Summary: Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with her homelessness application. There is evidence of fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with her homelessness application. She says it took too long to make a decision and she received limited contact from her housing officer. Ms X has also complained about the priority the Council has given her application for permanent accommodation and is unhappy the Council offered her accommodation in a different area.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated how the Council dealt with Ms X’s homelessness application. I have also considered her concerns about how the Council considered the evidence she provided in 2018 to increase her priority band for permanent housing and to show that she should remain in the area. The final part of this statement explains my reasons for not looking into the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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 have considered all the information from Ms X and the Council including the Council’s responses to my enquires.
6. A copy of this decision was sent in draft to Ms X and the Council. I have considered the comments received in response.

Background

7. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance set out duties for Local Authorities to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. This has now been replaced by the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 which applies to homelessness applications made after April 2018.
8. Ms X made a homelessness application in February 2018 and therefore I have referred to the law and Code of Guidance as it stood at the relevant time.

Back to top

What I found

9. The Council has a duty to accept a homelessness application for someone if it has reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness. After receiving an application, the Council must make enquires to decide if the applicant is:

• eligible for assistance;
• homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• in priority need; and
• not intentionally homeless.

10. There is no time limit under the Housing Act for a council to decide a homelessness application, but the code of guidance says councils should aim to do this within 33 working days. In this case, Ms X made a homelessness application in February 2018. The Council accepted the application and wrote to Ms X in November 2018 confirming its duty to provide suitable accommodation. Ms X has complained about how long it took the Council to reach a decision and says the housing officer dealing with her case did not keep her updated. The Council accepts there were delays because of a backlog of applications it had at the time. It also says the officer dealing with Ms X’s application did not progress the matter as quickly or effectively as she should have. The Council apologised for the delays and said it would prioritise an offer of suitable accommodation.
11. If there had not been any delays, Ms X would have been eligible for accommodation sooner. However, I am satisfied this did not cause Ms X to miss out on an offer of accommodation. The Council has shown that no suitable properties were available between April 2018, when it should have decided Ms X’s application, and November 2018, when it accepted it had a duty to provide accommodation. I am also satisfied the Council’s Housing Needs Service was searching for suitable properties for Ms X. Ms X disagrees. She says she discussed a potential property with the Council in March 2018 and therefore disputes there were no suitable properties available. While I agree that Ms X was given details for a three bedroom property, there were no guarantees that she would have been accepted for the tenancy. This property was also available before the Council accepted a homelessness duty for Ms X and before April 2018 which is the date the Council should have decided her homelessness application. Therefore, I cannot say Ms X missed out on an offer of accommodation because of the Council’s delays.
12. However, Ms X has been caused some injustice by the Council’s delays. She had to chase it for progress updates and was caused additional uncertainty because she had to wait much longer that she should have for the Council to decide her homelessness application. I understand the Council said it would prioritise an offer of suitable accommodation to reflect the problems Ms X encountered. But I cannot agree that this was a suitable remedy for the injustice caused as the Council had a duty to do this anyway regardless of the delays.
13. Ms X has also complained that the Council did not arrange interim accommodation when she made her homelessness application. If a council has reason to believe someone is homeless, eligible and in priority need, it will have a duty to ensure suitable accommodation is available while it assesses the homelessness application.
14. In this case, the Council says interim accommodation was not explicitly requested and was not considered by the housing officer. While I cannot know for sure if Ms X requested interim accommodation, the Council should have considered if it was necessary. The possibility should have also been revisited when Ms X contacted the Council to raise concerns about the suitability of her living arrangements. This is fault. I do not know what interim accommodation may have been available at the time or if Ms X would have accepted this. Ms X was also able to remain at her mother’s house pending the outcome of her homelessness application. However, the Council’s fault meant Ms X lost the opportunity to have an offer of interim accommodation and she has likely been caused further uncertainty about what should have happened.
15. I have also considered Ms X’s concerns about being rehoused outside of Brent. In August and November 2018, Ms X sent the Council medical evidence to show she could not move outside of Brent. She also completed a fear of violence form which names an area she says she cannot move to due to threats of violence from her ex-husband. The Council says its medical officer reviewed the information Ms X provided and while this shows she needs ground floor accommodation or a property with a lift, there is no medical reason why this would have to be within the borough.
16. The Housing Act says that councils should provide accommodation in its area ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’. I am satisfied the Council did properly consider the information Ms X provided in 2018 before deciding that her needs could possibly be met in other areas. Therefore, I cannot say there is any fault.
17. Ms X has also complained about the priority the Council has given her application for permanent housing. Councils must publish and strictly follow an allocations scheme setting out its processes and how it prioritises applications. The allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applications in certain circumstances.
18. In this case, the Council has four priority needs bands:

• Band A has the highest priority and is for applicants that urgently need to be rehomed. For example, where a person has a life-threatening condition which is affected by their living situation.
• Band B is for applicants with medium priority and where the household is having a major adverse impact on the applicant.
• Band C is the lowest housing need and often applies where the Council has accepted a duty to provide accommodation under section 7 of the Housing Act.
• Band D means the applicant has no priority and cannot bid on properties.

19. The Council awarded Ms X band C priority for permanent housing. Ms X is unhappy with this decision and says the Council should have given her higher priority as her living situation was affecting her health. She gave the Council medical evidence to support this.
20. The Council’s housing allocation scheme does give priority to applicants that need to move because of their medical needs. The district medical officer considered the information provided but said Ms X’s priority should remain as band C. Ms X disagrees with this decision. However, as the Council properly considered the information available in line with its allocations scheme, I cannot say there is any fault. Ms X also argues that she would have had band A priority if the Council had arranged interim accommodation when she made her homelessness application. The Council’s housing allocation scheme details when applicants will be given band A priority and living in interim accommodation does not fall within these circumstances. Therefore, I cannot say that the faults identified with how the Council dealt with Ms X’s homelessness application affected her position on the housing register.

Agreed action

21. The Council has agreed to pay Ms X £300 for her time and trouble and the uncertainty caused because of the delays dealing with her homelessness application and for not considering interim accommodation. This payment should be made within one month of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

22. There is fault with how the Council has dealt with Ms X’s homelessness application.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

23. The Council offered Ms X accommodation outside of London to discharge its duty under the Housing Act. Ms Xsays the property was unsuitable and argues that the Council’s district Medical Officer’s most recent assessment (May 2019) confirms that she should be housed in West London. I have not considered these matters as they have occurred since I started investigating Ms X’s complaint. If someone is unhappy with the suitability of the accommodation they are offered, they can also ask the Council for a review and then if they remain unhappy can exercise their right to appeal to the county court. The Ombudsman will not normally investigate issues such as these where there is a right to a review and appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman