Summary: Miss B complains about the Council’s involvement in her housing situation when she came out of hospital. She says the property she felt forced to move to is unsuitable for her and, as it is one bedroom, her teenage son cannot live or stay with her. There was fault by the Council in not formally considering whether Miss B was homeless in June 2018. This is unlikely to have affected Miss B’s housing situation but the Council should apologise.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains about the Council’s involvement in her housing situation when she was discharged from hospital. She says the property she felt forced to move to is unsuitable for her as it is not adapted and, as it is one bedroom, her teenage son cannot live or stay with her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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

5. I considered the complaint and comments provided by Miss B. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Miss B and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Miss B was living in privately rented accommodation. She had a mental health crisis and was admitted to hospital. An occupational therapist decided Miss B’s property would not be suitable for her when she left hospital. Miss B, with a support worker, approached the Council for help with her housing situation. The Council wrote to Miss B at the end of May 2018 giving housing advice. It said she was not threatened with homelessness and that she should apply to the housing register so her medical needs could be assessed.
7. By 8 June Miss B was ready to leave hospital. The occupational therapist advised that Miss B could not return to her previous home. The Council agreed to a group A priority and contacted a housing association who identified a property. The Council’s records show Miss B had concerns about the property meeting her needs and the suitability for when her son stayed. In an email on 26 June the Council set out Miss B’s housing options. This included:
• Accepting the tenancy offered;
• Look for private rented accommodation;
• Bid through the Council’s housing register;
• Consider supported housing;
• Temporary accommodation while her homelessness situation was considered.

Miss B accepted the housing association property on 28 June.

8. In September Miss B’s support worker contacted the Council to say she wanted to move from the property. Of particular concern was that it was a one bedroom property which meant her son could not come to stay with her. There was no parenting plan in place showing her son lived with her for at least 50% of the time so it was left with the support worker to go back to Miss B.
9. In December Miss B made a formal complaint to the Council. She said the property was not suitable and she had been pressurised into accepting it as there were no alternatives offered.
10. The Council responded to the complaint. Miss B joined the housing register. In January Miss B asked for her complaint to be escalated to the next stage. The Council continued to deal with it as a service matter and responded to her in February. The officer said the Council now had evidence that Miss B was joint carer for her son so she could bid on two bedroom properties. Issues about the condition of the current property were for the housing association. It awarded a high group B medical priority need.
11. Miss B appealed against the medical priority and the Council referred it to its medical advisers. The advisers concluded there was no evidence of any medical need but the Council maintained its group B award.

Analysis

12. When Miss B first approached the Council it gave her housing advice about joining the housing register. The Council’s position was that Miss B could return to her home although the occupational therapist had identified it would not be suitable in the long-term. There was no fault in the way the Council considered the situation at that point. It considered the evidence and provided advice to Miss B.
13. By early June, as Miss B’s discharge from hospital approached, the occupational therapist said it would not be possible for Miss B to return to her home. The Council took action and approached the housing association. It also identified temporary accommodation. It is not clear on what basis the Council was acting here. The provision of temporary accommodation would normally be done when the Council is considering a homelessness application but the Council was not considering a homelessness application from Miss B.
14. A key point here was whether Miss B could reasonably occupy her former home. If someone cannot occupy the property then they may be considered to be homeless. The Council acted on this change in circumstances but it did not do so formally and consider whether Miss B was now homeless. This was fault.
15. However I do not consider this would have made any difference to what happened. The property Miss B accepted is only one bedroom but at this point there was not the necessary evidence to show Miss B’s son would be living with her. The Council’s records show there was discussion with Miss B’s support workers and there was negotiation between Miss B and her former partner about the parenting arrangements. But this had not been finalised and there was no suggestion that her son would be with her for 50% of the time. There was no fault in the Council deciding she only had a one bedroom need at that point.
16. I recognise Miss B felt pressurised into accepting the property. This is reflected in the emails at the time. But I consider this pressure came from the difficult situation she was in with limited options available to her. If the Council has considered her as homeless, or threatened with homelessness, then it would have had to provide interim accommodation while it considered her application. If it then accepted a full housing duty to her then it would have provided temporary accommodation. But there is no reason to think that would have been any better for Miss B. Indeed it is likely it would have been less suitable for her. So I understand why she felt under pressure to accept the property but that was not because of any fault by the Council.
17. I have to consider what impact any fault has had the complainant. Here had the Council considered a homeless application from Miss B and if it had accepted it had the full housing duty to her it is likely it would have considered the property offered discharged that duty. Had that been the case Miss B could have appealed against the decision on the basis she considered it to be unsuitable. But she would have had to do that within eight weeks. Miss B did not raise her concerns about the property until 11 weeks after the tenancy started. And, even she had appealed within time, I do not consider, on the balance of probabilities, that it would have been found to have been unsuitable. The occupational therapy assessment in May identified that Miss B would need a property with a level access shower and a kitchen with storage and a cooker at an accessible height. The property did not have that but an occupational therapy assessment in October noted that adaptations could be done under a disabled facilities grant. So, although the property did not meet Miss B’s long-term needs it would be reasonable for those adaptations to be done later: it would not have meant the property was not suitable for her in terms of the Council discharging its housing duty to her.
18. Once the Council had evidence of the shared care of her son it awarded a two bedroom need. And it has considered Miss B’s medical needs and awarded a higher priority than recommended by the medical adviser. There is no fault in this approach. I recognise Miss B disagrees but the Council has considered all the relevant information and reached a decision based the evidence. I cannot find fault with that.

Agreed action

19. The Council will, within a month of this decision, apologise to Miss B for failing to formally assess her as homeless in June 2018.

Back to top

Final decision

20. There was fault by the Council in not formally considering whether Miss B was homeless in June 2018. This is unlikely to have affected Miss B’s housing situation but the Council should apologise.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman