Summary: Ms B complained the Council failed to deal correctly with her application for housing. We find there was fault by the Council in this matter, causing injustice to Ms B for which a remedy has been agreed.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms B, complained about how the Council dealt with her request for support with rehousing, associated with the granting of a Special Guardianship Order (SGO) for her one-year-old niece.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
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 considered all the information provided by Ms B about her complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and took account of the information it provided in response. I have had regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
6. Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered all comments received in response before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative information

Homelessness

7. 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.
8. Decisions on homelessness applications, which must be given in writing, carry some rights of review.

Housing allocations

9. 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))

What happened in this case

Background

10. Ms B was living in the London Borough of Ealing in a privately rented one bedroom flat with her daughter. Her one-year-old niece was then placed with her under a Child Arrangement Order, and her accommodation was no longer suitable.
11. A Special Guardianship Order (SGO) support plan was completed by the Council on 23 January 2020. In respect of housing this noted Miss B’s current accommodation was too small to meet the family’s needs. It included the following:
    “[Ms B] has asked that the local authority support her by writing a letter to the local housing association outlining her circumstances and asking for her to be prioritised…. [Ms B] to work at addressing the housing issue with support from Brent, who will provide [Ms B] with advice and a supporting letter to approach the London Borough of Ealing about help to be rehoused”.
12. On 25 February 2020, the family court issued the SGO, which stated more generally that the Council would ‘provide a letter or letters in support of’ Ms B’s housing.

Ms B makes her first homelessness application

13. Ms B made a homelessness application to the Council, and had an assessment interview for this on 11 March 2020. She submitted copies of the SGO plan and the SGO. The notes of the interview contain no reference to these being discussed at that time.
14. The Council decided Ms B had accommodation it was reasonable for her to occupy so she was not homeless or threatened with homelessness. It wrote to her setting out this decision. As it did not consider the court order a significant factor in assessing whether the main homelessness duty was owed to Ms B, it did not refer to this in the decision letter. Ms B was notified of her right to request a review if she did not consider all relevant factors had been taken into account. She did not request a review.

Social care provides the letter of support

15. Social care provided Ms B with a letter in support for re-housing on 17 July 2020. It said:
    “This letter is to confirm that the Local Authority has agreed to provide financial support in respect of rental deposit to enable you to move into appropriate accommodation for the family. You will need to provide contact details of the landlord when you have identified a property so that we can communicate directly with them in relation to providing this support”.

Ms B makes her second homelessness application

16. Also in July 2020, Ms B made a further homelessness application. The Council noted in its assessment that there had been no change in her circumstances since the previous decision had been issued, so it took the view that decision would stand. The Council’s records include an email exchange with a social worker in which housing advised that due to the benefit cap a two-bedroom property in London maybe not be affordable to Ms B, or she may struggle to find one within the Local Housing Allowance rate, so the best solution would be for her to look for her own accommodation, since social services were willingly to cover the cost. The Council then wrote to Ms B on 10 August setting out that as there were no new facts since the decision of 29 March, it did not have a duty to accept a new application and make a new decision. The Council said it was unable to assist Ms B in finding alternative accommodation. It sent her links to private letting agencies and one to check how much Universal Credit would pay towards rent.

Ms B makes a complaint

17. The same day, Ms B complained to the Council. She said that her application housing should have taken into account that she was caring for a previously looked-after child and at the time of the SGO assessment the Council was aware she was already in overcrowded accommodation. She said that due to the court order the Council should be assisting her with rehousing as a priority, and not through the private rented sector which would not provide the child with stable and secure housing.

The Council accepts Ms B as homeless

18. On 14 August 2020, the Council decided to accept that a homelessness prevention duty was owed to Ms B. It issued a letter confirming a decision that she was threatened with homelessness and was eligible for assistance. It said the property she was in was not overcrowded but would not be suitable for her long-term housing needs. The Council says her application had been reconsidered in a management review of the specific circumstances of her case.

The Council’s initial response to the complaint

19. In its initial response to Ms B’s complaint, on 8 September 2020, the Council set out that due to a severe shortage of Council homes and housing association (HA) properties the average waiting time for a two-bedroom was more than ten years, so Ms B’s best option would be finding private sector accommodation. The Council also said Ms B had been advised she did not meet the Housing Register criteria and that all applications for social housing are assessed under the Council’s allocation policy.
20. Ms B was dissatisfied and requested escalation of the complaint to the next stage of the Council’s procedure.
21. Before the Council issued its final response, Ms B found a two-bedroom private tenancy and the Council supported her in this move with an incentive payment to the landlord.

The Council’s next action and final complaint response

22. Prior to issuing the final complaint response, the Council sought internal legal advice to about the correct approach to awarding priority for rehousing in Ms B’s case. The advice received included the view that there was provision in the allocations policy for the Band B to be awarded where accommodation is needed on grounds of children’s welfare, such as in child protection cases. The legal advisor noted Ms B’s case was such a case. An informed decision on whether Band B may apply here was dependent on housing having a letter of support from social services.
23. Also prior to issuing the final complaint response, a draft response was passed to service managers for housing and social care for comment, as a recommendation made in the draft was that these services should liaise and decide whether Ms B’s case warranted any priority for permanent accommodation, under the terms of the allocations policy, taking into account the legal advice received. But the managers’ views were that Ms B was now adequately housed in the private rented sector and so she had no identified housing need to be addressed.
24. The Council then issued its final response to Ms B’s complaint on 23 October. Regarding nomination for social housing, the Council said there had been liaison between social care and housing during this review stage of the complaint but that the service managers from both services had concluded, having regard to Ms B’s particular circumstances and the housing allocations policy, that there were no grounds for nominating her for social housing, because her housing needs did not warrant this type of nomination.

Analysis

25. There was significant delay by social services in providing the letter of support for Ms B. The Council referred to such support in the SGO support plan in January 2020 and the court order referred to it in February, but it was not issued until July. The delay was fault.
26. The Council’s records suggest that when the question of priority under the allocation policy was raised during the complaints process, a view was taken that as Ms B was now housed there was no need to consider this further. However, the failure to consider at the earliest opportunity whether Ms B’s circumstances warranted Band B priority for rehousing under the allocation policy, as suggested as appropriate by the legal advice referred to above, was fault.
27. There was further fault by the Council in that it did not have clear communications with Ms B about her housing in order to manage expectations, for example by advising that a letter of support to HAs would have limited weight since the Council could not compel them to accept a tenant.
28. These faults by the Council led to injustice for Ms B. It seems likely that had the matter been properly considered the Council would have awarded Ms B Band B priority for rehousing, and explored whether it could nominate her for HA accommodation. While it is not possible to say Ms B would have obtained accommodation more quickly through the Council or through nomination to a HA than she did by finding her own place in the private sector, and indeed it is unlikely, Ms B nonetheless has a justified sense of uncertainty about this. And she was clear in her communications with the Council that private sector accommodation was not her preference, so she may well have elected to wait longer to secure social housing if she had been given correct information about her prospects of doing so.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. To remedy the injustice set out at paragraph 28 above, I recommended that within four weeks of the date of the decision on this complaint the Council:

• Issues Ms B with a formal written apology; and
• Pays her £500.

30. In addition, I recommended that within three months of the date of the decision on the complaint the Council reminds all relevant staff of the need to take an holistic approach to considering housing needs where there are social care considerations to be taken in to account, to ensure that applicants for assistance with housing are correctly advised and that the allocations policy is appropriately applied.
31. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation on the basis set out above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman