Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide him with housing and unfairly decided to remove him from the housing register. Mr X said the Council also failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disabilities. There was no fault in how the Council tried to provide Mr X with housing or in how it made reasonable adjustments for his needs. There was fault in how the Council decided to remove Mr X from the housing register. The Council agreed to review its decision in line with its own policy and tell Mr X of the result.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to provide him with housing and unfairly decided to remove him from the housing register. Mr X said the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disabilities. Mr X said this has caused him distress and made him feel unsafe.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the Council’s actions from accepting it owed Mr X a housing duty in April 2020 until it decided to end that duty to Mr X. I have explained why I have not considered the Council’s actions after this point in paragraph 72.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(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. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 read the documents provided by Mr X and I discussed the matter with him on the telephone.
8. I consider the documents the Council sent in response to my enquiries.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation

Homelessness

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. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure accommodation that is available for their occupation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
13. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
14. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
15. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end;
• giving notice in cases of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate;
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

Housing allocations

16. 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))
17. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:
• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation; or
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
18. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
19. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:
• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process;
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

Council allocations policy

20. The Council’s policy states it will remove an applicant from the housing register if their behaviour is unacceptable and makes them unsuitable to be a tenant under the housing scheme. Unacceptable behaviour may include using or threatening violence against an employee or agent of the Council.
21. The Council will consider the seriousness of any incidents, the frequency, and how recently events occurred in deciding if an applicant is disqualified.
22. Where the Council believes the unacceptable behaviour may be due to a physical, mental or a learning disability it will consult with relevant agencies before making a decision on disqualification. Relevant agencies include social services, the independent medical adviser and local support services.
23. It states applicants will be informed about their right to a review of the decision that they are disqualified from accessing the housing register.

Reasonable adjustments

24. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
25. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
26. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.

What happened

27. Mr X made a homelessness application to the Council in 2019. Mr X reported he had Asperger’s, Autism, learning difficulties, violent tendencies, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) split personality disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
28. The Council provided Mr X with temporary accommodation and made enquiries into his homeless application. The Council wrote to Mr X in April 2020 and told him:
• it owed him the full housing duty;
• he had a right of review of that decision;
• he had a right of review about the suitability of his temporary accommodation; and
• he must behave in an acceptable manner in the temporary accommodation, if he was asked to leave it would not provide further temporary accommodation.
29. The Council received Mr X’s medical information which confirmed Mr X had a personality disorder and had been treated for anxiety. Mr X stated he had very specific criteria for housing due to his reported conditions.
30. The Council offered Mr X property A under the full housing duty in September 2020. The Council then became aware of antisocial behaviour in the area and withdrew the offer as it decided it was not suitable for Mr X’s needs.
31. Mr X had left the temporary accommodation the Council had previously provided and made his own arrangements. Due to a change in Mr X’s circumstances, he sought temporary accommodation again and the Council offered him property B in November 2020. Mr X said the property was in an area that he was not safe in and did not meet his needs. The Council withdrew the offer based on Mr X’s concerns.
32. Mr X complained to us. He stated the Council was discriminating against him and only offering him properties in an area that was not safe for him to live in.
33. We asked the Council to consider Mr X’s complaint.
34. The Council responded to Mr X in January 2021. It said:
• it withdrew the offer of property A because of antisocial behaviour in the area and apologised that it had not explained why it had withdrawn the offer;
• it withdrew the offer of property B because of Mr X’s concerns and updated the records to ensure it did not offer another property in that area; and
• it had referred Mr X to Council B for homelessness assistance on Mr X’s request, but the referral was declined.
35. The Council made a referral for homelessness support to Council C on Mr X’s request in January 2021.
36. The Council offered Mr X property C under the main housing duty in March 2021. It said it was not available immediately and that Mr X had a right to a review of the suitability of the property.
37. Mr X met with Council officers twice in May to discuss property C. The Council records show Mr X intended to keep a machete in his property and threaten violence to people using the communal garden. Mr X also spoke with Council officers and a mental health professional on the phone to discuss concerns about his conduct during the meeting.
38. In June Mr X complained to us. He stated he wanted the Council to consider his complaint at stage 2. We asked the Council to discuss the matter with Mr X.
39. The Council contacted Mr X. Its records show Mr X did not want the Council to consider the matter any further.
40. The Council said it made a referral to its adult social care service for Mr X in July to assess his care and support needs.
41. The Council wrote to Mr X in July and said it was withdrawing its offer of property C. It said because of his conduct and behaviour in the meetings and conversations in May, there was evidence he may be a risk to the health, safety and wellbeing of other residents in the property.
42. The records show the Council decided to disqualify Mr X from the Council’s housing register the following week.
43. The Council offered Mr X property D as interim accommodation the next week, which Mr X accepted.
44. The Council said it made a referral to the community mental health team to assess Mr X’s needs in August.
45. The Council said it made a referral to an addiction service to support Mr X in September 2021.
46. Mr X complained to us again in September 2021, he stated he wanted the Council to consider his complaint.
47. The Council contacted Mr X and he raised a complaint . He said the Council was not treating him fairly and had not provided him with a suitable property and he was getting no help with his mental health.
48. The Council responded the next month and said it had been searching for privately rented properties but had not found one that met Mr X’s needs and would be suitable. It reiterated the reasons for withdrawing the offer of property C. It listed a history of Mr X’s violent and inappropriate conduct and said that was the reason it would not allow Mr X to access the housing register.
49. The Council wrote to Mr X again in November. It outlined seven events between October 2019 and September 2021 that showed Mr X’s conduct had been threatening or abusive. It told him of the right to request a review of the decision not to allow him access to the housing register it had made in July 2021. It also outlined the actions the Council had taken to secure accommodation for Mr X.
50. In December the Council offered Mr X property E under the full housing duty. Mr X said it was not suitable for his needs and declined the property.
51. The Council wrote to Mr X again and said it had ended its housing duty to him as it had offered him a suitable property which he had declined. The Council outlined Mr X’s needs and how it had considered the property was suitable against each need. It told him of his right to a review of the decision within 21 days.
52. The Council received confirmation from its special educational needs department that Mr X had not had a learning need or disability while he was school age. He did have social, emotional and mental health support needs.
53. Mr X complained to us in December 2021. He stated he was being victimised by the Council and it was not taking in to account the additional needs that he had. He said the Council was treating him less favourably than other people.
54. The Council records show that in March 2022 Mr X’s representative sought a review of:
• the suitability of property E
• the Council’s decision to end its housing duty to Mr X; and
• its decision to disqualify Mr X from the housing register.
55. The Council accepted the out of time review request. It began an independent review into the suitability of property E and the decision to end its housing duty. It did not review the decision to disqualify Mr X from the housing register.

Further information

56. The Council stated it had continued to support Mr X to find accommodation since it disqualified him from its housing register. This included referring him to five housing associations and bidding on eleven properties on his behalf.
57. The record shows that Mr X had been periodically abusive, aggressive and threatened to assault council officers since he had applied for homelessness support. Council officers often had to end calls with Mr X due to the language and threats used by him and the Council had banned him from attending its offices.
58. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. He said the Council had not taken in to account his disabilities when it made its decision about his housing and to disqualify him from the register. He also stated he did not tell the Council he did not want it to consider his complaint further in June 2021.

My findings

Housing

59. Due to the high demand for properties, it is not unusual for applicants to remain on a waiting list for a number of years until they can successfully bid on, or are offered a suitable property. A long waiting list for housing is not in itself a fault or service failure.
60. The Council accepted it owed Mr X a housing duty. It provided temporary accommodation while it sought a suitable property for Mr X. Mr X chose not to stay in the temporary accommodation some of the time. The Council told Mr X of his right to request a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation, but Mr X did not use it.
61. The Council offered Mr X two properties under the main housing duty, one in September 2020 and one in March 2021, and temporary accommodation in November 2020. After discussing them with Mr X the Council decided they were not suitable for Mr X’s needs and withdrew the offers. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.
62. The Council did not properly tell Mr X why it withdrew the offer in September 2020 which was fault and caused Mr X uncertainty. However, the Council has apologised and provided a full explanation which is an appropriate remedy.
63. Once the Council decided Mr X could not access its housing register it continued trying to find Mr X a suitable property. It referred him to housing associations, tenant and landlord matching services and bid on properties on his behalf. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Housing register

64. In July the Council decided to withdraw its offer to Mr X of property C due to concerns about the risk he posed to other residents. It explained its reasons to Mr X in a letter and in a telephone call. The Council followed its allocations policy in making that decision and there was no fault in its actions.
65. The Council stated at the same time it decided Mr X could no longer access the housing register due to his unacceptable behaviour and told him so. However, the records show the Council did not decide to disqualify Mr X from the register until the following week. There are no contemporaneous records showing the Council told Mr X of that decision until it responded to his complaint in September 2021. The delay in telling Mr X of the decision, and of his right of review was not in line with the Council’s policy and was fault.
66. The Council did not tell Mr X of his right of review of the decision until November 2021, then it cited incidents of behaviour for disqualifying Mr X which happened after it decided to disqualify him. When Mr X’s representative requested a review, the Council accepted it but did not complete it. That was fault and not in line with the Council’s policy or the legislation.
67. The Council had evidence to suggest Mr X’s behaviour may be due to a mental health problem or learning disability. The Council’s policy states it should have discussed the decision to disqualify Mr X from the housing register with relevant agencies including adult social care, the independent medical adviser and the community mental health team. I have seen no evidence the Council consulted those agencies before it made its decision. That was fault.
68. The faults outlined in paragraphs 66 to 68 caused Mr X uncertainty about whether he would have been disqualified from the register had the Council acted without fault.

Reasonable adjustments

69. Mr X told the Council he had several mental health issues and disabilities. The Council recorded these in his personalised housing plan and identified properties that would meet the specific needs Mr X had. When Mr X told the Council a property would not meet his need the council retracted the offer. The Council referred Mr X to adult social care, the community mental health team, addiction services and homeless support services. The Council completed two referrals to other Council’s on Mr X’s request. The Council continued to support Mr X to find suitable housing after it had disqualified him from the register due to his unacceptable behaviour. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Agreed action

70. Within one month of this decision the Council will:
• write to Mr X and apologise for the uncertainty caused to him by the faults in the way the Council decided to disqualify him from the housing register;
• review its decision to remove Mr X from the housing register in line with its policy. It will write to Mr X with the result of that review; and
• remind relevant staff to discuss disqualification from the housing register with relevant services and agencies where the applicant’s mental or physical disabilities are related to the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

71. I have completed my investigation. I found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed to my recommendation to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

72. I did not investigate the suitability of the property the Council offered Mr X in December 2021, or the Council’s decision to end its housing duty to Mr X. This is because Mr X has a right of review of those decisions which he has used. He could then take the matter to court, and it is reasonable that he should do so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman