Summary: Mr X complained the Council left his family in unsuitable temporary accommodation. The Council was at fault for failing to properly apply its housing allocations policy. However, this did not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice as the Council changed its decision and agreed they needed urgent re-housing a week later. The Council has agreed to remind its staff they must properly consider its priority criteria when deciding someone’s banding.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council left his family in unsuitable temporary accommodation. Mr X said this had a significant negative impact on his family’s health and wellbeing.

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. 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)
4. 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.
5. 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

6. I have considered:
• all the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him;
• the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
• the Council’s policies and relevant law and guidance.
7. 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

Relevant law and guidance

Temporary accommodation

8. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, unintentionally homeless and in priority need it will owe them the main homelessness duty. Generally, the Council carries out the duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation. Councils rarely make permanent adaptations to temporary accommodation to meet a disabled person’s needs.

Housing allocation scheme

9. The demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas, particularly in London. To manage the demand, 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))
10. The Council's allocation scheme has five bands. The Council gives first priority to those in the Emergency Rehousing Band (ER). These include people:
• with an urgent need to move. People who are unable to use their wheelchair in their current accommodation and need to move to wheelchair suitable housing are included in this criteria; and
• to whom the Council owes the main homelessness duty and who are in severe need. This includes permanent wheelchair users.
11. The Council gives second and third priority to people in the Community Contribution Reward 1 Band and Community Contribution Reward 2 Band (CCR2). These are people who have a need to move and whose circumstances mean they make a positive contribution to the community. People in the CCR2 band include those who are carers or who are disabled and under retirement age.

What happened

12. The Council accepted it owed Mr X’s wife, Mrs X, the main homelessness duty. In early 2019 she moved into two bed temporary accommodation with her child. It placed her in CCR2 priority band. In January 2021, the Council became aware Mr X and another child had moved in with Mrs X. It added them to her housing application. The Council accepted Mrs X now needed a three bed home. She remained in the CCR2 band.
13. Mr X complained to the Council in early June 2021. He said:
• Mrs X and the children living in the home had significant complex needs;
• he had spoken to the Council on the phone that afternoon and been told it did not have a copy of the medical questionnaire he sent earlier in the year; and
• he was unhappy they had been in a position to accept a two bed house but because they now needed three beds, they were around 100th in the queue.
14. The Council responded in mid-June to say it had received Mr X’s medical questionnaire and confirmed that Mrs X remained in the CCR2 band. It apologised for any misunderstandings in the call. Mrs X was further down the queue for three bed properties because there was higher demand for them.
15. Mr X remained unhappy and asked for a stage two complaint response. He said the Council had not taken proper account of his family’s disabilities and that they needed more suitable housing. Mr X said Mrs X was unable to use her powered wheelchair inside the house. The Council later refused Mr X’s request for a stage two response.
16. Council records show it noted Mr X’s stage two complaint request was the first time it became aware Mrs X used a powered wheelchair. It therefore asked Mrs X to complete a new medical questionnaire and arranged an occupational therapy (OT) assessment to include a housing report.
17. The OT assessment in early July found Mrs X had significant difficulty moving around the house and was unable to her wheelchair inside the home. She also could not enter or leave the house unassisted as the home had steps at the entrances. The report stated Mrs X needed a property with level access at the entrances, wide doors to allow for the wheelchair and either an adapted bathroom, or the ability to adapt one.
18. In mid-September the Council told Mrs X the medical evidence was not sufficient to change her banding. She remained in CCR2.
19. Records from the following week show the Council considered it recognised she needed to move to a property more suitable for her needs. It could not do that by moving Mrs X to new temporary accommodation. It therefore decided to place her in the ER band even thought it had decided she was not eligible.
20. In early November the Council made a direct offer of permanent housing, which Mrs X accepted. Mr X has since confirmed adaptations to the property are ongoing.

Findings

21. The Ombudsman cannot question a council’s decision if it is made without fault. The Council acted appropriately when it became aware Mrs X needed a wheelchair by asking her for a further medical questionnaire and seeking an OT assessment with housing recommendations.
22. The OT report was clear Mrs X needed her wheelchair to move around inside but could not use it. It recommended adapted accommodation. The Council nonetheless decided Mrs X did not meet the requirements for the ER band. On the balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied the Council properly applied its criteria for ER banding; this was fault.
23. However, this did not cause Mr or Mrs X a significant personal injustice. The week after the Council decided Mrs X should stay in the CCR2 band, it decided to nonetheless to place her in the ER band. In less than two months, the Council made a direct offer which Mrs X accepted.

Back to top

Agreed action

24. Although the fault did not cause Mr or Mrs X a significant personal injustice, I am concerned it may affect other people in the Council's area. I therefore made a recommendation to prevent it occurring again.
25. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council will remind its staff they must properly consider whether someone meets the priority criteria for emergency re-housing when deciding the person’s banding on the housing register.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation. I have found evidence of fault, although it did not cause a significant personal injustice. I have made a recommendation to prevent the fault occurring again.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman