Summary: Miss Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her homelessness and housing applications. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council, in the delay making a decision about the main housing duty, causing Miss Y injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by making an apology and a payment to reflect the distress and inconvenience the caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I am calling Miss Y, complained about the way the Council dealt with her homelessness and housing applications. She says the Council failed to:

• help her find suitable and affordable accommodation when she was made homeless.
• properly consider her son’s disability and the effect on her family’s housing needs.
• treat her fairly. The Council gave other applicants in similar or better circumstances more help, such as direct offers, to enable them to move quickly into suitable affordable housing in their preferred area.

2. Miss Y says because of the Council’s failures, she and her children had to live in unsuitable and overcrowded accommodation for a significant period of time, affecting their mental and physical health.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Miss Y’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with her housing situation from July 2019. The last section of my decision explains my reasons for not investigating the Council’s actions before July 2019.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I made enquiries of the Council and read the information Miss Y and the Council have provided about the complaint.
8. I considered the relevant law and guidance
9. I invited Miss Y and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

The law and government guidance

10. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
11. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
12. A council must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the applicants’ needs and their household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
13. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible for assistance and homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must assess their situation. It must try to agree a personalised housing plan (PHP) with the applicant, setting out what both parties will do to try to resolve the housing problem. The council must review and update the assessment and PHP as circumstances change. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A)
14. The relief duty applies when the council is satisfied an applicant is homeless (rather than just threatened with homelessness) and eligible for assistance. The council has a duty to take reasonable steps to help the applicant secure accommodation that will be available for at least six months. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B and Homelessness Code of Guidance 13.2)
15. When the council is satisfied the applicant has a priority need and is homeless unintentionally, the relief duty ends after 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B(4))
16. A council should not delay completing inquiries about further duties owed after the relief duty. Where the council has the required information to make a decision on whether the applicant is in priority need and unintentionally homeless, it should be possible to notify the applicant on or around day 57. In cases where significant further investigations are required, councils should aim to complete their inquiries and notify the applicant of their decision within a maximum of 15 working days after 56 days have passed. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 14.16)
17. If homelessness is not relieved, a council will owe the main housing duty to applicants who are eligible, have a priority need for accommodation and are not homeless intentionally. It must ensure suitable accommodation is available for the applicant and their household until the duty is brought to an end, usually through the offer of a settled home. (Housing Act 1996, section 193(2))

Discharging the Homelessness Duty into the Private Sector

18. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 permits councils to bring the relief duty to an end by the way of a final accommodation offer (section 189B (9) (a)) or a final Part 6 offer. Refusal of these offers would preclude the applicant from subsequently being owed the main housing duty (section 193A (3)). A final accommodation offer must be of an AST of at least six months duration. The applicant must have been informed of the consequences of refusal as well as the right to request a review of the suitability of the offer.
19. The Localism Act 2011 amended Section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 to provide a power to councils to discharge the housing duty by way of a ‘private rented sector offer’ (PRSO) This offer must include an assured shorthold tenancy (AST) for a minimum 12 month period. The authority must satisfy itself the accommodation is suitable for the household.
20. The Council’s 2018 policy for discharging its homelessness duty into the Private Rented Sector (PRS) says:

• The Council is required to secure suitable accommodation for applicants who are homeless, eligible for assistance, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. This duty ordinarily comes to an end following the offer of suitable social housing.
• Because of increased demand, households faced lengthy waits for offers of social housing accommodation. The PRS offers a quicker rehousing option into suitable accommodation, reducing the negative impact of homelessness.
• The Nottingham Private Rented Assistance Scheme (NPRAS) supports homeless households into accommodation in the PRS.
• Homeless households, including their needs and affordability, will be assessed to establish if an offer of accommodation in the PRS is suitable. If considered appropriate, a referral will be made to NPRAS who will assist in securing accommodation in the PRS, or in making a formal offer of accommodation to discharge the Council’s duty.

The Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme

21. 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))
22. The Council’s allocations policy 2015 was under review in 2019. The updated policy was published in 2020. Both policies confirmed:

• Nottingham Homelink operated a choice based letting system, on the Council’s behalf. Vacant properties were advertised and registered applicants invited to apply through a bidding process.
• People who believed they were currently homeless or threatened with homelessness may make a homeless application. Homeless applicants would normally be assessed by the Council’s Housing Aid section.
• The Council operated a banding scheme for applicants on the housing register. Applicants would be placed in a band based on their housing circumstances and needs.
• Additional waiting time of 12 months could be awarded to an applicant with a Local Area Preference because of a need to stay in their current area.
• The Council had discretion to make direct offers to applicants in exceptional circumstances.

23. Under the 2015 policy, there were numbered bands, the three highest of which were:

• Band One – statutory homeless
• Band Two- applicants were placed in this band on medical and disability grounds, also those suffering severe racial harassment, domestic violence or other threats of violence
• Band Three – categories included families living in accommodation shared with their landlord who may be a family member, stranger or friend.

24. The January 2020 policy made changes to the banding scheme. There were now the following four bands, A-D:

• Band A – A1 – for applicants experiencing serious harassment, domestic violence or other threats of violence where there is a serious risk of harm to a member of the household if they were to stay in their current accommodation, and who were either Homelink partner tenants who had been recommended for urgent re-housing or applicants accepted under partnership arrangements with the police and the National Witness Mobility Service.
• Band A – A2 – for applicants on medical and disability grounds.
• Band B - B1 Homeless – for people who are accepted as being owed one of the homelessness duties under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996
• Band B - B10 – families living in accommodation shared with their landlord who may be a family member, stranger or friend.
• Band C – single/couples living in shared accommodation.
• Band D – independent living accommodation for “older persons”

What happened

Background

25. Miss Y was living in private rented property with her two children. She was already on the Council’s housing register with a Band Award 6 date of February 2017. Miss Y contacted the Council in March 2019 to make a homeless application, after being served with a S21 notice requiring her to move out of the property. Her landlord confirmed to the Council’s Homelessness Prevention team he was selling the property but agreed to extend the notice period for some further weeks.
26. In June 2019 the Council decided Miss Y was eligible for assistance and homeless. It also decided she may be in priority need as she had dependent children and it had a duty to provide her with interim accommodation. It wrote to Miss Y on 16 June 2019 confirming its decision and acceptance of the relief duty.
27. The Council assessed Miss Y’s housing and support needs and agreed a PHP. This said the Council would refer her to NPRAS for support finding and securing private rented accommodation.
28. Miss Y told the Council she would only consider accommodation in one part of the city (area X). She had lived there for the last four years, and her family and support network lived there too. She relied on her family for help with her children, she worked part-time in this area and her son, who had a number of health issues, was settled at school there. She had an abusive ex-partner and certain parts of the city were not safe for her because of his local connections. The only place she felt safe was area X where she had family support.
29. The Council has told us it was unable to offer Miss Y suitable emergency or interim accommodation in area X. NPRAS advised her it would be difficult to find suitable affordable private rented accommodation in the area because of high demand and lack of availability.
30. The assessment document noted Miss Y was still at the rented property and likely to stay with her parents when she left, rather than ask the Council for temporary accommodation.
31. On 24 June 2019 Miss Y told the Council she and her children had moved out of the rented property and were temporarily staying with her parents.

July to October 2019.

32. The Council began making inquiries as to whether it owed Miss Y the main housing duty. It has told us the officer dealing with Miss Y’s case was on sick leave a number of times during this period.
33. In September a law centre wrote to the Council on Miss Y’s behalf. They said they understood it would be difficult for the Council to secure temporary accommodation in her preferred area and Miss Y and her children could stay with her parents in the short term. They asked for confirmation Miss Y would still be considered homeless. The officer dealing with Miss Y’s case was on sick leave and no response was sent to this letter.
34. Miss Y’s local councillor contacted the Council on her behalf about her case. The Council replied on 4 October. It said it was likely it would accept she was owed the main housing duty and her case would be referred to NPRAS for a PRSO of a 12 month AST. The Council confirmed it would help Miss Y with a deposit and rent in advance if she found an affordable property in area X. She had been awarded Band 3 on the housing register but, due to lack of availability and demand, it would take time to find social housing in this area.
35. On 15 October Miss Y provided a letter from her son’s paediatrician. This said her son did not fulfil the criteria for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or Autism but presented with extremely challenging behaviour. His co-ordination skills were to be assessed by an Occupational Therapist. The paediatrician supported any assistance the housing team could give the family to help normalise the family situation.
36. On 16 October the law centre chased the Council for a response to its letter. As Miss Y’s case officer was still away on sick leave, her application was reassigned to another officer.
37. The Council wrote to Miss Y the same day, 16 October, confirming it had completed its enquiries into her homeless application, decided it owed her the main housing duty and had a duty to provide her with accommodation. She was placed in Band 3, as a homeless household, effective from 26 June 2019.

October to December 2019

38. NPRAS had been working with Miss Y since June to bring the relief duty to an end. It had been trying to find her suitable private rented accommodation in area X without success. Now the Council had accepted it owed Miss Y the main rehousing duty, NPRAS was asked to look to make her an offer of a 12 month AST (PRSO).
39. Miss Y told NPRAS she had also been looking for a suitable private rented property in the area. The ones with lower rents were not suitable for her family’s needs. Private renting was difficult for her to sustain. She only wanted social housing. Miss Y said she would stay with her parents while continuing to bid for social housing on Homelink.
40. In December Miss Y complained she was not being treated fairly. She said she knew of other applicants, in better circumstances, who had been offered accommodation in area X very quickly.
41. In its response the Council said it could not comment on other cases. Applications with Homelink were separate to assistance offered to homeless households. It had advised her as a homeless household she might be offered temporary accommodation in either the private or public sector.

January 2020 to March 2020

42. Miss Y told NPRAS she needed a three bedroom property. Her son could not share a room with her daughter because of his medical issues. The Council said, as her son had not been assessed as requiring his own room, and both children were under ten, housing benefit would only be awarded for a two bedroom property. It asked Miss Y for financial information so it could consider whether she could afford to rent a three bedroom property.
43. Miss Y also asked about the Council’s requirements for evidence of her son’s conditions to support a request for an increase in her band award on the grounds of medical priority. She was advised to send a paediatrician’s report with a completed medical form so the Council could consider the request. Miss Y made a request for medical priority on 7 January.
44. Miss Y complained the Council was doing more for others than for her. She said she had been forced to stay with her family because she could not accept the emergency or interim accommodation offered. Her position had been prejudiced because she was not in temporary accommodation arranged by the Council.
45. The Council replied on 30 January. It confirmed her priority had not been affected because she felt unable to accept the Council’s offer of temporary accommodation.
46. In February, Miss Y was offered a viewing of a three bedroom property in area X. She told the Council it was not suitable because she would be at risk in this particular part of the area. She raised concerns about the gas cooker (affecting a medical condition), it being three storey (unsuitable for her son’s condition) and the rent being unaffordable.
47. Miss Y asked whether she could continue to stay with her parents and bid for properties though Homelink, while submitting medical evidence to support her request for a Band 2 award (now Band A).
48. The Council told Miss Y, if she withdrew her homeless application and continued to stay with her parents, she would remain in Band 3 (now Band B) under its policy, as a family with children in shared accommodation. It also confirmed she could submit medical evidence to Homelink in support of her request for an increase in her priority to Band 2 (now Band A).
49. Miss Y withdrew her homelessness application.

April to July 2020

50. Miss Y complained to the Council in April about her band award. On 16 April she provided the Council with an Occupational Therapist’s report of 1 April about her son’s health issues. Following a telephone assessment with Miss Y on 17 April, the Council decided her son met the criteria for priority rehousing. It awarded Miss Y Band A (formerly Band 2) backdated to 7 January 2020, with approval for a three bedroom house on the basis an extra bedroom was needed to allow her son space for his care needs. Miss Y was also awarded Local Area Preference for education reasons.
51. In May Miss Y made a further complaint to the Council. She said it had failed to help when she contacted it about the S21 notice and threatened homelessness. In its response the Council said:

• as a first step, when a person contacts it with a valid notice to leave, an officer will work with the landlord to try and prevent homelessness. If this is not successful, the Council has 56 days to make further enquiries and complete a full housing needs assessment.
• as it had said in a previous response, because of the increase in demand for housing, it was becoming more reliant on private sector rented accommodation to meet the housing needs of homeless families. She would only have been considered for a private rented property during the 56 day period. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2018 allowed the Council to discharge its homelessness duties into the private rented sector. It found no evidence of discrimination.

52. Miss Y was not satisfied with the Council’s response and brought her complaint to us in July.

January to February 2021

53. In January Miss Y had not yet had a successful bid for suitable social housing. The Council has told us this was because, although she was in Band 2, (Band A) there was a shortage of properties in her preferred area.
54. Miss Y asked the Council to make her a direct offer of suitable social housing. The Council told her it would require a firm recommendation to support this request and the information provided was not sufficient.
55. The law centre contacted the Council on Miss Y’s behalf. Miss Y had said she was suffering from emotional and psychological abuse, coercive and threatening behaviour by her parents, with whom she and her children were still staying. Homelink replied on 19 January. It said if an applicant on its waiting list was at risk of domestic abuse requiring an urgent response, they should approach Housing Aid for emergency accommodation. Once the applicant was in refuge accommodation, Homelink would require a referral from the support worker for an award of Band A (formerly Band 2) for fleeing domestic abuse.
56. At the end of January, Miss Y was shortlisted in position one for a property for which she had put in a bid. It was assessed by the Disability Housing Advisor team as suitable. Miss Y was offered, and accepted, the tenancy and moved in February 2021.

Analysis - was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

Complaint the Council failed to help Miss Y find suitable and affordable accommodation when she was made homeless

57. From June 2019 the relief duty applied. The Council’s duty was to take reasonable steps to help Miss Y secure accommodation available for at least six months. And as it had decided she may be in priority need, it had a duty to provide her with interim accommodation.
58. The Council has told us it had access to family type temporary accommodation, dispersed units of family homes, and hostel type accommodation in other parts of the city at the time of Miss Y’s application but it did not have any emergency or temporary accommodation available in area X
59. The information I have seen shows Miss Y was not prepared to consider any offer of accommodation outside of area X. She told the Council she would stay with her parents when she had to leave her rented accommodation. The Council has told us, had she not been able to stay with her parents, it would have offered her interim accommodation in accordance with its statutory duties.
60. The information I have seen shows NPRAS worked with Miss Y to help her secure accommodation available for at least six months in the private rented sector, to bring the relief duty to an end. But neither NPRAS nor Miss Y could find any suitable affordable private rented accommodation in area X, the only area she was prepared to consider.
61. From October 2019, the Council owed Miss Y the main housing duty, and had a duty to provide her with accommodation. In accordance with its policy, it decided it was appropriate to discharge its duty into the private sector and ask NPRAS to look to make her a PRSO.
62. The information I have seen shows neither NPRAS nor Miss Y could find any suitable affordable private rented accommodation in area X. And in any event Miss Y made it clear to the Council she did not want private rented accommodation, only social housing and would continue to stay with her parents until she was able to bid successfully for a property through Homelink.
63. I do not consider there was fault by the Council in the action it took to fulfil its duties to relieve Miss Y’s homelessness, provide interim or temporary accommodation or find her a PRSO before she decided to withdraw her homelessness application.

Complaint the Council failed to properly consider Miss Y’s son’s disability and the effect on her family’s housing needs

64. During the period of Miss Y’s homeless application, issues relating to her son’s health were relevant to the suitability of any interim, temporary or PRS accommodation offered to her.
65. Miss Y has told us she gave the Council information about her son’s health issues. I note the paediatrician’s letter of 3 October 2019 says her son will be having an occupational therapy assessment but there is no information in that letter confirming he had any specific or urgent housing needs.
66. Miss Y raised the issue of her son’s health and its effect on the suitability of accommodation offered to them in January 2020. She said she needed a three bedroom property because of her son’s health issues. The Council advised her about the type of evidence she would need to provide for it to assess this.
67. Miss Y made representations to the Council in response to the PRSO of a three bedroom property in her preferred area. She told the Council it was not suitable for a number of reasons, including the stairs because of her son’s condition. The Council considered what she had said about suitability. It noted the paediatrician’s letter of 3 February 2020 supporting a need for her son to have his own room, did not say a property without stairs was needed. But in any event, Miss Y decided to withdraw her homeless application and issues about suitability of the property were no longer relevant.
68. The Council assessed the further medical information Miss Y provided in April 2020 and decided he met the criteria for Band A under the 2020 allocations policy (formerly Band 2 under the 2015 policy). The award was backdated to January 2020.
69. In my view, the Council was not at fault in the way it considered the information Miss Y provided about her son’s medical condition or its effect on their housing needs.

Complaint the Council failed to treat Miss Y fairly

70. The Council has told us, at the time of Miss Y’s homeless application it was in the process of transitioning from the 2015 policy to the 2020 policy. Band 1 had been closed and all new homeless applicants were placed in Band 3 (which became Band B in January 2020). On this basis I do not consider Miss Y was treated differently to other applicants making a homeless application.
71. The Council may make direct offers to applicants in exceptional cases under its allocations policy. Miss Y says other applicants were made direct offers, but this does not mean she was treated unfairly. Each case is decided on its own circumstances.
72. The Council advised Miss Y about the evidence it would need to consider a request for a direct offer. Had she then provided the evidence and made an application for a direct offer the Council would have been required to consider her request and make a decision. Miss Y would have had the right to ask for a review if she was unhappy with the decision.
73. My view is the Council properly applied its allocations scheme in Miss Y’s case.
74. But I consider there was an unreasonable delay by the Council in completing its inquiries and making its decision about whether it owed the main housing duty.
75. The Homeless Code of Guidance recommends councils aim to complete their enquiries and notify applicants of their decision within a maximum of 15 working days after the 56 days have passed. The Council took 122 days to do this. It has explained there was a delay because of officer’s sick leave. But, in my view, the Council should have arrangements in place for monitoring the progress of all applications to ensure timescales are met.
76. I consider the delay by the Council in accepting the main housing duty was fault by the Council. This unnecessarily prolonged Miss Y’s uncertainty about her housing situation and caused her to spend time chasing the Council for updates.
77. I do not consider there is evidence the Council treated Miss Y unfairly. Apart from the delay referred to in paragraph 76, I do not find fault by the Council in the way it dealt with her homeless and housing applications.

Back to top

Agreed action

78. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, the Council has agreed, within four weeks from the date of our final decision, to:

• Apologise to Miss Y for the delay in accepting the main housing duty.
• Pay Miss Y £150 to reflect the distress time and trouble caused by the delay.
• This figure is a symbolic amount based on the Ombudsman’s published Guidance on Remedies.

Back to top

Final decision

79. I have found fault by the Council causing Miss Y injustice. I have completed my investigation on the basis the Council will take the above action as a suitable way to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint I did not investigate

80. I did not investigate Miss Y’’s complaint about the Council’s actions before July 2019. This is because these took place more than 12 months before Miss Y brought her complaint to us, and this part of the complaint is late. I do not consider there are any good reasons why Miss Y could not have referred her complaint to us sooner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman