London Borough of Camden (19 008 943)

Category : Housing > Homelessness

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 29 May 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Council is at fault as it did not give adequate consideration to whether Mr X was eligible for medical points in 2018. But this fault did not cause significant injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains that the Council:
      1. Failed to make an offer of suitable accommodation to him. As a result Mr X has lived in hostel accommodation for five years.
      2. Removed medical points when reinstating Mr X’s application for the housing register in 2018.
      3. Wrongly evicted Mr X from a hostel.
      4. Placed him in interim accommodation which he considers to be unsuitable as it is too far from his support network and due to other occupants with drug addiction problems.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I have considered events from 2018 and I have not considered earlier events as it was open to Mr X to make a complaint to us before 2019.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
  2. 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)
  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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
  • it is unlikely we would find fault, or
  • the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
  • the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
  1. 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

  1. I have:
    • Considered the complaint and the information provided by Mr X;
    • Discussed the issues with Mr X;
    • Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
    • Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
  2. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
  • homeless people;
  • people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
  • people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
  • people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  1. The Council’s allocations scheme provides that in order to be eligible for housing and health (medical) points, an applicant must demonstrate that their medical condition is being caused or made worse by their housing conditions, the current property cannot be improved to meet their needs and rehousing is likely to improve their condition. If an application disagrees with the Council’s decision, they can request a review.
     

What happened

  1. Mr X has a number of physical and mental health conditions. Between 2015 and 2019 Mr X lived in a hostel which I shall call hostel A. This hostel is provided by a charity which together with the Council’s Pathways Move On Team (PMOT) supports people to find independent accommodation. The charity aims to support people to move into independent accommodation within 12 months and expects residents to engage in the programme to achieve this.

Action by PMOT to find accommodation for Mr X

  1. The Council has said the PMOT will encourage clients with medical conditions to apply to the housing register to have their housing and medical needs assessed. If they are allocated medical points they will be encouraged to bid on social housing unless they want to be housed in private sector housing. If medical points are not awarded, PMOT will offer private rented accommodation. Clients are offered studio flats unless there is a recognised medical need for a one bedroom property. PMOT will make two offers of accommodation and the client can appeal against the suitability of the offers.
  2. In January 2018 the Council advised Mr X that he would not be awarded medical points so did not have a realistic prospect of a successful bid.
  3. In spring 2018 PMOT invited Mr X to view two studio flats. Mr X considered the flats were unsuitable due to his claustrophobia. Mr X appealed against the offers. When dealing with his appeal the Council requested further medical information from Mr X. The Council considered the further information provided by Mr X including a psychiatric report. The Council agreed to make an exception for Mr X because of his mental health conditions and said it would look for one bedroom properties for him.
  4. The Council offered a one bedroom property to Mr X in July 2018 which he declined as he wanted a permanent tenancy. The Council has said it then could not find affordable one bedroom properties for Mr X.
  5. In late 2018 Mr X made a homelessness application. The Council decided Mr X was not homeless as he was suitably housed in hostel A. Mr X’s representative sought a review of this decision. The Council remained of the view he was not homelessness and it was reasonable for Mr X to occupy hostel A. Mr X had the right to challenge this decision in the county court but did not do so.
  6. The Council made further offers to Mr X in April and May 2019. These were one bedroom properties which he declined as he considered them to be too small.
  7. PMOT wrote to Mr X to advise that it would make one more offer to him. It explained that if he declined the offer his case would be closed and the hostel provider would issue a notice to quit. This is because it considered Mr X was not engaging with the resettlement programme.
  8. The Council made a further offer of private rented accommodation. Mr X declined the offer as he considered he needed the security of social housing due to his mental health conditions. The hostel provider issued a notice to quit and Mr X moved from the hostel.
  9. Mr X made a homelessness application when the hostel issued the notice to quit. The Council decided it owed the relief duty to Mr X. The Council placed Mr X in interim accommodation which is a hostel outside of the area. I shall call this hostel B.
  10. The Council made an offer of accommodation to Mr X to discharge the relief duty. Mr X refused the accommodation. The Council ended its relief duty. Mr X successfully appealed against this decision. Mr X remains in hostel B which he considers to be unsuitable due to his mental health conditions.

Housing register

  1. Mr X had previously been on the housing register in 2015. A letter provided by Mr X shows he had 108 points including 40 medical points. In 2016 the Council changed its allocation policy and introduced a housing need criterion. The Council considered Mr X was adequately housed in hostel so removed him from the housing register. I refer to this information by way of background but it does not form part of my investigation.
  2. Mr X applied to the housing register in early 2018 but the Council did not award any medical points.
  3. Mr X applied for medical and harassment points in late 2018. Mr X’s application was considered by the Council’s medical advisors, including a psychiatric advisor. The medical advisors’ report notes the advisors’ consideration of Mr X’s physical and mental health conditions. The report refers to a number of assessments of Mr X’s mental health. These included a psychiatric report produced for Mr X in June 2018 which concluded Mr X had a phobic disorder and his symptoms were aggravated by living in a small enclosed space. The report said his symptoms could lessen if he lived in a more amenable setting.
  4. The medical advisors concluded that hostel A was suitable for Mr X’s physical needs and considered it was not medically necessary for Mr X to remain in the borough. The medical assessors also considered that there was nothing to indicate Mr X’s accommodation was the exclusive cause of his difficulties or that alternative accommodation would address his mental health problems.
  5. The Council’s records note it considered Mr X was not eligible for harassment points as there was no evidence of harassment. The Council’s records also state:

“Assessment of medical needs undertaken by (name of medical advisors) and no medical points award to be made”

  1. The Council awarded 50 support needs points and five waiting points making a total of 55 points. Mr X does not have sufficient points to be able to successfully bid for one bedroom property.
  2. Mr X has submitted a further medical assessment to the Council for it to consider his eligibility for medical points.

My assessment

Action taken by PMOT to find accommodation for Mr X

  1. The evidence shows PMOT offered a number of properties to Mr X. It offered studio properties in accordance with its policy. PMOT then considered Mr X’s medical evidence and made an exception to its policy by offering one bedroom properties to Mr X so I am satisfied the Council took into account his circumstances when making offers. The Council also made more offers to Mr X than provided for in its policy. So, I consider the Council took appropriate action to find Mr X suitable accommodation and there is no evidence of fault.
  2. The Council had notified Mr X that hostel A would serve a notice to quit if he did not accept properties offered and Mr X was required to engage as a condition of the resettlement programme. So, Mr X was aware of the consequences of refusing the offers made and the Council is not at fault for his eviction.

Housing register

  1. It is not my role to decide if Mr X is eligible for medical points on his housing application. I can only examine how the Council made its decision that he was not eligible for medical points.
  2. Mr X previously had medical points on his housing register application in 2015. But that did not mean the Council had to award medical points when Mr X applied to rejoin the housing register in 2018. The Council had to consider that application afresh and on its merits. This had to include Mr X’s housing circumstances in 2018 and the Council’s allocations policy at that time.
  3. It is not clear how the Council considered Mr X’s housing application in early 2018 and how it made its decision not to award medical points. However, Mr X made a further application in late 2018 so I will not pursue this matter further.
  4. There is evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s application of late 2018 for medical points. The Council sought the view of its medical advisors on Mr X’s application which it is entitled to do. However, it is the Council’s decision, not the medical advisors, as to whether an applicant is eligible for medical points. The Council’s records do not show it made its own decision as to whether Mr X was eligible for medical points. There is no evidence to show the Council considered all the evidence provided by Mr X as well as the medical advisors’ views and satisfied itself that Mr X was not eligible for medical points. So, I do not consider the Council gave adequate consideration to Mr X’s application for medical points. This is fault.
  5. The Council disagrees it is at fault. It has referred to the Council’s housing allocation scheme which provides it may use another medical professional to review an applicant’s form. The Council can ask a medical professional to review an application form but that medical professional, such as the medical advisors who reviewed Mr X’s application, cannot make a decision on whether the applicant is entitled to medical points under the allocations scheme. That is a decision of the Council and the Council cannot outsource that decision to medical advisors it contracts to review applications. In making its own decision, the Council should take all the information into account and satisfy itself the medical advice provided by its medical advisors is adequate. It should also consider any difference of opinions between the applicant’s medical professionals and those of the medical advisors when reaching a decision on whether the applicant is eligible for medical points.
  6. The Council should review its procedures to ensure officers consider all the evidence, including the applicant’s evidence, as well as the opinion of the medical advisors and keep a record of their consideration and reasons for their decision.
  7. But, on balance, I do not consider the Council would have awarded medical points to Mr X if it had given adequate consideration to his application. The Council considered the suitability of hostel A for Mr X, including in terms of his health conditions, when considering Mr X’s review of its decision on his homelessness application. The Council’s decision shows it considered Mr X’s medical information, including the psychiatric reports, when reaching its decision that Mr X was not homeless and it was reasonable for him to occupy hostel A. I therefore do not consider the Council would have decided hostel A was making Mr X’s medical conditions worse so eligible for medical points. So, the outcome would not have been any different for Mr X. I understand Mr X strongly considers the Council would have awarded medical points but the evidence does not support his position.
  8. Mr X has moved to hostel B and he has now submitted a further application for medical points to the Council. It is for the Council to decide this application and I cannot interfere with that process. If Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision, he can seek a review of its decision through the Council’s review procedure.

Suitability of hostel B

  1. The Council’s records show it was aware of Mr X’s medical assessments when placing Mr X at hostel B. So, on balance, I consider the Council had regard to Mr X’s medical conditions when placing him at hostel B. But the Council should keep under review the suitability of hostel B for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Council is at fault as it did not give adequate consideration to whether Mr X was eligible for medical points in 2018. But I do not consider this fault caused significant injustice to Mr X as I do not consider the outcome would have been any different for him. I have therefore completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

  1. I have not investigated how the Council reached its decisions on Mr X’s homelessness application. This is because Mr X had right to appeal to the court if he disagreed with the Council’s decision and I consider it is reasonable for him to have done so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings