Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homeless application. He complained the Council did not fully consider the medical evidence he provided, incurred delays during his application and did not provide him with updates. Mr X says this meant he and his family had to stay in unsuitable accommodation which caused avoidable distress. We found some fault by the Council and the Council has agreed a remedy to address the injustice caused to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his homeless application. He complains the Council:

• Did not fully consider his medical evidence and offered unsuitable interim accommodation;
• Incurred delays and did not provide him with updates, and
• Delayed updating his application when he told the Council about his wife’s pregnancy.

2. Mr X says the Council’s actions meant he and his family had to stay in unsuitable accommodation causing avoidable distress. He would like the Council to provide a financial remedy to recognise the distress caused.

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 discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
6. I have made enquiries to the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. Mr X and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I have considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and statutory guidance

8. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (the Act) and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
9. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018:

• 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))

10. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
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. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age.

13. The threshold for triggering the duty to provide interim accommodation is low as the housing authority only has to have a reason to believe (rather than be satisfied) that the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need (section 15.4 of the homeless code of guidance)
14. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. 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)
15. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of a number of decisions. These include:

• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end;
• 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.

What happened

16. Mr X lived at his parent’s house with his wife, Mrs X, and child. In June 2020, Mr X told the Council that he, his wife, and child were being made homeless from his parent’s house. Mr X asked the Council for help with accommodation.
17. On 15 June 2020, Mr X completed an online housing options assessment. He told the Council he had a medical condition which affected the type of accommodation he could live in. Mr X said he was able to use internal stairs with some difficulty and told the Council he ideally required accommodation with “minimum stairs”.
18. On the same day, the Council told Mr X it considered he was eligible for assistance.
19. On 16 June 2020, the Council called Mr X to discuss his application. Mr X told the Council about his medical condition and provided a self-assessment medical form. The form set out the details of Mr X’s medical history and explained that constant use of stairs aggravated his condition.
20. On 20 June 2020, the Council asked the Council’s Medical Advisor (CMA) to advise on Mr X’s potential vulnerability. It also asked for advice about Mr X’s priority need and suitability of accommodation type and area, based on the information he provided.
21. On 22 June 2020, the CMA told the Council it did not consider the specific medical issues stated by Mr X made him significantly vulnerable. The CMA said it considered Mr X had no specific housing needs. It recommended accommodation up to and including the 2nd floor if “unlifted” (properties without a lift) and on 5th floor and above if “lifted” (properties with a lift).
22. On 24 June 2020, the Council appointed a Homeless Prevention and Solutions (HPS) Officer to Mr X’s case.
23. Mr X emailed the HPS Officer on 29 June 2020 to ask about his options regarding his homeless application. He said the situation at his parents’ house was adversely affecting his wife and child.
24. On 2 July 2020, the HPS Officer replied and said Mr X had not provided any medical evidence other than the self-assessment form. The officer asked Mr X to provide his medical evidence as soon as possible. The HPS Officer emailed Mr X again later the same day and said they would refer Mr X’s medical evidence to the CMA when he provided it.
25. Mr X provided some medical evidence to the Council on 7 July 2020. On 8 July 2020, he asked the Council if it had received the document and if it needed any further information.
26. The HPS Officer responded on the same day and asked Mr X if he wanted to provide any further information. Mr X replied and said he had requested additional information from his doctor but was still waiting to receive it. He said he did not know how long it would take for his doctor to provide the information but would send it to the Council when he received it. Mr X asked the HPS Officer to send the medical evidence already provided to the CMA.
27. The Council forwarded the medical evidence from Mr X to the CMA on 9 July 2020. It asked the CMA to give advice on what type of accommodation and floor level was suitable for Mr X.
28. The CMA responded on the same day and gave the same recommendations as before.
29. On 13 July 2020, Mr X told the Council he could no longer wait for his doctor to provide additional medical information. He asked the Council to proceed with the information already provided and asked it to keep him updated throughout the process.
30. On the same day, the Council asked the CMA if it considered bed and breakfast accommodation was suitable for Mr X and his family for an initial/emergency period.
31. On 14 July 2020, the Council told Mr X it had asked the CMA to look at the information provided regarding his case. It said it would request emergency accommodation once it had received the CMA’s recommendations.
32. The CMA replied to the Council on the same day. It told the Council it considered bed and breakfast accommodation was suitable for Mr X.
33. Mr X emailed the Council on 21 July 2020. He asked if the Council could provide an update on his application and whether it was still waiting for the CMA’s report.
34. The Council replied on the same day and told Mr X it had made a request for temporary accommodation but that it required authorisation by a manager.

The Council’s offer of accommodation

35. On 22 July 2020, the Council wrote to Mr X with an offer of temporary accommodation on the 8th floor of a 12-storey building. The Council says the building has a lift.
36. Mr X emailed the Council on the same day. He said he was concerned he was not given any options for housing prior to receiving the offer of temporary accommodation and said the Council had not taken his medical condition into consideration. He said he could not accept a property above ground floor and that living in the property would have a big impact on his physical and mental health. Mr X asked the Council to review the suitability of the temporary accommodation and said he would ask his doctor to provide more information about his medical condition.
37. The Council replied to Mr X on 23 July 2020. It told Mr X his homeless application was under investigation and because it had not yet accepted the main housing duty, he had no right to a statutory review of the suitability of the property under s202 of the Act. The Council sent Mr X information about how and where to start looking for alternative accommodation.
38. The Council says it discussed Mr X’s Personal Housing Plan with him on 24 July 2020. It says Mr X told the Council the situation at his parents’ house was more settled and he was able to stay there pending the offer of interim accommodation.
39. The Council says it contacted Mr X on 27 July 2020 to conduct a “pre-offer checklist”. The Council says it acknowledged, among other factors of the application, that the CMA had not made any medical recommendations. It also reminded Mr X to provide the additional medical evidence and advised him it would refer these documents to the CMA to make further recommendations.

Notification of relief duty

40. On 27 July 2020, the Council emailed Mr X and told him it owed him the relief duty under s189B(2) of the Act. The Council says it also provided Mr X’s Personal Housing Plan at this time.
41. The Council says Mr X emailed the Council on 28 July 2020 and told it his doctor had prescribed him with some more medication. It says Mr X said he was still waiting for further medical evidence from the hospital.
42. On 29 July 2020, Mr X provided evidence of his new medication and a copy of a hospital letter.
43. Mr X emailed the Council again on 30 July 2020 to say he had found some privately rented accommodation.
44. On 31 July 2020, Mr X emailed the Council and provided some additional medical evidence obtained from his doctor. He said he was still waiting for copies of his hospital records.
45. On the same day, the Council forwarded the additional medical evidence to the CMA and asked it to advise if there were any changes to the previous recommendations.
46. The CMA replied on 3 August 2020. It recommended no specific housing needs and advised that bed and breakfast accommodation was suitable. It also maintained suitable accommodation was up to and including the 2nd floor if “unlifted” and 5th floor and above if “lifted”.
47. The Council responded to the CMA on 4 August 2020 and specified that Mr X said he required a ground floor property based on the medical information attached. The CMA replied on the same day and asked the Council to resend the medical evidence as they could not open the documents provided.
48. On 5 August 2020, Mr X sent further copies of his medical evidence to the Council and confirmed he had sent all the medical information available. He asked the Council to refer the documents to the CMA to be examined.
49. The Council passed the medical evidence to the CMA on 7 August 2020 and specified Mr X had requested ground floor accommodation.
50. On 10 August 2020, the CMA replied and recommended ground floor accommodation or “lifted”. It advised that a “few [interior/exterior] stairs would seem reasonable”.
51. On 17 August 2020, Mr X emailed the Council. He said Mrs X was pregnant and asked the Council to add this information to “the application process”. Mr X said he hoped his medical evidence could be passed to the “general application department” and said he had not heard anything regarding his housing application for about two months.

Mr X’s complaint

52. Mr X complained to the Council on 15 October 2020. He said the Council had offered him a property without considering his medical information. Mr X said his housing officer had asked him to re-submit the medical evidence so that it could be reviewed externally. He said he had provided the information but had not yet heard about his appeal against the offer of temporary accommodation. Mr X complained the Council had not kept him informed about how his application was going. He said he was still living at his parents’ home with his pregnant wife and their child, and said he felt neglected throughout the housing process.
53. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 30 October 2020. It said although Mr X had found private sector accommodation and it had agreed funding, the tenancy did not go ahead. The Council said it referred Mr X’s self-assessment form to the CMA who advised Mr X had no specific housing needs. The Council also said it later referred Mr X’s additional medical information to the CMA who recommended a ground floor flat, or any floor if “lifted”. It said the offer of temporary accommodation was made having regard to Mr X’s circumstances, but it apologised for not providing Mr X with the outcome of the CMA’s recommendations.
54. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 30 October 2020. He maintained the Council had not considered his medical evidence and said he had not been able to obtain some information regarding his health condition because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Mr X said he was unhappy with the Council’s response because it did not acknowledge his situation and did not give clarity about his housing situation in the long term.
55. On the same day, the Council wrote to Mr X to tell him it had accepted the main housing duty. It said it advised Mr X on 27 July 2020 of its duty under s189B(2) of the Act to take reasonable steps to help him find somewhere to live. The Council said this duty came to an end on 20 September 2020 without Mr X’s homelessness having been resolved. The Council said it accepted it had a duty from 21 September 2020 to secure accommodation for Mr X and said that as a result, any accommodation provided must be suitable. The Council told Mr X he could request a review of the accommodation’s suitability within 21 days of the date of the letter.
56. On 3 November 2020, the Council emailed Mr X and asked if he had received the Homeless Register letter. It also asked if Mr X wished to report any relevant changes to his medical condition so that it could update his case file with any new information or recommendations for temporary or longer term housing.
57. Mr X replied on 5 November 2020. He provided some updates regarding his own medical condition and repeated that Mrs X was pregnant. Mr X said he was very worried about his housing situation and said the information he provided should be considered seriously.
58. On 6 November 2020, the HPS Officer requested confirmation of Mrs X’s pregnancy. Mr X provided this on the same day.
59. On 19 November 2020, the Council provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said it was satisfied Mr X’s medical evidence was assessed appropriately by the CMA and was considered when assessing the suitability of temporary accommodation. The Council says Mr X provided his medical evidence in stages and that this was referred to the CMA. The Council said it accepted the main housing duty on 30 October 2020 and it was not possible to provide a definitive timeline as to when it could offer settled accommodation. It said this was because once it accepted the main housing duty, Mr X was placed on the housing register, and an offer of accommodation was dependent on availability.
60. The Council acknowledged Mrs X was pregnant and said it appeared Mr X’s caseworker was not notified. It asked Mr X to provide confirmation of Mrs X’s pregnancy so that it could update his case papers. The Council also said Mr X could provide additional medical evidence if his treatment plan altered.
61. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage 3 on 19 November 2020. He said the Council’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses had not taken into account all the facts. He maintained the Council had offered him a property without taking his medical information into consideration. Mr X said he had told the Council of his wife’s pregnancy in August 2020. Mr X complained the Council did not tell him the outcome of the medical assessment until it provided its stage 1 complaint response.
62. On 12 January 2021, the Council provided its final complaint response. It said the CMA considered the medical evidence provided by Mr X and it was satisfied it had assessed Mr X’s application in line with relevant legislation. The Council said it is not its usual practice to separately notify an applicant as to the outcome of the CMA assessment. It said it was satisfied it had provided written notification at the relevant assessment stages as to the duties accepted by the Council.
63. The Council acknowledged it did not include Mr X’s email of 17 August 2020 regarding Mrs X’s pregnancy in his housing file. It also apologised for overlooking subsequent correspondence which referenced Mrs X’s pregnancy in its stage 2 response. However, the Council said it was satisfied this caused no detriment to the overall assessment of Mr X’s application. This was because Mr X was already in priority need and required a two-bedroom property. The Council said its allocations policy sets out a bedroom is required for each couple and a further bedroom is required for each pair of children aged under 10, regardless of sex.
64. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and brought his complaint to us.

Consideration of the medical evidence

65. Mr X says the Council did not fully consider his medical evidence and offered unsuitable accommodation.
66. Councils ask medical advisors to review applicants’ medical evidence as part of their homelessness and/or housing applications. The medical advisors provide recommendations to councils about homeless-vulnerability and suitability of accommodation.
67. Mr X provided a medical self-assessment form shortly after submitting his homelessness application form. The evidence shows the Council forwarded this to the CMA and asked Mr X to provide further information if he wished to. Mr X then provided some additional evidence and the Council forwarded this to the CMA on 9 July 2020.
68. Mr X told the Council on 13 July 2020 he did not want to wait any longer for his doctor to provide additional medical evidence and asked the Council to proceed with the information he had provided up to that point. The Council did so and made an offer of temporary accommodation on 22 July 2020. Mr X provided additional medical evidence after the offer was made, on 31 July 2020 and again on 5 August 2020.
69. The evidence shows the Council made an offer of temporary accommodation having considered the medical evidence it held at the time. I am satisfied the Council forwarded the medical evidence provided by Mr X to the CMA and offered temporary accommodation taking into account those recommendations. I acknowledge Mr X was unhappy with the offer made by the Council and subsequently provided additional medical evidence.
70. I am satisfied that when the Council received the additional medical evidence, it passed this to the CMA for an updated recommendation. The slightly amended recommendation did not render the accommodation already offered as unsuitable as defined by the CMA; although the property was on the 8th floor, the CMA recommended accommodation with a lift as suitable. I acknowledge Mr X may disagree with the recommendations made by the CMA, but this is not the fault of the Council.
71. The evidence shows the Council forwarded Mr X’s medical evidence to the CMA and considered its recommendations when offering temporary accommodation. As a result, I have found no fault by the Council in this aspect of the complaint.

Time taken to consider Mr X’s application

72. Mr X says the Council took a long time to deal with his application before accepting the main housing duty.
73. When councils are satisfied an applicant is in priority need and is not intentionally homeless, the relief duty ends after 56 days.  Council’s must then complete inquiries promptly to decide what further duty is owed.
74. The Council told Mr X it owed him the relief duty under s189B(2) on 27 July 2020. This duty ended on 20 September 2020 (56 days later).
75. The Council told Mr X it accepted the main housing duty for him on 30 October 2020.
76. The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities says councils should take the circumstances of each case into account before ending the prevention and relief duties.
77. The Code of Guidance also says “Housing authorities should not delay completing their inquiries as to what further duties will be owed after the relief duty. Where the housing authority has the information it requires to make a decision as to whether the applicant is in priority need and became homeless unintentionally, it should be possible to notify the applicant on or around day 57. In cases where significant further investigations are required it is recommended that housing authorities aim to complete their inquiries and notify the applicant of their decision within a maximum of 15 working days after 56 days have passed.” (The Homelessness Code of Guidance for local authorities 14.16)
78. The evidence shows the Council notified Mr X of its main housing duty decision 30 working days after 56 days had passed. I acknowledge the guidance says it is recommended that councils aim to complete inquiries within 15 working days after 56 days have passed. However, the time taken is twice as long as the recommended timeframe and I consider this is evidence of delay.
79. The Council acknowledges the delay but says at the time in question, it was in the early months of lockdown and had just transferred staff to full-time working from home, as well as remodeling its service offer. It also says it had to switch staff resources to bringing all known rough sleepers into temporary accommodation.
80. I acknowledge the Council’s comments about the difficulties it faced as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. I also acknowledge the Council’s comments regarding the above reference to the Homelessness Code of Guidance is in relation to a recommended timeframe. However, it remains there was a period of delay in the Council’s notification to Mr X and I have found this delay to be fault by the Council.

The Council’s updates to Mr X

81. Mr X says the Council did not provide any updates when he submitted his medical evidence and only told him how this affected his application when it provided its complaint response. As a result, Mr X says he felt the Council had not considered his medical evidence because the accommodation offered to him was on the 8th floor, while he had stated he could not use stairs.
82. I am satisfied the Council asked Mr X to provide medical evidence in support of his application and explained it would pass this to the CMA to consider as part of his application. However, I have not seen any evidence the Council provided Mr X with an explanation of how the medical evidence he supplied was considered or the impact it had on his application.
83. I acknowledge the Council’s offer of temporary accommodation was in line with the recommendations made by the CMA, as the property was “lifted”. But I have seen no evidence this was explained to Mr X until the complaint response on 30 October 2020. The Council acknowledged this in its stage 1 response and apologised for not providing Mr X with details of the outcome of the CMA referral.
84. The Council says it is not its usual practice to separately notify an applicant as to the outcome of the CMA assessment. It also says it does not have to provide temporary accommodation to applicants who inform it they are willing to remain in their current accommodation, provided the applicant knows they have the right to accommodation and can request accommodation at a later point.
85. The Council says it has no duty to give reasons as to why accommodation is suitable at the time of offer but acknowledges that applicants should be kept appraised of major decisions. It says it notified Mr X at the relevant assessment stages as to the duties accepted by the Council.
86. I acknowledge the Council’s explanation regarding this matter. However, where an applicant requests a specific type of accommodation based on their medical condition, and the Council’s offer differs from that request, we would expect the Council to explain why it considered the type of accommodation offered was suitable. Such an explanation regarding this major decision demonstrates the Council has considered the medical evidence as part of the offer of accommodation. As the Council did not provide this explanation to Mr X, I have found this to be fault.

The Council’s records regarding Mrs X’s pregnancy

87. Mr X initially told the Council about his wife’s pregnancy on 17 August 2020. He informed the Council again on 15 October 2020 and on 5 November 2020. The Council did not acknowledge this until 6 November 2020. The Council acknowledges it overlooked this information when Mr X initially provided it.
88. It is the Council’s responsibility to update applicants’ case files with information pertinent to their housing application, as changes in circumstances may result in changes to priority need. Although the Council did update its records in November 2020, I have found the failure to update Mr X’s housing application with this information when it was first provided is evidence of fault.

What is the injustice to Mr X?

89. Having identified fault, I must consider whether this caused Mr X a significant injustice. Mr X says the Council’s actions meant he and his family had to stay in unsuitable accommodation at his parents’ house while it dealt with his homeless application. He said the situation was very stressful because the relationship between him, his wife and his parents had deteriorated, and his parents were asking him to leave. He said he felt the Council treated him disrespectfully and the situation had a negative psychological impact on him and his wife.
90. I acknowledge Mr X’s comments regarding his concerns about remaining in his parents’ house. However, the Council offered Mr X temporary accommodation before it accepted the main housing duty. I acknowledge Mr X considered the accommodation offered was not suitable, but I have found no fault in the Council’s consideration of his medical condition regarding this matter.
91. Although I have found fault in the Council’s delay in updating Mr X’s application with regard to Mrs X’s pregnancy, I do not consider this caused a significant injustice. This is because the Council had already assessed him to be in priority need and requiring a two-bedroom property. The Council’s Allocations Scheme specifies “one bedroom is required for each pair of children aged under 10 regardless of sex.” As a result, the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s requirements or priority need was not affected by the delay in updating its records.
92. The injustice flowing from the fault identified is stress and uncertainty about how the Council was progressing Mr X’s application and whether it had fully considered the medical evidence he provided.

Back to top

Agreed action

93. To address the injustice arising from the fault identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:

• Provide an apology to Mr X;
• Make a payment of £200 to Mr X in recognition of the stress and uncertainty caused by the delay in offering the main housing duty and explaining the CMA’s recommendations. This amount is in accordance with our published guidance on remedies;
• Remind staff to ensure housing applications are kept up to date when applicants provide information relating to changes in their circumstances, and
• Remind staff to adhere to the timescales as specified by the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities.

94. The Council has also agreed to take the following action within three months of the final decision:

• Consider informing applicants who have submitted medical evidence as part of their homelessness application about what effect, if any, this has on the Council’s subsequent offer of accommodation.

The Council is required to provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Final decision

95. I have found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to take the above action to resolve the complaint. I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman