Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council handled her request for housing assistance when she was threatened with homelessness and her application for sheltered housing. The Council was at fault and this caused injustice to Miss X. It has agreed to apologise to Miss X, provide a financial remedy, and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained that the Council placed her in unsuitable hostel accommodation that did not meet her medical needs shortly before she was due to be made homeless. It then ended the homelessness prevention duty without properly considering whether this accommodation was suitable for her needs. It did not properly handle her request for a review.
2. Miss X also complains that she missed a potential offer of sheltered accommodation in May 2020 because her application was not processed in a timely way.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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’. 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)
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 X and considered all the information she gave me. I have considered the Council’s replies to her complaint and my enquiries along with evidence from the housing records.
6. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law

7. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council:
• he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. [Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)]
8. If a council is satisfied that an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. This is known as the prevention duty. In deciding what steps to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
9. Councils must give the applicant written notice of a decision to accept, and to end, the prevention duty. When it gives notice to end the prevention duty, the Council must give one of seven prescribed reasons. For the purposes of this investigation, the relevant reasons are:
• it is satisfied that the applicant has suitable accommodation available for occupation and a reasonable prospect of suitable accommodation being available for at least 6 months from the date of the notice; or
• it is satisfied that the applicant has refused an offer of suitable accommodation and, on the date of refusal, there was a reasonable prospect that suitable accommodation would be available for at least six months.
10. Councils have a legal duty to ensure that any accommodation offered to a homeless applicant to bring a Part 7 duty to an end is suitable for his or her specific needs. (Housing Act 1996, section 206)
11. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions on their homelessness application. This includes the right to request a review of the decision to end the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
12. There are different time limits for making a review decision depending on the type of decision being challenged. For a review of a decision to end the prevention duty, the time limit is three weeks. The Council may ask the applicant to agree to an extension if it cannot meet this timescale. If the applicant agrees, this should be put in writing.

Miss X’s request for housing advice and assistance

13. Miss X was a private tenant who rented a room on the ground floor of a house.
14. She approached the Council for housing advice and assistance in early August 2019 when she was threatened with homelessness. Solicitors acting for the landlord’s mortgage lender had served a notice informing her they would apply to the County Court for possession later that month. The notice said she should vacate by 12 August.
15. A homelessness prevention and assessment officer, whom I shall call Officer A, interviewed Miss X on 9 August. Miss X completed a health and disability questionnaire. She gave details of two medical conditions which affected her mobility. She said she could only climb stairs with difficulty. She suffered from claustrophobia and panic attacks which prevented her from using lifts. As Miss X is over 50, she ticked a box on the form to say she was interested in applying for sheltered housing.
16. Officer A sent the completed questionnaire to the Council’s external medical advisers on the same day. He asked for advice on whether Miss X may be vulnerable and in priority need as a homeless person because of her medical conditions and disability. He also asked for recommendations on her future housing needs.
17. Officer A and Miss X both signed a Personal Housing Plan (PHP) on 9 August. It set out the steps they both agreed to take. Miss X agreed to complete the sheltered housing application form. Officer A said he would refer Miss X to a local hostel by 23 August. The PHP also included the housing assessment and a summary of information about searching for accommodation and the Local Housing Allowance rate.
18. On 12 August the medical adviser sent her recommendations to Officer A. She had considered whether Miss X may be vulnerable as a homeless person on medical grounds. She did not consider the specific medical issues Miss X reported were particularly significant compared to an ordinary person. She did not respond to Officer A’s request for advice on Miss X’s future housing needs.
19. On 24 August Officer A informed Miss X the Council accepted she was eligible for assistance and threatened with homelessness. It therefore owed her the prevention duty.
20. There is no record that Officer A completed an assessment of Miss X’s specific accommodation needs before making the referral to the hostel on 9 August. The Council says Officer A took account of the medical adviser’s recommendation that Miss X was not vulnerable. However the medical advice did not say what type of accommodation would be suitable for Miss X’s needs.
21. In early August 2019 the hostel offered Miss X a room on the ninth floor. Miss X refused it because she could not use a lift due to claustrophobia and she would find it too difficult to climb the stairs. The hostel put her on a waiting list for a room on a lower floor. Miss X made the point that she had declared her medical conditions and disabilities on the forms she completed in August 2019. She does not think Officer A had considered this information to decide whether this was a suitable offer of accommodation.
22. Miss X stayed in her private rented accommodation awaiting an eviction date. She was not offered any other accommodation in 2019.
23. On 11 December 2019 Officer A notified Miss X that the prevention duty had ended. The reason given was that she had been offered accommodation at the hostel. Officer A said the delay in allocating a specific room was because Miss X could not accept one of the available rooms on the upper floors due to her phobia of lifts and “vertigo”. It said Miss X should liaise with the hostel to find out when a suitable room would become available. The letter explained Miss X’s right to request a review within 21 days.
24. Miss X requested a review on the same day. She challenged the decision to end the prevention duty. She said Officer A wrongly stated that she suffered from vertigo. She did not accept the ninth floor room because she could not use lifts or climb stairs to the ninth floor due to her mobility issues. She was now less able to manage stairs because she was getting medical treatment for arthritis in her knees.
25. In January 2020 Miss X gave the Housing Options team a notice confirming she would be evicted on 26 March 2020.
26. In mid-February 2020 Miss X accepted an offer of a ground floor room in the hostel. She says she felt she had no choice because eviction was imminent. The room had an en suite shower & WC. Miss X shared kitchen facilities with other residents.
27. Miss X says the bed was very low which made it difficult for her to get in and out. She brought a raised toilet seat from her rented accommodation but it did not fit the toilet in the hostel. Miss X says she was also exposed to cigarette smoke because residents were allowed to smoke in their rooms.
28. Miss X sent two emails to Officer A in February 2020 to complain that the room was unsuitable. On 26 February the Reviews Officer telephoned Miss X to ask for an extension of time to consider her December 2019 review. Miss X also told her the room was unsuitable and explained the impact on her health and wellbeing.
29. The Reviews Officer made the review decision on 28 March. She upheld the decision to end the prevention duty in December 2019. She said she was satisfied the Council had successfully prevented Miss X’s homelessness by offering her a room at the hostel. She said this allowed the Council to end the prevention duty. She did not address the question of whether this accommodation was suitable for Miss X’s needs. She said Miss X should take up her concerns with the managing agent because suitability was not relevant to the decision to end the prevention duty. She said Miss X’s review request had been compromised by the new offer of accommodation and closed the case.
30. The review decision letter did not include information about the right of appeal to the County Court on a point of law.
31. Miss X says she did not receive the review decision letter. The Council has provided a copy of the email which shows it was sent to her on the evening of 28 March. This is confirmed by an entry in the case notes.
32. In March 2020 Miss X complained to the Council about the handling of her case. On 21 April a manager replied to Miss X’s complaint at the first stage of the complaints procedure. She said the Reviews Officer had decided to withdraw the decision made on 28 March. She did not explain the reason for this decision. She accepted there had been a delay in making the review decision. She said the Reviews Officer would carry out a fresh review and make a decision by 16 June.
33. In response to our enquiries, the Council said it withdrew the review decision because it did not include required information about appeal rights.
34. On 28 April 2020 the Reviews Officer contacted Miss X to ask her to complete a medical assessment form. She also asked if the managing agents had taken action to deal with her concerns about the accommodation. Miss X replied and said she would not complete the form. At the time she was waiting for her complaint to be investigated at the second stage of the Council’s complaints procedure. She was not willing for the Reviews Officer to carry out a further review in view of the negative decision made in March.

Miss X’s sheltered housing application

35. Miss X was given a sheltered housing application form in August 2019. Miss X says Officer A told her at an early stage that she would not be considered for sheltered housing. The Council received the completed form until 11 October 2019.
36. The Council’s Sheltered Housing Panel considers applications for sheltered housing. Miss X’s application was not considered until March 2020. The Council says this was due to an oversight and accepts there was avoidable delay between October 2019 and March 2020.
37. In March 2020 the Chair requested more information about Miss X’s impending homelessness. The Panel normally meets monthly. However some meetings in spring 2020 were delayed due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Officers had to reprioritise work. Most housing allocations were also suspended in the spring of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic so there were very few rehousing opportunities.
38. The Panel reconsidered Miss X’s application in June 2020 and awarded P3 priority. There are three levels of priority for approved sheltered housing applicants depending on the Panel’s assessment of their personal circumstances and housing and support needs. P1 is the highest and P3 is the lowest.
39. On 2 June the Council informed Miss X her application had been approved and she could now bid for sheltered housing advertised on its choice-based lettings scheme.
40. Due to its delay in handling her application, the Council decided to make Miss X a direct offer. In late June it nominated her to a Housing Association with a vacant property. Miss X accepted the offer.
41. Miss X left the hostel and moved to the sheltered accommodation on 26 July 2020. She is now suitably housed in a one bedroom ground floor flat.
42. I asked the Council to check offers of sheltered housing it had made between October 2019 and June 2020. It says Miss X missed out on one property advertised on 30 April. She would have had priority if her application had been approved by then and she had bid for it. However this property remained vacant and Miss X later accepted it as the direct offer made in late June.
43. The Council investigated Miss X’s complaint at both stages of its complaints procedure. At the second stage the Council accepted there had been unreasonable delay in processing the sheltered housing application. It apologised and offered £240 as a financial remedy. This was £100 for Miss X’s time and trouble and £140 for the distress caused by its delay in processing her sheltered housing application.

Analysis

44. There is no evidence that Officer A considered whether Miss X had suitable accommodation available to her before he ended the prevention duty. The medical advice only addressed whether Miss X was vulnerable for the purpose of priority need. It did not say what type of accommodation would be suitable for Miss X in view of her medical condition and disabilities. The law is clear that a council must be satisfied suitable accommodation is available for the applicant’s occupation before it ends the prevention duty. Alternatively it can end the duty if the applicant has refused suitable accommodation. When the Council ended the prevention duty, Miss X was waiting for a further offer from the hostel so there was no suitable accommodation available for her occupation.
45. Miss X used her right to request a review to challenge the decision to end the prevention duty. There was then a significant delay in making the review decision. The legal duty is to make a decision within three weeks on a request for a review of a decision to end the prevention duty. In this case it took just over 15 weeks. That was fault. It caused Miss X avoidable frustration and uncertainty because her request was not considered in a timely way.
46. Miss X says she did not receive the review decision letter. However the Council has provided evidence that it was sent by email on the evening of 28 March 2020. I cannot explain why Miss X did not receive it. But the letter was sent to the correct email address so I find no evidence of fault by the Council.
47. There were significant flaws in the 28 March 2020 review decision letter. It wrongly stated that the suitability of Miss X’s accommodation at the hostel was irrelevant to the decision to end the prevention duty. That ignored the Council’s duty to satisfy itself the accommodation was suitable for Miss X’s specific needs, and available for occupation, before ending the prevention duty. Further, the letter did not inform Miss X of her right of appeal to the County Court on a point of law against the review decision. This error and omission were faults.
48. I have taken into account that the Council identified one of these flaws – the failure to notify appeal rights – and then withdrew the review decision and offered a fresh review. By then Miss X did not want to engage with the Reviews Officer because she had complained about the way she had handled her case. We do not know therefore whether a fresh review would have found the hostel room was suitable or not for Miss X. It is now too late to carry out a review because Miss X’s circumstances have changed and she is now suitably housed.
49. The delay in making a decision on the sheltered housing application was fault. The Council’s evidence is that Miss X would have been offered her current property in late April 2020 when it was first advertised if her application had been approved sooner and she had been able to bid for it then. For this reason, I consider the delay in approving the application prolonged Miss X’s stay in the hostel by two months.

Agreed action

50. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will apologise to Miss X and pay her:
• £150 for the delay in dealing with her review request; and
• £400 for the delay in processing the sheltered housing application which prolonged her stay in the hostel room by two months;

If the Council has already paid Miss X the £240 it offered in the Stage Two investigation that can be deducted from this payment.

51. Within two months the Council will:
• confirm that the templates currently used for homelessness review decision letters include required information about appeal rights;
• provide evidence that it has a system to monitor review requests to meet statutory timescales and, where officers need more time, the applicant’s agreement to an extension is recorded in the case records;
• remind officers of the need to complete and record a suitability of accommodation assessment, and take this into account, before making offers of accommodation and deciding whether to end the prevention duty.

Back to top

Final decision

52. I have completed the investigation and found Miss X suffered injustice due to fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman