Summary: There was fault in how the Council dealt with Miss X’s application to the housing register and her homeless applications. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about how the Council supported her with housing and homelessness. In particular, she says the Council:
1. failed properly to consider her welfare and medical needs when deciding her priority on the housing register in December 2020 or at any time since.
2. failed to “fast track” her application to the register as it agreed to in February 2021.
3. provided unsuitable interim accommodation far away from her support networks in June 2021.
4. ended its duty to her into private rented accommodation she could not afford which was in a poor condition in July 2021.
5. failed properly to consider whether this accommodation was reasonable to continue to occupy when she told the Council about issues of disrepair, a change in income and her pregnancy.
2. As a result, Miss X experienced avoidable distress and uncertainty which negatively affected her mental health.

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 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

5. I spoke to Miss X about the complaint and considered the information she provided.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
8. Miss X and the organisation 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

Homeless law and guidance

9. 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.
10. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5) 
11. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. This assessment must include:
1. The circumstances that have caused them to become homeless or threatened with homelessness
2. Their housing needs
3. Their support needs (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.7)
12. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
13. 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. This is called the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
14. A council can end the prevention duty if it is satisfied the applicant has suitable accommodation available which has a reasonable prospect of being available for occupation for at least six months. (Housing Act 1996, section 195(8)(a))
15. Councils must assess whether accommodation is suitable for each household individually. Whether accommodation is suitable will depend on the relevant needs, requirements and circumstances of the homeless person and their household. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.4 & 17.9)

Housing allocations

16. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises housing applicants, and its procedures for allocating properties.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
17. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. This means housing applicants can express an interest in available properties. This is called bidding.
18. The Council places applicants who qualify to join the housing register in a priority band from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 4 (lowest priority). This priority is the first factor the Council uses to allocate a property.
19. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band 4 to all applicants who qualify to join the housing register but do not meet the criteria for a higher band.
20. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band 3 to applicants:
• Who need to move because their illness or disability is made worse by their living conditions; or
• Where a move to different accommodation is likely to result in an improvement in health

What happened

Homelessness

21. Miss X has physical and mental health conditions which affect her daily life.
22. In December 2020, Miss X lived with her mother. She applied to join the Council’s housing register. In the application she said circumstances at home negatively affected her mental health. She said that her relationship with her mother was volatile, and she was under pressure to move out.
23. In January 2021, the Council identified that Miss X might be threatened with homelessness. It therefore began to make inquiries to decide if it owed her any duty under homelessness law. As part of its enquiries, the Council spoke to Miss X’s mother, who agreed that Miss X could stay while she bid for properties on the housing register.
24. On that basis, the Council decided Miss X was not homeless. It wrote to her in early February explaining this and telling her about her right to review the decision. In the letter, the Council says Miss X and her mother agreed she would continue to live there “pending being fast tracked on the Waiting list”. Miss X’s application was already live in Band 4. There was no change to her application following this.
25. In May, Miss X’s mother again asked her to move out. Miss X approached the Council again. There is no evidence the Council wrote to Miss X accepting the prevention duty or issued a PHP.
26. In early June, the Council provided Miss X with interim accommodation. In July, this ended because Miss X moved into a private tenancy. The Council paid the deposit to help her secure this property. It then wrote to her saying it had ended its prevention duty because she was no longer threatened with homelessness.
27. In February 2022 Miss X told the Council her landlord had asked her to move out of the property. She also told the Council she was pregnant.
28. The Council arranged an appointment with Miss X for early March. During that appointment, the Council told Miss X the notice from her landlord was invalid.
29. In late April, the Council wrote to Miss X. It said it was withdrawing her homeless application at Miss X’s request.

Allocations

30. In March 2021, Miss X asked the Council to consider whether her medical circumstances meant she qualified for a higher priority. She provided supporting evidence, including a letter from her Community Psychiatric Nurse which said Miss X’s “current accommodation is clearly increasing her levels of anxiety, exacerbating her depressive symptoms and impeding her recovery.”
31. The Council asked an external medical examiner to consider the request. In June, the medical examiner said there was no medical need for Miss X to move. The Council accepts that it failed to communicate this decision to Miss X until October.
32. In November, Miss X asked the Council to consider her medical circumstances again. Miss X said the high rent which she could not afford was causing her significant anxiety. She said the size of the property and the problems with her landlord were causing her to have panic attacks.
33. The Council sent this to its medical examiner in February 2022. It responded in early March, it again said there was no reason to consider Miss X had a medical need to move. It said “[t]he cost of rent is not a medical matter, so does not attract medical priority.”

Complaints

34. Miss X first complained to the Council in October 2021. She complained that:
• the interim accommodation the Council provided in June was too far from her support networks and increased her anxiety.
• she was struggling to pay the rent in her tenancy. She had taken out a loan and a benefits advance. The decrease in benefits in August 2021 had also affected her.
• the property was seriously affected by disrepair, including a lack of heating and hot water
35. The Council responded in November. It did not uphold the complaint. It advised her to make a new request for medical priority. It said she should approach her landlord about issues of disrepair.
36. Miss X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two of its process in November. The Council acknowledges that it initially failed to progress this. It registered a stage two complaint in January 2022.
37. The Council responded to her complaint in February. It did not uphold the complaint.

My findings

38. I will set out my findings about Miss X’s complaint in the order they appear in paragraph 1.

failed properly to consider her welfare and medical needs when deciding her priority on the housing register in December 2020 or at any time since.

39. In April 2021, Miss X’s CPN wrote to the Council explaining the impact living with her mother had on her mental health. The letter said Miss X’s accommodation made her symptoms worse and was preventing her from getting better.
40. Although it made its decision in June, the Council failed to notify Ms X of this decision until October. This delay was fault.
41. In its decision in June, the Council did not explain why it had given limited weight to the CPN’s letter or what other evidence it had considered in deciding Miss X did not have a medical need to move. This was fault.
42. The decision said “domestic or familial disharmony” was not a medical matter. This fails to address the relevant question, which is the extent of the impact of her housing circumstances on Miss X’s mental health condition. In that context, the “disharmony” at home was relevant. Failure to consider it was fault.
43. On balance, I consider that had it properly considered the matter, the Council would have awarded Miss X Band 3 priority. However, Miss X moved accommodation shortly after that and her circumstances changed.
44. Similarly, when it considered her medical circumstances in March 2022 the Council said the cost of the accommodation was not a medical matter. This again fails to consider whether the cost of the accommodation and the debts she had accrued as a result had an impact on Miss X’s mental health condition such that she needed to move. This was fault.
45. I cannot say whether Council would have decided Miss X had medical priority had it properly considered her request and the supporting evidence in line with the policy. However, it is at least possible that it would have decided Miss X met the criteria for Band 3. Miss X must live with this uncertainty, which is an injustice.
46. In response to a draft of this decision, the Council accepted that its responses to Ms X did not provide sufficient detail of how it made its decision. It has agreed to complete a new medical assessment and will invite Ms X to provide any new evidence as part of this assessment.

failed to “fast track” her application to the register as it agreed to in February 2021

47. Miss X says the Council told her that by agreeing to remain living with her mother or to move into private rented accommodation she would qualify for Band 2 on the housing register. This is what she says she understood the Council’s commitment to “fast track” her application to mean.
48. The Council says it meant that it would process her application more quickly once she provided the relevant documents.
49. However, in response to my enquiries the Council explained that it previously awarded Band 2 to homeless applicants who moved into private rented tenancies. It ended this scheme in December 2020, just before Miss X applied.
50. I do not consider it likely that Miss X’s mother agreed to her remaining living with her “pending being fast tracked” if this only referred to faster processing. This is supported by the fact that she asked Miss X to leave again just a few months later. Further, given Miss X already had a live application to the register, there was nothing to “fast track”. This is evidenced by the fact that nothing changed with Miss X’s application following this commitment.
51. It seems more likely than not that the Council, having only recently ended the scheme, misadvised Miss X and her mother based on its previous policy. This was fault.
52. The Council says it did not misadvise Miss X about her housing priority. It says the officer who visited Miss X did not know she already had an active housing application and accepts this may have caused confusion.
53. In either case, Miss X made decisions based on this expectation. There is therefore uncertainty about whether Miss X would have acted differently has she been properly advised. This is an injustice to Miss X.

provided unsuitable interim accommodation far from her support networks in June 2021

54. The Council provided Miss X with interim accommodation for about a month between June and July 2021. Miss X says it was too far away from her support network and mental health team. She says it therefore increased her anxiety.
55. The Council has not provided any evidence of its assessment of Miss X’s needs or a personalised housing plan. These should have said what would be necessary for accommodation to be suitable for Miss X.
56. The Council has not provided any evidence to show how it considered the suitability of the interim accommodation. Nor evidence of its offer of the property to Miss X.
57. In the absence of such evidence, I find the Council failed properly to consider the suitability of the interim accommodation. This was fault.

ended its duty to her into private rented accommodation she could not afford which was in a poor condition in July 2021

58. The Council wrote to Miss X ending the prevention duty in July 2021 because it was satisfied she had suitable accommodation available for her occupation for at least six months. This was the private tenancy Miss X secured with financial support from the Council.
59. To end its prevention duty, the Council had to be satisfied the accommodation was suitable. Suitability includes ensuring the property is affordable and in reasonable repair.
60. The Code of Guidance says councils should consider “whether the applicant can afford the housing costs without being deprived of basic essentials.” It says rent will not be affordable if the applicant is left without enough money to meet these essential needs. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.47)
61. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided no evidence to show how it considered whether the property was affordable and in a lettable condition. In the absence of such evidence, I find the Council failed properly to consider the suitability of the property before ending its prevention duty. This was fault.
62. The property may well have been affordable, but absent any evidence there is uncertainty about whether it was. Miss X took out loans and got an advance on her benefits to meet the costs of moving into and living in the property. This might have been avoided.

failed properly to consider whether this accommodation was reasonable to continue to occupy when she told the Council about issues of disrepair, a change in income and her pregnancy

63. Miss X told the Council in October 2021 that she was struggling to pay her rent. She said her benefits had decreased in August. This was the removal of the uplift to benefits made by the government during the COVID-19 pandemic.
64. Even if the Council was satisfied the property was affordable in July, this was a relevant change in circumstances. This should have prompted the Council to consider whether it was reasonable for Miss X to continue to occupy the property.
65. In response to her complaint, the Council told Miss X to approach her landlord or the local environmental health department about disrepair. The extent of the issues Miss X described, including lack of heating and hot water, should also have prompted the Council to consider whether it was reasonable for Miss X to remain in the property.
66. I find that in October 2021, the Council had reason to believe Miss X might be homeless or threatened with homelessness. It therefore had a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, duty it owed her. Failure to do so was fault.
67. I cannot say whether the Council would have decided Miss X was homeless or threatened with homelessness. However, Miss X must live with this uncertainty, which is an injustice.
68. The Council did take a new application and make inquiries when Miss X told it about the notice from her landlord in February 2022. By that time Miss X was also pregnant. However, the Council wrote to Miss X confirming that it had withdrawn the application at her request. I therefore do not find any fault with the Council’s handling of the February 2022 application.

Complaint handling

69. The Council’s failure to acknowledge or act on Miss X’s request to escalate her complaint to stage two in November 2021 was fault.
70. This resulted in a delay of almost three months before the Council responded to the complaint. This caused Miss X avoidable frustration which is an injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

71. To remedy the injustice to Miss X from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Miss X
• Conduct a new medical assessment of Ms X’s circumstances, having invited her to provide any additional evidence
• Pay Miss X £200 in recognition of the distress caused by the Council’s delay notifying Miss X of the outcome of the medical assessment
• Pay Miss X £200 in recognition of her avoidably raised expectations about housing priority and the confusion caused
• Pay Miss X £150 for the one month she spent in unsuitable interim accommodation
• Pay Miss X £300 in recognition of her avoidable uncertainty about the suitability of the private rented property
• Pay Miss X £100 to acknowledge the avoidable frustration caused by delays in complaint handling.
72. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
73. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Share a copy of this decision with staff in the relevant departments to identify learning from this complaint.
• Remind relevant staff that assessments for medical priority should consider the impact of housing circumstances on the applicant’s illness or disability, in line with the published allocations scheme.
• Remind relevant staff of the duty to conduct assessments and issue personalised housing plans to those owed the prevention duty.
• Identify and implement a way of ensuring staff consider and record details of suitability before ending the prevention or relief duty into a private sector tenancy.
74. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

75. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman