Summary: Miss X complained that the Council offered her unsuitable housing when she and her daughter were homeless, that it failed to properly consider the recommendations of medical professionals, and that it failed to have due regard to its public sector equality duties. Miss X said this caused delays and caused her and her daughter stress, anxiety, and distress. We do not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Miss X, complains about the way the Council handled its duty to house her and her daughter. Specifically, she complains that the Council:
1. offered a property that was unsuitable because of her daughter’s needs;
2. failed to properly consider the recommendations of medical professionals; and,
3. failed to have due regard to its public sector equality duties when determining how it would discharge its duty to house them.
2. Miss X says this caused her and her daughter stress, anxiety and distress. She says she has lost trust in the system and is exhausted. She also says it led to a delay in being awarded higher banding status.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints that are more than 12 months after the complainant first had knowledge of the problem, unless there are good reasons to do so (see below).
4. In this case, Miss X complained to the Ombudsman in April 2021. The Council decided it had discharged its duty to house Miss X in November 2019. Between November 2019 and October 2020, Miss X challenged the Council’s decision which is the subject of this complaint. Miss X then complained to the Council. She then brought her complaint to the Ombudsman without delay.
5. I have therefore decided there are good reasons to exercise our discretion and investigate this complaint back to the Council’s decision in November 2019.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
7. 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)
8. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
9. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered the information and documents provided by Miss X and the Council. I spoke to Miss X about her complaint. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.
11. I considered the relevant legislation and statutory guidance, set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Homelessness duty and suitability of accommodation

12. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need, and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. Usually a council arranges temporary accommodation until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or privately rented accommodation. A council’s duty to a person it owes the main duty to ends when it offers a suitable tenancy or the applicant accepts an offer made under the allocation scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
13. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)

Human Rights

14. The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to. The Act requires all local authorities - and other bodies carrying out public functions - to respect and protect individuals’ rights.
15. The Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to making decisions on whether or not a council has breached the Human Rights Act – this can only be done by the courts. But the Ombudsman can make decisions about whether or not a council has had due regard to an individual’s human rights in its treatment of them, as part of our consideration of a complaint.
16. In practical terms, councils will often be able to show they are compliant with the Human Rights Act if they consider the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected.

The Public Sector Equality Duty

17. The public sector equality duty requires all local authorities to have due regard to the need to:
• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and,
• foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
18. The broad purpose of the public sector equality duty is to consider equality and good relations into the day-to-day business and decision making of public authorities. It requires authorities to reflect equality considerations into the design of policies and the delivery of services, including internal policies, and for these issues to be kept under review.

What happened

19. Miss X has an adult daughter, Miss D, who has disabilities. They live together. In November 2019, the Council accepted Miss X and Miss D were homeless and it owed them a duty to house them. The Council offered Miss X a private rented sector offer (which I will refer to as Property A) with a tenancy of 12 months.
20. Miss X did not accept the offer of Property A because she felt it was not suitable for Miss D’s needs. This is because Miss D needed more stability and permanence than a 12-month tenancy due to her disabilities.
21. The Council said it had discharged its duty to house Miss X and Miss D because it felt Property A was suitable accommodation and Miss X rejected it. Miss X requested a review of the suitability of Property A.
22. In December, a psychiatrist (who I will refer to as Dr E) told the Council Miss D needed security and long-term accommodation to minimise her risk of suicide. This was due to the nature of her disabilities and the impact of unstable accommodation on her. Dr E told the Council the accommodation needed to be available to Miss D for more than five years. Dr E explained that five years is because in mental health and medicine, professionals talk about a five-year rule and a five-year prognosis. But Dr E made it clear that Miss D’s needs will last a lifetime.
23. In February 2020, a second psychiatrist (who I will refer to as Dr F) told the Council Miss D needed stable and fixed accommodation for the same reasons. Dr F said Miss D’s problems had been made worse by insecure accommodation and frequent moves. Dr F said accommodation for 12 months would be unsuitable, and that Miss D needed stable accommodation for at least three to five years.
24. In March, the Council told Miss X that it still found its offer of Property A to be suitable. It said it told Miss X in November 2019 that regardless of whether she accepted or rejected Property A, the Council would discharge its duty to house her and Miss D.
25. In April, the Council commissioned its own report from a psychiatrist (who I will refer to as Dr G), to assess Miss D.
26. In August, Dr G gave the Council their report. Dr G said the move should be as permanent as possible because people with Miss D’s disabilities struggle with uncertainty and frequent changes. Dr G said a tenancy of 12 months may not help as it would be another short-term move. Dr G said Miss D’s mental health warranted the Council only discharging its housing duty by providing accommodation in the social sector. The reason for this was because social housing could guarantee the longevity Miss D needed to allow the stability she desperately needed.
27. Dr G then told the Council that any offer of accommodation should be as long term as possible. Dr G said three to five years is an arbitrary number “as I am not sure if a tenancy duration can be defined medically as permanency”.
28. In October, the Council got legal advice.
29. Shortly after, the Council completed the review and decided to reinstate the main homelessness duty to house Miss X and Miss D. It told Miss X this, and said it would aim to provide them with more secure accommodation. This may be in a property owned or leased by the Council, or suitable alternative accommodation in the private sector. Both would be for a minimum of three years. The Council told Miss X to reapply for the Housing Register, and she could then bid for properties.
30. The Council also told Miss X that it had had regard to its public sector equality duty. It said it focussed on Miss D’s disability, the extent of her disability, and the likely effect of her disability when taken together with other features. It said the public sector equality duty informs the decision-making process but does not override it. It said it did not consider it had discriminated against Miss D due to her disability.
31. Miss X complained to the Council and then the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Unsuitable property

32. Miss X complains that the Council offered a property that was unsuitable because of her daughter’s needs (part a of the complaint).
33. When the Council offered Property A to Miss X, it did so on the basis of the information it had at the time about Miss D’s needs. The Council did not know at that time that the length of the tenancy at Property A was not suitable for Miss D.
34. In December 2019, Dr E told the Council that Miss D needed security and long-term accommodation. This medical recommendation was repeated by Dr F and Dr G. However, this information was not available to the Council when it offered Miss X Property A. I have seen no medical reports that were available to the Council at the time of its offer which indicated a 12-month tenancy was not suitable for Miss D.
35. For this reason, I cannot find the Council at fault. In any event, Miss X successfully challenged the suitability of the accommodation offered by using the statutory review procedure. The Ombudsman would usually expect a homeless applicant to use this procedure.

Medical professionals’ recommendations

36. Miss X complains that the Council failed to properly consider the recommendations of medical professionals (part b of the complaint).
37. As part of the review process, the Council considered the reports and recommendations of Dr E and Dr F. This led the Council to seek its own medical report from Dr G. The Council is entitled to seek its own medical report as part of the review process.
38. Dr G shared the views of Dr E and Dr F, and made the same recommendations. The Council considered these recommendations as part of the review process. This ultimately led the Council to change its decision and reinstate its duty to house Miss X and Miss D.
39. I find that the Council properly considered the recommendations of medical professionals. For this reason, I cannot find the Council at fault.

Public Sector Equality Duty and Human Rights

40. Miss X complains that the Council failed to have due regard to its public sector equality duties when determining how it would discharge its duties to house them (part c of the complaint).
41. When the Council offered Miss X Property A, it did not know about the impact a short tenancy would have on Miss D. It offered Property A on the basis of the information it had at that time.
42. Miss X asked for a review. As part of the review, the Council considered new medical information in reports from Dr E, Dr F and Dr G. The Council then changed its decision based on that new information. The new information detailed the impact of a short tenancy on Miss D due to her disabilities.
43. I find that the Council’s consideration of all the medical reports as part of the review, and the outcome of the review, show the Council considered the impact of its decision on Miss D. For this reason, I cannot say the Council failed to have due regard to its public sector equality duties when determining how it would discharge its duties to house Miss X and Miss D. I therefore do not find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have completed my investigation and I do not uphold Miss X’s complaint. This is because I do not find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman