Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council handled her mother, Ms Y’s, housing case. We found fault because of poor communication about the availability of a property the family viewed for Ms Y, its handling of reassessment requests for supported housing and a lack of consideration of its homelessness duties. This caused Ms X and Ms Y avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to them both. For Ms Y, it will organise a reassessment for extra care sheltered accommodation, consider its homelessness duties and whether it can make a direct offer of accommodation to her.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of matters related to her mother, Ms Y’s, housing. She says the Council has failed to provide adequate assistance in re-housing Ms Y despite her health needs.
2. Ms X says this has caused her and Ms Y considerable distress and frustration which has affected their wellbeing. She says this has also affected Ms Y’s ability to obtain suitable housing for her needs.

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. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. My investigation begins in December 2023. This is 12 months before Ms X brought her complaint to us. Any matters before this would be classed as late. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate matters before this.
7. My investigation ends in December 2024 when the complaint was brought to us.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered all the information Ms X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
9. Ms X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s housing allocation policy

10. The Council has a housing allocation policy which sets out how applicants are able to bid for advertised vacant properties in conjunction with local housing associations. It is a points-based system where applicants can choose which properties to bid on if they are eligible to do so.
11. Applicants are given points according to their individual circumstances and for a wide range of other criteria such as medical need, overcrowding and time on the waiting list for a property.
12. The policy allows the Council to make a direct offer of accommodation outside of its choice-based lettings process, including adapted properties to those who are disabled.
13. The policy also allows for a housing service director to exercise discretion to award additional priority to applicants and approve offers of housing.

Homelessness legislation and statutory guidance

14. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (the Act) and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
15. 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(3))
16. Section 184 of the Act says if a council has reason to believe a person may be homeless, or threatened with homelessness within the next 56 days, the housing authority must make inquiries to decide if they are eligible and if so, whether it owes them a duty.

What happened

17. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.

Background and context

18. Ms X is representing her mother, Ms Y in this complaint. Ms Y has lived in the same property for several years (Property A). She has also been on the Council’s housing register for several years. Ms X deals with the Council regarding all of Ms Y’s needs.
19. The Council reassessed Ms Y’s housing needs early in 2022. It said Property A was not suitable to adapt for Ms Y’s needs and she was living in a micro-environment as she could not access multiple areas of the property. Due to her increasing health needs, the assessment recommended Ms Y needed a property which was wheelchair accessible throughout with a level access shower room and step-free access to the property. She was also awarded increased medical priority from category C to category B. This led to Ms Y being given increased points in line with the Council’s housing allocations scheme.
20. By May 2022, the Council advised Ms Y of the amount of points she had been awarded and the type of property she was able to bid on using its online system.
21. In June 2022, Ms Y was declined for sheltered accommodation as her needs were too great. Ms Y could be referred for extra care sheltered (ECS) accommodation.

2024

22. At the end of January 2024, Ms X complained to the Council about its handling of Ms Y’s housing case. She highlighted the difficulties Ms Y faced living in Property A and that she was confined to certain parts of the property due to it not meeting her needs. Ms X said she felt that little had been achieved in trying to move Ms Y to a more suitable property and the Council had not offered enough support.
23. The Council sent its stage one complaint response at the beginning of February. It clarified its assessment of Ms Y’s housing application and the number of points she had been awarded. The Council confirmed Ms Y would stay on its automatic bidding system to maximise her chances of securing alternative accommodation. It said low numbers of available homes meant long waiting times for applicants. It did not uphold the complaint.
24. Ms X escalated the complaint to stage two as she said the Council had not addressed issues related to 2022 and 2023 when Ms Y had been refused sheltered accommodation.
25. At the beginning of March, Ms X chased the Council’s response to her stage two escalation. It said it was going to log her points as a separate adult social care complaint and she should expect a response by the beginning of April.
26. At the end of March, Ms X was invited to view a potential new property (Property B) for her mother. Ms X accepted the property on the basis that it would need immediate adaptation before Ms Y would be able to live there.
27. At the beginning of April, the Council sent its stage one response to the adult social care elements of Ms X’s complaints. It upheld her complaint and said it would allocate a worker to look into equipment adaptations for Ms Y to help her live more comfortably in Property A and also for any future property she may move to.
28. In mid-April, the housing association (HA) responsible for Property B emailed the Council to say it appeared there had been confusion about the ‘adaptable units’ on site (which included Property B) and the types of tenant the properties were suitable for. It said it had reviewed the Council’s suggested applicant list but that many of them required immediate adaptations due to complex needs. This was not possible as properties were new-builds and could not be adapted until the builder’s warranty period expired after two years. It was only able to currently let to people who did not require adaptations. The HA said it would contact applicants, such as Ms Y, who it would not be able to make an offer to.
29. Ms X chased the Council for an update about Property B at the end of April and again at the beginning of July. She said if Property B was not going to be offered to Ms Y, she would like the Council to reassess her for ECS accommodation.
30. The Council replied to Ms X in a stage two complaint response sent in mid-August. In the letter, it:
• apologised the family were not kept updated with the HA’s position on Property B;
• repeated that ECS accommodation would need to be requested through Ms Y’s social worker;
• said the housing team could accommodate the family’s requests regarding the type and location of property it preferred but this would delay Ms Y’s move further; and
• the family could enquire with its adult social care team about adjusting any support in place.
31. It upheld Ms X’s complaint, apologised and offered £425 to Ms Y. This was broken down as £125 for a late stage two complaint response, £150 for distress and £150 for time and trouble taken to complain. It directed Ms X to the Ombudsman if she remained unhappy.

Analysis

Property B

32. As part of my enquiries, I asked the Council if it checked whether properties it was suggesting to Ms Y were wheelchair accessible. The Council said Property B was advertised by the HA as wheelchair accessible which is why Ms Y was put forward. I have seen no evidence of the advert itself. However, having viewed other evidence on file, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities it is more likely than not the Council understood the property to be an ‘adaptable unit’. I therefore find no fault in the Council putting Ms Y’s name forward for consideration.
33. It is clear from Ms X’s chases for updates about Property B in April and July 2024 the family had not been told a formal offer would not be made. The Council has already admitted fault, apologised for failing to communicate about Ms Y’s housing situation and offered her a financial remedy. I am satisfied the payment offer is sufficient to recognise the distress caused to Ms Y but have made other recommendations below to remedy the full nature of the injustice caused to her throughout the complaint. I consider issues linked to communication around Property B also caused Ms X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Other properties Ms X was invited to view

34. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided details of four other properties it had invited Ms X to view during the investigation period, all of which the family declined. One was before the viewing at Property B took place.
35. The remaining three viewings were during the time when Ms X was still waiting for a formal offer for Property B and before the Council’s stage two complaint response was sent advising that it was not suitable for adaptation (the interim period).
36. The Council’s evidence for two of the three properties declined in the interim period does not show why the family declined them. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied it is more likely than not the family did so because they were under the impression Property B was going to be formally offered to Ms Y. If the family had known Property B was not an option, it may have viewed other properties in a different light. Linked to the fault of Ms X and Ms Y not being updated about Property B, the situation with other properties they were invited to view led to distress in the form of uncertainty and lost opportunity for Ms X and Ms Y. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Property bids

37. The Council has provided other evidence of properties Ms Y would have been eligible to bid on or would have automatically had a bid placed on for her during the interim period. Ms Y was not in the highest bid position for any of the properties. I am therefore satisfied there is no fault on the Council’s part here in Ms Y not yet being rehoused.

Extra care sheltered accommodation reassessment

38. In my conversation with her, Ms X said she had asked the Council to reassess Ms Y’s suitability for ECS accommodation after the stage two complaint response was sent in August 2024. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it was not aware of any such request and was unable to comment.
39. However, it was clear Ms X wanted Ms Y reassessed when she emailed the Council in July 2024. I am satisfied, in the circumstances of this complaint, the Council should have directly referred Ms Y for a reassessment rather than ask Ms X to enquire with adult social care about any extra care or ask a social worker for a reassessment for ECS accommodation. I am satisfied not making the direct referral lacked joined up thinking and was fault. This caused Ms X and Ms Y avoidable distress and frustration. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Is Property A reasonable for Ms Y to occupy?

40. As part of my enquiries, I asked the Council if it had given any consideration whether Property A was reasonable for Ms Y to occupy under S175(3) of the Act.
41. In response, the Council said it has established Property A is not suitable for Ms Y’s housing needs. It said it had awarded her medical and welfare points in its housing allocation scheme and agreed to wheelchair accessible accommodation to reflect her needs. It said it had not considered the Act as she had not approached it about being homeless.
42. I am satisfied that given the nature of Ms Y’s difficulties and her current housing situation, the Council should have had regard for whether Property A is reasonable for her to occupy under its homelessness duties. It should have done this without Ms Y making a specific request as she is unlikely to be aware of the Council’s duty. Not doing so was fault. It caused Ms X and Ms Y distress and uncertainty. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

The Council’s suggested remedy for Ms Y

43. I am satisfied the suggested payment of £425 already offered by the Council adequately recognises the distress caused to Ms Y by the fault identified in this complaint. This amount is in line with our guidance on remedies. I have made other recommendations below regarding other aspects of the complaint and an apology for Ms Y.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the date of my final decision:
• apologise to Ms X and Ms Y for the identified injustice;
• re-offer the symbolic payment of £425 to Ms Y to reflect the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the identified injustice;
• pay Ms Y £150 to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the identified injustice;
• pay Ms Y £100 to recognise the time and trouble in making her complaints to the Council;
• organise an ECS accommodation reassessment for Ms Y;
• formally consider whether Property A is reasonable for Ms Y to occupy under the Act and advise her of its decision and any applicable appeal rights; and
• consider whether it will make a direct offer to Ms Y of the next available property it considers is suitable.
45. The apology written should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies on making an effective apology.
46. Payments made are in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
47. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman