Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed in accepting her family on its main housing duty. Miss X also complained the Council delayed in completing a medical assessment of her family’s needs. Miss X says this resulted in the Council delaying in providing her family with housing. Miss X disputed the suitability of the housing the Council offered. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council for delaying a decision on Miss X’s main housing duty and delaying completion of medical assessments. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation to pay Miss X £500 and provide a guidance note to its homelessness team.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council delayed in accepting her family on its main housing duty. Miss X also complained the Council delayed in completing a medical assessment of her family’s needs.
2. Miss X says this resulted in the Council delaying in providing her family with housing. Miss X disputed the suitability of the housing the Council offered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered all the information Miss X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
7. Miss X and the Council had opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

8. When someone applies to a council for accommodation and it has reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, several duties arise.
9. Section 184 of the Housing Act 1996 (the Act) requires the housing authority to make such inquiries to satisfy if an applicant is eligible for assistance and, if so, what duty it owes the applicant under the provisions of the Act.
10. Initially the housing authority has to decide if it owes an applicant a prevention (section 195) or relief (section 189B) duty.
11. Where a housing authority has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and in “priority need” it has a duty to provide interim accommodation under Section 188(1) of the Housing Act 1996. The Council must provide this interim accommodation while fulfilling its duty under Section 189 of the Act.
12. If a housing authority decides a person is homeless and eligible for assistance the Council must provide a Section 189A and Section 189B duty.
13. Section 189A of the Housing Act 1996 says the housing authority must complete an assessment of an eligible person to determine what housing duty it owes a person. An assessment must include consideration of:
• The circumstances that caused the applicant to become homeless or threatened with homelessness.
• The housing needs of the applicant including what accommodation would be suitable for the applicant and any persons with whom the applicant resides or might reasonably be expected to reside.
• What support would be necessary for the applicant and any other relevant persons to be able to have and retain suitable accommodation.
14. Section 11 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities says housing authorities will need applicants to provide all relevant information to inform an assessment. The housing authority will need to consider the applicants needs, as well as the needs of any person in their household.
15. Section 189B of the Housing Act 1996, known as the “relief duty” gives the housing authority a duty to all applicants who are both homeless and eligible for assistance. This duty requires the housing authority to take reasonable steps to help a person secure suitable accommodation for at least six months, but no longer than 12 months.
16. The housing authority must have regard to an assessment under Section 189A of the Act when considering its Section 189B duty.
17. The housing authority must grant an applicant the main housing duty under Section 193, if the housing authority is satisfied:
• An applicant is eligible for support;
• An applicant has a priority need;
• An applicant is homeless (or threatened with homelessness) unintentionally; and
• 56 days have passed since the housing authority granted the applicant the Section 189B duty.
18. A housing authority may have authority not to end its Section 189B duty on day 56 and can instead use its discretion to continue this duty depending on the individual circumstances of an applicant.
19. The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (Paragraph 14.16) says a local authority should not delay in completing inquiries as to what duty it will owe after the relief duty. Where the local authority has the information it requires to a make a decision, it should be possible to notify the applicant on or around day 57. In some instances, the local authority may need to complete significant further investigation, the local authority should complete this further investigation within a maximum of 15 working days after the 56 days have passed.
20. A housing authority can end its duty under Section 189B under other circumstances but must provide notice of this to the applicant. The Council usually provides temporary accommodation until it permanently rehouses a person in social housing or private rented accommodation. The Council will have carried out (or discharged) its housing duty with an offer of either temporary or permanent accommodation.

Review of suitability of accommodation

21. Homeless applicants may request a review the suitability of accommodation offered to them 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. This review request should be made within 21 days of being notified of the offer.
22. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the Council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)
23. Councils must complete a review of suitability within eight weeks of receiving the review request. This period can be extended but only if the applicant agrees in writing. If the applicant wishes to challenge the review decision, or if a council takes more than eight weeks to complete the review, they may appeal on a point of law to the County Court (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

The Council’s housing allocation scheme

24. The Council is under a legal duty to have a scheme for allocating accommodation. The Council has the right to set its own housing policies and decide all aspects of the allocations process.
25. The law says the Council must give people with a high housing need “reasonable preference” through the allocations scheme. This includes people at risk of homelessness and those who need to move for medical or welfare reasons.
26. The Council’s scheme says that as part of its assessment process it will decide an applicant’s bedroom need and entitlement to a priority. Once the Council completes an assessment it will tell the applicant of their priority banding and bedroom allocation. The Council says if two people have the same priority banding it will allocate a property to the person with the earlier priority award date.
27. The Council decides reasonable preference by placing applicants in a certain priority band depending on their circumstances. The Council has five bands, 1 to 5. Band 1 is for applicants with the highest priority and band 5 with the lowest priority.
28. The Council awards Band 3 for reasonable preference groups. The Council awards this band for homeless applicants who the Council owes the main housing duty to.
29. Once allocated a priority band applicants can bid on properties advertised by the Council. This is Choice Based Lettings (CBL).
30. The Council’s policy says that if an applicant does not place a bid on a suitable property within a four-week period, the Allocations Team will place bids on suitable properties on their behalf. Or the Allocations Team will make a direct offer of accommodation to the applicant.
31. The Council’s scheme says that for Band 3 priority groups any offer of suitable housing it makes will be considered an offer to discharge the homelessness duty. The Council will only make one offer of accommodation.
32. The Council’s scheme says it will consider all people reasonably expected to live at a property, provided they are currently living with them, when deciding a bedroom need.
33. The Council’s scheme details that it will award one bedroom for a married or co-habiting couple and one bedroom for a pair of adolescents aged between 10 and 20 of the same sex. Once a person is aged 21 and over they are entitled to their own room.

What happened

34. Miss X’s landlord issued her with a Section 21 notice for return of her rental property. The court granted possession of the property back to the landlord on 8 July 2019.
35. Miss X applied to the Council for housing on 9 July 2019.
36. The Council completed an assessment of Miss X and her family. The Council’s assessment noted that Miss X’s family consisted of Miss X and her two children. The Council noted that Miss X’s youngest child had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) so may need their own room. The Council also noted Miss X had Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).
37. On 17 July 2019, the Council accepted it had a Section 189B duty to Miss X and confirmed this with her. The Council contacted Miss X to confirm it would contact her when a suitable property became available and asked her for a copy of the eviction notice when her landlord issued this.
38. The landlord issued Miss X with an eviction notice on 14 August 2019 confirming her date of eviction would be 18 September 2019. Miss X provided this notice to the Council on 19 August 2019.
39. The Council moved Miss X into interim accommodation under Section 188 on 5 September 2019. The Council provided Miss X with a three-bed flat and agreed for occupancy by Miss X, her partner and her two children.
40. From 17 July 2019 to 26 September 2019, Miss X applied for six social housing properties.
41. The Council did not make inquiries into the housing duty it owed Miss X until 1 February 2020 when it allocated Miss X with a new case officer, Officer 1.
42. Officer 1 started work on Miss X’s housing case on 24 March 2020 and by 29 March 2020 decided the Council owed Miss X the main housing duty under Section 193. Officer 1 sought approval for a priority banding of Band 3. The Council approved this on 1 April 2020.
43. On 2 April 2020, Officer 1 emailed Miss X to confirm the award of priority Band 3 on its main housing duty. The Council told Miss X about her right for review of the suitability of her current accommodation and provided information to Miss X about how the Council may discharge its housing duty.
44. From 26 September 2019 to 2 April 2020, Miss X applied for ten social housing properties.
45. Miss X contacted the Council on 13 June 2020 to tell the Council her eldest child was now 18 so queried her entitlement to a three-bedroom property rather than two bedroom. The Council responded to Miss X and told her its allocations policy required same sex siblings to share a room until they were 21.
46. Miss X asked the Council for a medical assessment of her youngest child on 16 June 2020 to receive a three-bedroom allocation. The Council told Miss X it cannot carry out medical assessment on homeless applicants.
47. Miss X applied for a property in August 2020, Property RC. The Council contacted Miss X to discuss allocation of this property to her as she was the highest priority bidder. Miss X withdrew her application for Property RC. Miss X bid on a further three properties between 2 April 2020 and the end of December 2020 but was outbid on all properties. Miss X did not bid on any properties in 2021.
48. On 1 May 2021, the Council tried to contact Miss X about a property. Miss X did not answer the call or respond to the contact. The Council tried to contact Miss X and sought documents from her in May 2021. On 21 May 2021, the Council told Miss X it was looking to make a direct offer on a property, Property SH, and asked Miss X to provide documents by 24 May 2021.
49. Miss X did not provide the documents so the Council spoke to Miss X again on 25 May 2021 about Property SH. Miss X told the Council she did not want Property SH and said she would be making a complaint.
50. The Council made an official direct offer of Property SH to Miss X on 27 May 2021. The Council said this was a final offer of suitable accommodation to end the Council’s housing duty and it could revoke Miss X’s current accommodation if she rejected this offer.
51. Miss X discussed Property SH with the Council and agreed to view the property on 18 June 2021. Miss X attended the viewing but did not consider the property suitable. Miss X said she did not want to officially reject the offer because this would end the Council’s duty to her.
52. Miss X complained to the Council on 21 June 2021. Miss X raised numerous questions with the Council but the main complaint points were:
• The Council took 209 days in confirming her full housing duty rather than 56 days. Miss X said this resulted in her missing a property in December 2020.
• The Council failed to complete medical assessments of her youngest child.
• She had a three-bedroom need because of her youngest child’s medical conditions.
• The Council failed to advise her about her priority banding.
• A request for a review of the suitability of the direct offer made by the Council because of her child’s medical conditions and distance from his school.
53. The Council accepted Miss X’s Stage 1 complaint on 22 June 2021 and promised a response in 10 working days. Miss X provided extra information to the Council to review. The Council responded to advise it could not respond in the original timescale because of the amount of information provided.
54. On 23 July 2021, the Council placed a hold on direct offers to Miss X and sent her a health questionnaire.
55. The Council provided its Stage 1 complaint response on 26 July 2021. The Council said:
• It apologised for the delay in accepting Miss X on to its main housing duty and said this was because of staff changeover.
• Even if it had awarded Miss X’s priority banding sooner, Miss X would not have been successful in bidding for the property in December 2020.
• It had withdrawn the direct offer made in May 2021 to enable it to carry out a medical assessment to ensure its suitability. The Council said it would not evict Miss X because it had withdrawn the property rather than Miss X rejecting it.
• It had sent a medical questionnaire to Miss X and had instructed its homelessness staff to ensure they carry out medical assessments on all members of a family when needed.
• It told Miss X about her priority bidding on 2 April 2020.
56. Miss X responded to the Council’s Stage 1 complaint response on 9 August 2021. Miss X disputed the Council’s response and raised many questions of the Council.
57. The Council accepted Miss X’s response on 20 August 2021 and promised a response in 20 working days.
58. The Council provided its Stage 2 complaint response on 9 September 2021. The Council said:
• It upheld Miss X’s complaint about delays in accepting Miss X on to its main housing duty and apologised.
• When it sent Miss X the letter on 2 April 2020 confirming it owed the main housing duty to her it also confirmed she was Band 3 which was confirmation of priority banding.
• It would carry out medical assessments of Miss X’s family and it had already provided feedback to the homeless team about medical assessments.
• It was at fault for failing to carry out a medical assessment and apologised to Miss X.
• Miss X could approach the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (the Ombudsman) with her complaint.
59. Miss X provided the Council with medical information about her youngest child on 29 September 2021. The Council passed this information over to its medical advisers asking if Miss X’s youngest child could share with their 19-year-old sibling of the same gender.
60. The Council’s medical adviser recommended that Miss X’s youngest child did not need a separate bedroom.
61. The Council contacted Miss X on 5 October 2021 to discuss making a direct offer on a new property, Property BD. Miss X told the Council she was waiting on the medical assessment. The Council said it would get advice about whether to continue with the direct offer for Property BD.
62. Miss X provided the Council with medical information about herself on 12 October 2021. The Council passed this information over to its medical advisers. The medical advisers responded to advise Miss X’s medical condition did not justify any extra housing needs.
63. The Council told Miss X on 18 October 2021 that its medical advisers recommended that Miss X’s family does not have any additional bedroom need. The Council made a direct offer to Miss X for Property BD. Miss X rejected the direct offer for property BD. The Council detailed in its letter of 18 October 2021 that Ms X could make an appeal against its decision, provided the timescales for doing so and how Ms X could do this.
64. The Council decided to end its Section 193, main housing, duty to Miss X on 21 October 2021 because of her rejection of Property BD. The Council attended Miss X’s property on 22 October 2021 and tried to deliver a Notice to Quit for Miss X’s current accommodation. Miss X’s partner refused receipt of the Notice to Quit.
65. The Council emailed Miss X the Notice to Quit on 25 October 2021. Miss X contacted the Council and said she wished the Council to consider her for Property BD and had also bid on another property, Property FC, which she was second in the list for.
66. The Council told Miss X the Council had bypassed her for Property FC because of the direct offer for Property BD. Miss X complained about it bypassing her for Property FC and said the Council had not completed the medical assessments correctly.
67. The Council responded to Miss X on 27 October 2021. The Council said:
• Miss X should not have been able to bid on Property FC because of the direct offer and apologised for this.
• The person who was above Miss X in the list for Property FC had accepted the property so Miss X would not have got the property anyway.
• It would offer Miss X Property BD again as a direct offer.
• If Miss X rejected Property BD again it would discharge Miss X from its homelessness duty and continue with the Notice to Quit.
68. Miss X said the Council had not completed the medical assessments correctly and complained about it not telling her about her priority bidding. Miss X disputed the suitability of Property BD. The Council responded to advise it had now taken the correct steps to assess Miss X’s family and reiterated Miss X’s options to accept or reject Property BD.
69. Miss X agreed to a tenancy for Property BD and moved into the property on 8 November 2021. Miss X continued to dispute the suitability of the property and discussed the prospect of a review with the Council.
70. On 15 November 2021, the Council wrote to Ms X to explain her right to review of the accommodation. The Council explained how Ms X could make this appeal and the timescales involved in doing so.

Analysis

Main housing duty

71. Miss X complained the Council delayed in granting her the main housing duty.
72. The Council decided it owed Miss X a relief, temporary accommodation, duty on 17 July 2019 because Miss X was threatened with homelessness. The Council made this decision because it considered it had a duty under Section 189A/B of the Housing Act 1996.
73. The Guidance say the Council should take 56 days to decide if it owed Miss X the main housing duty from when it accepted it had a duty to Miss X under Section 189A/B of the Act. In the circumstances where the Council needs to make further investigations the Council can extend this by 15 days. In the circumstances of Miss X’s case this meant the Council should have made a decision on the main housing duty by 26 September 2019 at the latest.
74. The Council did not make a decision about its main housing duty for Miss X and confirm this with her until 2 April 2020. This is a delay of 189 days, six months and one week, beyond the recommended timescales.
75. The Council has accepted it delayed in making a decision to award Miss X the main housing duty. The Council said a changeover in staff caused the delay. A changeover in staff does not mitigate the Council’s fault of failing to adhere to the 71-day timescale outlined in the Guidance. This delay of 189 days, six months and one week, without justifiable reason, is fault.
76. Since the Council accepted it had a housing duty to Miss X under Section 193 on 2 April 2020, the delay in reaching this decision caused Miss X an injustice. This injustice was a delay in Miss X being able to apply for housing with her Band 3 priority.
77. From 26 September 2019 to 2 April 2020 Miss X applied for 10 properties without her Band 3 priority. All ten of these properties went to higher priority bidders. While I cannot be certain Miss X would have been successful on these 10 properties had she had her Band 3 priority, this delay caused Miss X the potential of missing these properties.

Medical assessments

78. Miss X complained the Council delayed in completing a medical assessment of her family.
79. When the Council completed its first assessment of Miss X and her family, it noted that Miss X’s youngest child had medical conditions so may need their own room. The Council considered the relevant factors when completing the first assessment when deciding it owed Miss X a Section 189B duty.
80. The Council’s first assessment should have helped to guide the Council’s inquiries into whether it owed Miss X a full housing duty under Section 193. Miss X also raised concerns with the Council about a lack of a medical assessment in June 2020 and June 2021.
81. The Guidance says housing authorities need to consider the applicant’s needs as well as the needs of any person in their household. While there is not a definitive list of what a Council should consider, or make inquiries of, when deciding if it owes a Section 193 duty, the Council should make reasonable inquiries.
82. The Council’s failure to complete a medical assessment of Miss X and her youngest child, despite the information contained within the Council’s first assessment shows the Council failed to consider Miss X’s family’s needs. The Council failed to make reasonable inquiries until October 2021. This is fault.
83. The Council also refused to complete a medical assessment in June 2020 stating that it did not complete medical assessments for homelessness applicants. This information was incorrect, and this was fault.
84. When the Council did complete medical assessments of Miss X and her youngest child, this did not change Miss X’s priority banding or bedroom allocation. This means that overall, Miss X has not experienced an injustice through this delay. This is because Miss X would not have been able to bid on any different properties, or had any better chance of winning the bidding on properties, had the Council completed the medical assessments sooner.
85. However, from the start of June 2021 until October 2021, Miss X was waiting on the Council to complete medical assessments. During this time, the Council stopped any direct offers and Miss X did not bid on any properties. This was a four-month delay in which Miss X was unclear about her housing band and bedroom allowance and frustrated her ability to get suitable accommodation. This is an injustice to Miss X for this four-month period.
86. While Miss X now disputes the outcome of the medical assessments by the Council’s medical adviser, the Ombudsman cannot question a professional decision when there is no evidence of fault in how it was made, unless it is considered unreasonable. The Council’s medical advisers have considered the information provided and made a recommendation to the Council. The Council has used this information to make professional decision about Miss X, and her family’s, priority and bedroom need. It is not for the Ombudsman to question this decision.

Suitability of accommodation

87. Miss X complained the property she accepted from the Council’s direct offer is not suitable for her family’s needs.
88. The Council has a duty to consider what housing needs an applicant has and what accommodation would be suitable to meet those needs. The Council’s housing allocation scheme says it will consider all people reasonably expected to live at a property and breaks down how it calculates bedroom need.
89. The Council decided Miss X was entitled to a two-bedroom need because of the makeup of her family. The Council considered all members of Miss X’s family living situation and completed medical assessments of both Miss X and her youngest child. The Council’s reached its decision that Miss X’s family was entitled to a two-bedroom need by following its housing allocation scheme.
90. I do not find fault with how the Council decided the suitability of the property it made a direct offer to Miss X for.
91. The Housing Act and the Council’s housing allocation scheme entitled the Council to withdraw its housing duty to an applicant if the applicant rejects an offer of suitable accommodation.
92. The Council followed its housing allocation scheme by making direct offers to Miss X in May 2021 and October 2021 since Miss X had not bid on any properties in the last four weeks. I do not find fault.
93. The Council decided not to end its housing duty in May 2021 because of Miss X’s complaint and its decision to complete medical assessments. Its decision not to end its duty presented no injustice to Miss X.
94. The Council decided to continue with ending its housing duty to Miss X in October 2021 following Miss X’s rejection of what it considered suitable accommodation. By this time, the Council had taken suitable steps to assess Miss X’s family’s housing need. The Council acted in line with both the housing act and its allocation scheme in October 2021 when deciding to end its housing duty. The Ombudsman does not find fault. Ultimately, Miss X decided to accept the accommodation on offer preventing any injustice.
95. Since the Council has accepted Miss X on to its main housing duty and Miss X has now accepted an offer of housing, Miss X had appeal rights over the suitability of the housing offered.
96. Miss X disputed the suitability of the housing she accepted from the Council at Property BD with both the Council and the Ombudsman. On 5 November 2021, the Council noted it would contact Miss X to discuss a suitability review of the property. The Council sent Ms X a letter on 15 November 2021 explaining how Ms X could request a review. Ms X did not make a suitability review request.
97. The Council provided suitable information to Ms X on 18 October 2021 and 15 November 2021 about how she could make a suitability review request. As the Council provided the correct information to Ms X, the Ombudsman would not find fault. Since Ms X did not make a suitability review request, she lost her right to this review.

Back to top

Agreed action

98. Within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council should:
• Provide Miss X with a payment of £500 to reflect delays in deciding to award Miss X its main housing duty, the delays in completing a medical assessment of Miss X’s family and the distress, inconvenience and potential impact on Miss X obtaining housing under the main housing duty sooner.
99. Within three months of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council should:
• Provide a guidance note to its Homelessness team detailing the timescales outlined by the Statutory Guidance for completing inquiries and what the Council would expect to a Council Officer to consider as part of completing reasonable inquiries.

Back to top

Final decision

100. There was fault by the Council as the Council has agreed to my recommendations, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman