Summary: Miss D complains the Council delayed and made errors with her housing register account and placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation. The Ombudsman has found evidence of fault by the Council which meant Miss D lost an opportunity to gain secure social housing in 2019. The Ombudsman has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because the Council agrees to our recommended actions including offering Ms D the next available and suitable social housing property.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) says the Council placed her in unsuitable temporary accomodation, delayed carrying out a medical review, failed to address issues with her bidding account, did not explain why she was not offered social housing she bid for and reduced her housing points after promising it would not do so.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have exercised discretion to look at the suitability of Miss D’s initial temporary accommodation despite her having the right of Review. That is because of Miss D’s circumstances and Council advice to her at the time.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. He 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, he may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1))
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 spoken to Miss D and considered the information she provided. I asked the Council questions and carefully examined its response.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. On 12 June 2018 Miss D told the Council she had to leave her accommodation. The Council offered her temporary accommodation whilst it considered her homeless application. It provided her with a studio flat in a block with a lift. On 25 September, the Council told Miss D it had accepted a full duty towards her because she was homeless and in priority need. In September and October Miss D’s Social Worker and a Health Officer contacted the Council stating Miss D’s accommodation was unsuitable. Miss D had given birth and the flat was too small because she had a baby and her mother was staying to assist with childcare. The flat was affecting her mental health. The Council treat this contact as a request for a Suitability Review.
8. On 10 October Miss D completed a Disability and Health Questionnaire (questionnaire) which she emailed to the Council with each page of the questionnaire as an attachment. The Council asked if she could email it again as one entire attachment which she did a few days later. On 11 October, an Officer visited the flat and took measurements. The property fell within the required size standard. On 15 October Miss D told the Council she did not want to proceed with a Suitability Review. Three days later the Council emailed Miss D and her representative stating it had advised Miss D to stay at her current accommodation and bid for social housing. That was because she would likely be rehoused faster with additional points for overcrowding. At that time, the Council incorrectly awarded Miss D two overcrowding points rather than the six she was entitled to. The Council says it corrected the error in November.
9. On 16 November Miss D called the Council querying her points and whether she could bid. The Council said it was looking into the matter, it then asked for her account to be updated as it was only showing one point instead of the seven she was entitled to. At the end of the month Miss D’s Social Worker contacted the Council about the points and reiterated concerns about the size of the flat. She said Miss D did not have space for a cot. The Council replied that Miss D had decided to remain at the flat because she would benefit from overcrowding points. It confirmed the correct seven points were now on the bidding account. The Social Worker made further contact with the Council and it replied on 3 December that if Miss D wanted to move she should notify the Council. If she did move she would be considered adequately housed and might come off the housing register.
10. The Council says that it received the questionnaire from Miss D in December. It has not provided any evidence of this. It passed the case to its Assessor to consider that month. The Assessor took account of the application and letters from medical professionals. They found Miss D had reasonable preference on medical grounds and her points should be increased to 10. In addition, any future housing should be self-contained and no higher than a first-floor property.
11. On 9 January 2019 Miss D’s Social Worker told the Council Miss D was considering having her baby stay elsewhere due to the cramped conditions in the flat. The Council said, on 15 January, that it was to Miss D’s advantage to stay at the flat and bid. If she was reasonably housed she would lose her overcrowding and possibly her medical points. On 5 February Miss D asked the Council about her points. On 12 February, the Council received a new housing application from Miss D. Her mother was still staying at the studio flat to help care for the baby. The Council referred the case to its Private Sector Rental Team to consider an offer of alternative temporary accommodation. On 28 February, the Council called Miss D about possible new accommodation and she said she had previously been advised to remain at her flat.
12. On 1 March Miss D was ranked in first place for Council flat she had bid on and was eligible for. On the same day, the Council offered her temporary accommodation outside the Borough, this was formally offered in a letter on 6 March. Because the offer was made Miss D’s bidding account was suspended meaning she was not considered further for the permanent Council flat she had bid for. On 12 March Miss D declined the temporary accommodation. Two days later her Social Worker set out for the Council why the offer was unsuitable including it being nearly two hours away from Miss D’s medical team and support networks. The Social Worker also said Miss D had lost an opportunity for the flat she had successfully bid on. The Council treat this as a Discharge of Duty Review. On 22 March, it sent its Review decision. It found the temporary accommodation it had offered was unsuitable on medical grounds. It said Miss D’s bidding would be reinstated. An Officer also noted to check whether properties Miss D had been ranked first place for were still available. There is no record to show if the check was made.
13. On 26 March, the Council offered Miss D new temporary accommodation (a one bedroom flat). Miss D met a Council Officer on 29 March to complete forms for the move. She recorded the meeting. The recording shows Miss D asking the Officer whether moving would affect her points. The Officer said, “it should not affect your points as it is temporary accommodation”. Also in March Miss D was ranked first place for three further properties. Each of them were above first floor level and so she was not eligible to receive an offer of housing as they did not meet the needs agreed by the Council. In April Miss D moved to her current accommodation. In May the Council reviewed her housing need and adjusted her points from 10 to four. That was because the property was less overcrowded and met the Assessor’s recommendations on medical need. That month Miss D was again ranked first for a property she bid on. It was on the second floor and so Miss D was not eligible to receive an offer.

What should have happened

14. If a person submits a homelessness application to the Council it will consider if the applicant requires temporary accommodation. When allocating temporary accommodation to an applicant the Council should take account of the distance and disruption to medical treatment. The size of temporary accommodation has to meet minimum size standards. If a person in temporary accommodation complains about the property being unsuitable the Council will carry out a Suitability Review and may visit the property to assess it. If the Council receives information about an applicant’s change of circumstances it can also reassess whether the accommodation remains suitable.
15. When an applicant is accepted onto the housing register by the Council their housing priority is assessed. The Council awards one of four levels of priority to reflect the applicant’s housing needs. That can include an assessment of whether the applicant is overcrowded or homeless. For example, an applicant accepted as homeless and in priority need within the Borough is awarded six points. The Council can alter the points level after reassessment at any time. If the Council is aware of a change in circumstances, such as moving home, it will consider if the points need to be altered.
16. If an applicant wants the Council to consider awarding points for medical need they must submit a questionnaire. The Council forwards that document and any evidence supplied by the applicant to an Assessor. They will consider whether the applicant’s current accommodation is adversely impacting on their condition. The Assessor can also recommend an applicant only be considered for certain types of property that meet their medical needs, for example someone in a wheelchair may only be eligible for ground floor and adapted housing.
17. The Council advertises available social housing on its website each week. Housing register applicants bid for the properties. In general, the higher an applicant’s level of priority and points the better chance they have of being ranked in first place and then being offered the accommodation. The Council cannot offer a property to someone who is not eligible. An applicant who is restricted to ground floor accommodation will be not be offered a third-floor flat. When an applicant is offered accommodation, including new temporary accommodation, their bidding account is suspended until a decision is made on whether to accept the offer.

Was there fault by the Council

18. Miss D says her first temporary accommodation was unsuitable and too small. I do not see evidence of fault by the Council. When Miss D was allocated the flat she was a single adult occupant. Subsequently she had a child and her mother moved in to assist her. Once the Council was aware Miss D was concerned about a lack of space it visited and checked. It found the flat met the minimum size requirements for a studio flat. Furthermore, the Council offered to carry out a Suitability Review but Miss D declined this because she understood that remaining at the flat increased her housing points. That was a choice Miss D made and it was not a case of the Council asking her to remain at the property.
19. Miss D complains the Council delayed considering her medical case. I have found evidence of fault. Miss D has provided me with emails clearly showing she sent the questionnaire to the Council in October. The Council had told me it received the questionnaire in December which is not correct, it had receipt of the document along with information from Miss D’s consultant in October. It could and should have passed the case to an Assessor to consider that month. Instead no action was taken for around two months. That delay is not acceptable and furthermore it meant Miss D should have received the higher level of points in October following the Assessor’s consideration of her case. This resulted in a significant injustice which I set out below.
20. Miss D also says the Council failed to ensure her points were correct. The Council accepts the incorrect number of points were awarded to Miss D’s account in October in as much as it wrongly gave Miss D the lower level of overcrowding points that would be awarded to an Out of Borough applicant. That error was rectified in November. However, as set out above, there was still an incorrect points level because the Council should have assessed Miss D’s medical need in October which would have resulted in her receiving 10 points before the end of that month.
21. Miss D further complains that she was not offered properties where she was the highest ranked bidder. The records show that Miss D was ranked first for five social housing properties in 2019. Of those, four of the flats were above first floor level. That meant Miss D was ineligible for the properties as she had already been assessed as requiring a ground floor or first floor property only. There was no fault by the Council.
22. However, there is significant fault turning to the fifth flat. On 1 March Miss D was ranked first place for a first-floor flat, so she would have been eligible to receive an offer of secure social housing. That coincided with the Council also offering Miss D temporary accommodation. Under the usual Council policy an applicant’s housing account is suspended when an offer of housing is made. That meant Miss D was not considered for the social housing flat as her account was suspended. This is deeply unfortunate because the temporary accommodation, which Miss D had not requested, was unsuitable for her on medical grounds. By the time the Council had accepted the offer was incorrect the social housing property she wanted was likely no longer available. This means Miss D has been penalised for an incorrect offer made by the Council and through no fault of her own. The Council noted at the time to check if the property was still available which indicates to me it was aware of the consequence of the unsuitable temporary accommodation offer. In light of this I find the Council at fault. It failed to take account of Miss D’s previous contact, and its own advice, that she did not want alternative temporary housing and was holding out to gain long-term social housing. Instead it made an unwanted offer of temporary housing, failed to check whether this would impact on any bids Miss D had made and this resulted in Miss D losing out on securing suitable long term social housing.
23. Miss D also states the Council incorrectly reduced her points after she moved in 2019. She says an Officer assured her the points level would not change. I have listened to Miss D’s recording of the March meeting and clearly the Officer is incorrect in her advice. She wrongly told Miss D her points should not change despite it being obvious this was not correct given the new property met some of her housing need. Whilst the Officer was at fault I have to consider that advice alongside the information the Council previously gave Miss D and her Social Worker from 2018 onwards. The Council told Miss D three times that if she moved from her first temporary accommodation her points would be reduced. In view of this I consider, on balance, that Miss D had been sufficiently advised of the risk of moving home and how that would impact on her points.

Did the fault cause an injustice

24. I have checked the Council’s records for the period in 2018 when Miss D’s points were incorrect. If Miss D had been given the 10 points she was due in October instead of December there are several properties she could have bid for and had had a possibility of success based on the start date and points level of the of the successful applicants. This is a significant injustice which means Miss D most likely lost a chance to secure a secure home for her family.
25. In respect of the events on 1 March 2019 I find that Miss D again lost an opportunity to secure social housing. This is another significant injustice.

Agreed action

26. In order to redress the injustice caused to Miss D by the Council’s actions I asked it to consider allocating the next available suitable social housing property to Miss D. This is not queue jumping but rather putting Miss D back in the position she would have been had the two key faults I have identified not occurred. I am pleased to see the Council has now accepted this recommendation. It should confirm this in writing to Miss D within two weeks of this case closing and notify the Ombudsman when an offer of suitable permanent accommodation is made.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

28. I have not considered the Discharge of Duty issues as Miss D had a right of Review which she used.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman