Summary: Ms D complains the Council failed to assist with housing issues. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault. He has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council failed to assist her with housing issues. In particular, she says the Council:
• failed to correctly assess disrepair dating back several years using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS);
• has dropped her housing priority in 2019;
• refused to accept her complaints until she removed the names of Officers in 2019;
• failed to remedy the injustice caused by not accepting a homelessness application in 2017.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. The Ombudsman has previously investigated a complaint from Ms D about disrepair and her housing status. We reached a decision on 8 November 2018. The Ombudsman found the Council should have accepted a homelessness application in November 2017.
3. I am looking at events from 9 November 2018 onwards.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. 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)
7. 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

8. I have spoken to Ms D and considered the information she provided. I asked the Council questions and carefully examined its response.
9. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background

10. Ms D complained to the Ombudsman about failures in the Council’s HHSRS assessment of her home. She also said it should have accepted a homelessness application from her sooner.
11. The Ombudsman completed the investigation on 8 November 2018. He found no fault by the Council in its handling of Ms D’s housing issues. He did say communications could have been clearer and the Council should have accepted a homelessness application in December 2017. The Ombudsman said he could not assess whether the delay with the homelessness application had caused an injustice. Ms D could come back to the Ombudsman once the Council had decided whether or not she was eligible to receive homelessness assistance.

Events I have investigated

12. In November 2018 Ms D was at Band C on the Council’s housing register (she had been Band C since 2017). Ms D corresponded regularly with the Council about her housing during this period.
13. On 5 January 2019 the Council wrote to Ms D. It said that it would be increasing her housing band to Band B because there was uncertainty about the outcome had a homelessness application been accepted in 2017. The Council was changing its allocations policy and all homelessness applicants accepted prior to April 2018 would move from Band C to Band B once the policy came into effect.
14. On 18 January the Council decided to award Ms D Band B for a Category One hazard at her home. It told her about its decision. The Council also wrote to Ms D a few days later. It said that whilst Officers had never found a Category One hazard at the property “it is unlikely the situation can be resolved soon” and therefore it was awarding the higher priority banding. It reiterated that it had offered assistance to rectify any hazards, but Ms D refused her Landlord access to carry out remedial works.
15. At the end of the month the Council confirmed to Ms D that it would be implementing its new allocations policy in February and her application would be backdated to November 2017 when it accepted it could have taken a homelessness application.
16. On 1 February Ms D told the Council her banding and backdating should be done immediately. The Council responded reiterating its policies. On 11 February the Council confirmed it had awarded Ms D Band B for homelessness and backdated her priority to 1 November 2017.
17. Ms D continued to dispute the Council’s actions and challenge what had taken place prior to November 2018. On 7 March the Council told Ms D most of the issues she raised had already been considered by the Ombudsman. It confirmed it had accepted a homelessness duty and that she had a Personal Housing Plan in place since November 2018. Whilst the Council did not know what the outcome would have been had it accepted a homelessness application in 2017 it had given “benefit of this doubt” and backdated Ms D’s application accordingly. Similarly, with defects in the property the Council had never established there was a Category One hazard, for lack of heating, because Officers had witnessed the boiler working. But it was giving the “benefit of doubt” and increasing her priority to Band B. The Council had found Category Two hazards and asked the Landlord to rectify those previously. The Council would not take enforcement action because the Landlord was willing to rectify any disrepair.
18. On 25 April an Officer from the Rogue Landlord Team carried out an informal inspection of Ms D’s home as part of the Street Week Operation. The Officer did not find any Category One hazards and noted there were disrepair issues. He referred the case to the Private Sector Housing Manager. The Council noted there were no new disrepair issues. As it had previously investigated, and the landlord had been denied access to fix the disrepair, no further action was required.
19. In May Ms D successfully bid for a property. It required significant works, including a new kitchen. Ms D moved into the home in June.

What should have happened

20. The HHSRS is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in a dwelling. The Council inspects properties to determine whether Category One (serious threat) or Two (less serious or urgent) hazards exist. A Category One hazard includes the lack of heating which cannot be remedied in a reasonable period.
21. Where an owner or a landlord agrees to take action required by the authority, guidance states it might be appropriate for the authority to wait before the owner fails to start the work within a reasonable timeframe. Local authorities have the power to intervene where they consider housing conditions to be unacceptable.
22. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council before 3 April 2018, he or she is likely to become homeless within 28 days. Applications can be made by an adult to any department and expressed in any particular form. They do not have to explicitly request assistance under homelessness legislation.
23. The Council awards housing applicants a banding level to reflect their housing priority. Band A is the highest. Prior to February 2019 a housing applicant accepted as homeless was allocated Band C housing priority. The Council introduced a new allocations policy in February 2019. It increased the banding for homelessness applicants, accepted prior to 1 April 2018, from Band C to B.
24. In cases where the Council accepts a property has a Category One hazard it will award a housing applicant Band B priority.

Was there fault by the Council

25. Ms D says the Council failed to resolve Category One hazards at her home from November 2018 into 2019. I have found no evidence of faut by the Council. It clearly explained to Ms D that it would assist her if access was granted to the Landlord to carry out remedial work. Furthermore, it had not identified any Category One hazards. The informal inspection, not an HHSRS visit, did not note any new disrepair problems. The Council considered that information and decided it would not pursue enforcement action against the Landlord given problems with access to the property. Ms D disagrees with those decision by the Council. The Ombudsman will not call into question the merits of such decisions where there is no evidence of fault. In this case the Council acted in line with procedures.
26. Ms D complains the Council reduced her housing priority in 2019. That is not correct. Prior to November 2018 Ms D was in Band C. She remained in Band C once the Council accepted it had a homelessness prevention duty in 2018 because homeless applicants were also awarded Band C priority. In January 2019 the Council exercised discretion and increased Ms D’s priority to Band B because of hazards in the home. In February it confirmed Ms D was also at Band B for her homelessness. The evidence shows me Ms D’s housing priority increased in 2019 rather than decreased. The Council correctly told Ms D it could not change her homelessness priority until the new allocations policy was in place otherwise it would place other applicants at a disadvantage. I see no evidence of fault by the Council.
27. Ms D states the Council refused to consider her complaints until she removed the names of Officers. I asked Ms D for evidence to corroborate her recollection. She sent me copies of correspondence but none of that evidenced her allegation. Furthermore, there is no reference in the Council’s papers to Ms D being told to remove the names of Officers. I have seen no evidence of fault by the Council in this matter.
28. Ms D says the Council failed to remedy the injustice caused by delay accepting her homelessness application. I have not seen any evidence of a significant outstanding injustice to Ms D. She was at Band C from November 2016. Even if the Council had accepted a duty towards her in November 2017, she would have remained at Band C. Her banding only increased for homelessness when the Council’s allocations policy changed. The Council took a discretionary decision to award Ms D Band B in January 2019 for disrepair. That decision was made despite there being no evidence of a Category One hazard at the property. The Council exercised discretion and, in its words, gave Ms D the benefit of the doubt. There was no duty on it to do so or to award this higher priority sooner.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman