communication failures

68. I appreciate Mr X had a number of different caseworkers over the period of his application. But the information I have seen, in my view, shows, although there were some delays, the housing options service team generally responded promptly to Mr X’s contact. I haven’t seen any information to show substantive delays were caused by an officer working three days a week.
69. I don’t consider there was any communication failure about the blocking of Mr X’s account. I accept this was triggered by Mr X accepting an accommodation offer in accordance with the Council’s standard process. The block was only in place for a few days and removed promptly once the Council was advised Mr X had declined the offer.
70. I don’t consider there was any service requirement to initiate phone calls with Mr X. But I agree with the Council it should have ensured it phoned Mr X as requested to discuss the impact of living outside the borough for medical treatment, as this was clearly an important concern.
71. And there were also failures to reply to or call Mr X as requested in response to his contact in September and October 2023 about the expiry of the section 21 notice and the issue of court action, other important concerns.
72. I also note the delay acknowledging and processing Mr X’s housing register application. The Council’s housing application procedure manual says officers are expected to register and initially assess a new application within 20 working days and carry out a medical assessment within 21 working days. In Mr X’s case this process took about 32 working days. Mr X does not appear to have been given any acknowledgements or updates about the delay.
73. I consider there were some communication failures on important matters concerning Mr X’s housing application. These failures were fault which caused Mr X avoidable upset, worry and frustration at an already difficult time.
74. I don’t consider the Council’s offer of £75 meets our expectations about redress for the injustice caused by this fault.

c) Failure to properly consider the medical information provided

75. We do not say whether councils’ decisions are correct or not. We focus on the decision-making process councils follow.
76. We published guidance in July 2024 setting out our expectations about the decision-making process councils should follow when making medical assessments. These included:

• independence - councils should make their own decisions about medical needs taking into account all the evidence and not automatically accept the view of the independent medical adviser;
• evidence - councils should address all the issues an applicant raises in a medical assessment and provide sufficient evidence and reasoning in their decision to allow the applicant to understand why the decision has been made; and
• timeliness - councils should carry out medical assessments and reviews and issue decisions within a reasonable timeframe.

The Council’s process

77. I don’t consider there was any fault with the Council’s process for assessing medical information and priority.
78. The scheme sets out the criteria for medical awards and confirms council officers assess these awards. The Council’s housing application procedure manual sets out the process by which council officers assess medical information and priority, including the referral of cases to council medical advice officers for medical assessments.
79. The manual also says applicants should be advised that submitting further medical information for re-assessment can mean medical points: remain the same; be increased, decreased or removed altogether.
80. In Mr X’s case his medical information was assessed by council medical advice officers (not independent medical advisors) and decisions about his medical priority were made by council officers.

The assessment of Mr X’s medical awards

81. I have also considered the process for the assessment of Mr X’s medical award on 5 July 2023 and the re-assessments on 5 September 2023 and 8 May 2024.
82. All the assessments were properly referred to the council’s medical advice officer and the outcomes were explained to Mr X. Mr X was properly informed of his right to request a review of the July 2023 decision. I consider the medical officers’ advice on 5 July and 5 September shows they properly considered all the relevant information on Mr X’s file before making their assessment.
83. But Mr X was not told at the time about his right to request a review of the May 2024 decision. This was put right in June 2024, when he was advised about this by the team manager.
84. I also note the advice issued on 8 May refers only to Mr X’s declarations and the report. There is no evidence the medical officer considered all of the other relevant medical information on Mr X’s file, including the previous assessments, before making a decision.
85. I consider this was fault. This caused Mr X upset and uncertainty about the outcome while wating for the review of the assessment to be completed.

d) Failure to explain the points award and change in residency criteria

86. I have not found fault by the Council on this part of the complaint.
87. I don’t consider the Council failed to properly explain his points award to Mr X. It included the medical officers’ advice explaining the reasons for the recommended medical and welfare points awards in its decision letters. And it confirmed he had been awarded 10 points for homelessness following the expiry of the section 21 notice.
88. I can’t see that Mr X queried the change in residency criteria in the 2024 scheme until his contact with the team manager in June 2024. There had not been any change in the 100 residence points awarded to Mr X under the new scheme. My understanding is Mr X discussed the new scheme criteria with the manager when they spoke about his concerns, and the manager provided information about this in his email of 10 June 2024.

e) Failure to properly investigate complaints

89. I have not found fault by the Council in the way it investigated Mr X’s complaints.
90. A stage one investigation was carried out by a complaints officer within the housing options service, the area Mr X complained about, in accordance with the procedure in the Council’s policy. The officer addressed Mr X’s complaint issues in their response.
91. The stage two investigation was conducted by an officer in the corporate complaints team, in accordance with the Council’s policy. The officer confirmed they had reviewed the stage one response and replied to the issues Mr X had raised.
92. He was invited to provide details of any complaints of discrimination for further investigation but did not do so.
93. The Council confirmed the outcomes of the stage one and two investigations to Mr X in writing and told him he could bring the complaint to us if he was not satisfied with its response.
94. I have not seen any information indicating the Council failed to properly investigate Mr X’s complaint.

Conclusion

95. I have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, as set out above, on the following parts of Mr X’s complaint:

• communication failures (b); and
• failure in May 2024 to properly consider all Mr X’s medical information before making an assessment (c).

96. I have not found fault by the Council on the other parts of the complaint ((a) (d) and (e)).

Back to top

Action

97. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults and, within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr X for its communication failures and failure to properly consider all his medical information in May 2024. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology ; and
2. pay Mr X £350 to reflect the upset, frustration and uncertainty caused by its failures. This is a symbolic amount based on our guidance on remedies.

Back to top

Decision

98. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above action to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman