Summary: Ms Z, on behalf of Mr X, complained the Council failed to provide him with adequate support as a care leaver when offering a housing association property he said he couldn’t afford and failed to offer him a council property despite the care leavers local offer stating it would. The local offer documentation contained misleading information and the claimed enhanced support was not provided causing Mr X to refuse a property and remain without permanent accommodation. To remedy the injustice the Council will review Mr X’s decision to refuse the property taking input from Mr X and his personal advisor.

The complaint

1. Miss Z, on behalf of Mr X, complained the Council failed to provide him with adequate support as a care leaver when offering a housing association property he said he couldn’t afford and failed to offer him a council property despite the local offer stating it would.
2. Mr X refused the offer on the basis it was unaffordable. He was not entitled to a right of review or another offer leaving him without suitable permanent accommodation.

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. 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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms Z and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms Z 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

Care leaver local offer

7. The care leaver local offer sets out the help and support a council will provide as looked after child moves into adulthood. The Council’s local offer includes a personal advisor from age 18, a pathway plan, support from age 21-25 if required and planning around permanent housing.
8. The information provided to Mr X said that care leaver can apply for permanent social housing in Hounslow. Each application is then assessed, and the young person will be placed on a list to await a direct offer of their own Council flat.

Key facts

9. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
10. Mr X entered the country as an unaccompanied minor and so became a local authority looked after child. The Council took the view that Mr X, aged 21, was ready to move into his own self-contained property. The matter was considered by a panel who agreed that it was appropriate for Mr X to have his own tenancy.
11. Mr X was invited to view a housing association property. From the outset, Mr X expressed concerns about the cost. He was attending college and said that he aimed to get a full-time job. Mr X said that he wanted a council tenancy as the rent would be lower than a housing association property and so would make if more affordable when he was working.
12. At a meeting with his care leaver personal advisor, it was explained to Mr X he would only be made one offer of a permanent tenancy. The advisor told Mr X that if he refused the offer without a significant reason then he would make himself intentionally homeless. The advisor also explained that he would get benefit to cover the cost of his rent but not council tax. He explained that if Mr X got a job then the amount of benefit paid would depend on how much he was earning.
13. Mr X was invited to view the property and was told the rent would be £232.18 per week including service charges. The notes of the viewing indicate that again Mr X raised concerns about the affordability as the rent was higher than a council property. Following the viewing the Council pressed Mr X to make a decision on whether he wanted to accept the property.
14. Ms Z made a formal complaint to the Council on behalf of Mr X. She explained the Council had offered Mr X a housing association property which he was reluctant to accept because it was too far from his college which would mean extra travel costs on top of the rent he considered unaffordable. Ms Z said he had been told the Council had a one offer policy and so he effectively had no choice but to accept or risk losing his right to be housed in the area. Ms Z said that Mr X had estimated that if he accepted he property he would be left with only £300 per month to spend on travel to and from college, bills and food. He also anticipated that he would need to learn to drive to help with his choice of career. Mr X felt this made the property unaffordable in the long term when he moved into full time work and he would not be in receipt of universal credit. He asked to be considered for a council property as set out in the local offer.
15. The Council responded saying that based on the financial information he provided the property was deemed to be affordable. The Council went on to say it had reviewed the local offer document and accepted it did not make it clear that different types of social housing could be provided to care leavers which would include housing association properties. It said it would ensure the information was updated so that care leavers were aware it included all types of social housing and not just council housing. It said it was partly upholding the complaint as the local offer information needed updating.
16. It also said that applicants can refuse a direct offer but if they do so unreasonably then their application may be suspended for 12 months. It said there is a statutory independent review process if the applicant wishes to dispute the reasonableness of the offer made to them. The housing allocation team then assess whether another offer will be provided and alterative housing options discussed directly with the care leaver and their personal advisor
17. Ms Z made a stage two complaint. The Council’s response explained there was a factual error in the stage one complaint response. It said Mr X’s care leaver application to join the housing register was not a general application under its housing allocations policy but a leaving care priority application. This meant he would receive one offer, there are no rights of review and no further offer is made after the years suspension.
18. It said it could not comment on what he was told about making himself intentionally homeless if he refused the offer but felt the focus of the discussion should have been on the fact only one offer is made and not on a hypothetical homelessness application. It upheld this part of the complaint.
19. It said the housing allocations team completed the financial assessment on the basis of Mr X’s circumstances at the time. It said it found it was affordable as Mr X was on universal credit and so qualified for the full rent payment. It said it could not make decisions based on hypothetical future circumstances. It said that his personal advisor would have continued to support him to ensure the tenancy could be maintained. It explained that if the property was truly not affordable when working then he would have been able to make a homelessness application or apply for a mutual exchange.
20. The Council said there was a housing crisis and it must be fair with the allocation of limited resources. It said that so few social housing vacancies occur in relation to demand that such tenancies cannot be excluded from consideration. It said this also applied to the private sector tenancies. It said it did not force care leavers to accept a tenancy.

Analysis

21. The information provided to Mr X regarding the local offer for care leavers stated that the offer of permanent accommodation would be council housing. It made no mention of housing association or private sector properties. This incorrect information was misleading and led Mr X to believe he should be offered a council property which would be more affordable. While I note the allocations policy correctly stated that other property types could be offered, I can see no reason why Mr X would look at that policy when the local offer information was given to him stating the offer would be a council property. The incorrect information in the local offer is fault and raised Mr X’s expectation that he would be offered a council property.
22. The Council has a one offer policy for care leavers and refusal does not carry with it a right of review unlike most other housing offers. The Council justifies this by saying the process of care leavers having a personal advisor gives enhanced protection and more consideration than under the allocation policy. I am not persuaded this is the case.
23. I have seen evidence which shows the personal advisor met with Mr X and discussed the offer with him. Mr X was clear from the outset that he had concerns about the affordability of a housing association property as the rents are higher than council properties. It is not clear how much discussion there was with Mr X about this and the support that would continue to be provided to help him maintain the tenancy.
24. Mr X was in receipt of universal credit when the offer of the property was made. I am satisfied that it was appropriate for the Council to complete the financial assessment based on his actual financial circumstances rather than some hypothetical future circumstances. However, it is unclear how Mr X’s concerns about the affordability were taken into account as when interviewed as part of the Council’s internal complaint investigation, Mr X’s personal advisor said that he found it difficult because he did not set the rules. He said care leavers are informed they will get a property as explained in the local offer and that after that, the personal advisor has no control or even any input. He said that he wasn’t “even the middleman” and the decision was made just by housing officers including the financial assessment.
25. For this reason, I am not persuaded the existence of the personal advisor in the process does balance out the impact of there being no right of review regarding the suitability of an offer. So rather than the involvement of the personal advisor providing enhanced protection for care leavers as claimed by the Council, they in fact have less consideration than other housing register applicants. The comments on Mr X’s personal advisor confirm that he was not involved in the housing decision and therefore I consider Mr X was significantly disadvantaged. I do not think the Council intending to disadvantage care leavers but this is what has happened in this case.

Back to top

Action

26. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr X as a result of the fault identified in this case, the Council will, within one month of my final decision, take the following action:
• Apologise to Mr X for the fault identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended;
• Undertake a review of the suitability of the housing offer made to Mr X. In doing this invite input from Mr X, Ms Z and Mr X’s personal advisor. If this review finds that Mr X had good reason to refuse the offered property, the council should reinstate Mr X’s care leaver priority and make a further offer; and
• Ensure the care leaver local offer information contains the correct information about housing offers.
27. Within three months of my final decision, review the process for offering care leavers permanent accommodation to ensure that personal advisors are involved in the decision about what constitutes a suitable offer or introduce a right of appeal.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

29. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman