Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider Mr Y and Mr Z’s housing register and homelessness applications and their requests for emergency accommodation. We have found fault by the Council in failing to properly consider and process the applications. In particular regarding its Equality Act duties to Mr Z as a vulnerable resident in need of the Council’s support because his current accommodation was unsuitable for him. We have not found fault with its response to the request for emergency accommodation. The faults found caused injustice, which the Council should remedy by apologising, making a payment to reflect the distress caused, and service improvements.

The complaint

1. I am calling the complainants Mr Y and Mr Z. Their brother, who I am calling Mr X, is their representative and has brought the complaint on their behalf.
2. Mr X complains about the way the Council has dealt with Mr Y and Mr Z’s homelessness and housing register applications and requests for emergency accommodation. Mr X says the Council failed to:

• properly consider and assess Mr Y and Mr Z’s housing applications;
• take into account information they had already provided for the application, including about the tenancy at the family’s current accommodation;
• ensure its housing and adult social care teams worked together to share relevant information, in particular about Mr Z’s complex care needs, and Mr Y s role as his carer; and
• respond adequately to the family’s requests for emergency accommodation because their current accommodation was unsuitable for Mr Z.

3. Mr X says, because of the Council’s failures, Mr Y and Mr Z, together with other family members caring for Z, have had to continue living in unsuitable accommodation. This has affected Mr Z’s wellbeing and caused the family additional worry and upset at an already difficult time. The Council should pay financial redress for this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these.
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
7. 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

8. I spoke to Mr X, made enquiries of the Council and read the information Mr X and the Council provided about the complaint.
9. I invited Mr X and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

The Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme

10. The Council says in the Scheme, one of its strategic aims is to meet the needs of vulnerable residents. And the Scheme reflects its ambition to support and protect people who are in most need of its help when their accommodation is unsuitable for them. This includes accommodation which adversely affects in a major way someone’s medical condition or disability or is significantly detrimental to their welfare or severely overcrowded.
11. The Scheme sets out the rules for joining the Council’s housing register, how applicants are prioritised and available properties allocated.
12. Applicants who are 18 or over and in specified groups, including those living in Harrow are eligible to join the housing register. The Scheme also allows those whom a housing needs team leader considers should be qualifying persons on a case-by-case basis, because of exceptional circumstances, special needs or on hardship grounds.
13. Applicants are placed in bands based on their housing need. Only those applicants placed in band A+ (highest) to band C-. (lowest) qualify for the housing register.

The housing register application process

14. Applications are made through an online form. The system then automatically assesses an applicant’s priority based on their answers to questions about their current circumstances and needs.
15. The housing department will offer assistance to complete the form in some cases. An eligible person may be registered without an online application in some limited circumstances at a team manager’s discretion.
16. Only the applicant, their partner, immediate family or someone with an exceptional need to live with them can be included in the application.
17. An application can only include carers where it can be demonstrated a live-in carer is essential on a 24 hour daily and continuing basis, has been identified and is already living with the household or is ready to do so when accommodation is made available. A housing assessment team manager must also agree a live-in carer is essential, in consultation with the council’s medical adviser or social services.
18. If the officer assessing the incoming application is satisfied the applicant is eligible to join the register, they will make an initial assessment based on the information in the application and any other information available usually within 28 days. The Council will tell an applicant if an assessment is likely to take longer than 28 days, and the reasons why.
19. The Council will write to any applicant it decides is not eligible to join the housing register giving its reasons. It will notify the relevant social care services team if they are involved or it considers it appropriate.

Councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless

20. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.

The relief duty

21. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person (the relief duty). When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The duty to provide interim accommodation.

22. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
23. An applicant has a priority need if they are disabled, have a health condition such as mental health problems, or a learning disability.

Vulnerability

24. The Code says (at 8.15) in cases where a person is vulnerable as a result of mental illness or learning or physical disability, a person with whom that vulnerable person lives or might reasonably be expected to live also has a priority need for accommodation and can therefore make an application of behalf of themselves and that vulnerable person.
25. It also says (at 8.18) councils must be mindful of the Equality Act 2020 and their public sector equality duties towards people who have a protected characteristic and assess the impact of disability on an applicant if and when homeless.

The main housing duty

26. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (the main housing duty).
27. The accommodation a council provides until it ends this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Timescale for deciding whether the main housing duty is owed

28. Where a council has the information needed to decide whether it owes the main housing duty, it should be possible to notify the applicant of its decision on or around day 57 from the start of the relief duty.
29. In cases where significant further investigations are required it is recommended councils aim to complete their enquiries and notify the applicant of their decision within a maximum of 15 working days after 56 days has passed. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 14.17)

The Equality Act

30. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
31. The Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in it. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
32. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act include disability.

Public sector equality duty

33. The Public Sector Equality Duty requires all local authorities (and bodies acting on their behalf) 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.

34. 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 equality considerations to be reflected into the design of policies and the delivery of services, including internal policies, and for these issues to be kept under review.

What happened

35. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

Complaint background

36. Mr Z has a mental health condition and learning disabilities. He was detained in hospital in 2021 under the Mental Health Act 1983.
37. While he was in hospital, Mr Z’s family, who live in Harrow, made a housing register application to the Council in his name. The Council said it could not accept this because Mr Z did not have the mental capacity to make the application.
38. Mr Z has complex needs and requires a high level of care and support. When his detention was rescinded, he was discharged from hospital into the care of his family. Mr Y is one of the family members living with Mr Z and providing his care.

June 2022: issues with Mr Z’s accommodation

39. Mr Z moved in with his family in June. Mr Y and the other family members who provide Mr Z’s care and support live in a two bedroom privately rented flat above a pub.
40. A social worker with the Council’s adult social care (ASC) team visited Mr Z and his family. The family told the social worker their accommodation was unsuitable for Mr Z. The noise from the pub triggered his challenging behaviours. They asked for urgent support to move to suitable housing.
41. The ASC team assessed Mr Z. They noted Mr Z’s hypersensitivity to noise, and that this could trigger his challenging behaviour including aggression.

July 2022: ASC’s contact with the Council’s housing team

42. An ASC manager raised their concerns about Mr Z’s accommodation with a housing manager (Manager A). They said:

• They were concerned Mr Z’s housing application had been closed. They considered there was provision for cases where a person lacked capacity to sign a tenancy agreement, and Mr Z’s application should be reopened; and
• Mr Z needed a lot of support. His behaviour could be extremely challenging and environmental issues played a big part in his bouts of agitation. Mr Z was subject to various triggers including noise from the pub. The property had only two bedrooms. The accommodation was very unsuitable for Mr Z because of the noise and lack of space.

43. The ASC manager asked whether Mr Z’s application could be reopened for prompt consideration. Mr Z could then live in a new property with his mother and another family member who would provide his care and support.
44. Manager A told ASC:

• Mr Z’s application could not be re-opened. They had determined he did not have capacity to make an application. The Council did not have a policy allowing another person to sign a tenancy on his behalf; but
• Another family member, eligible to join the housing register, could apply and include Mr Z on the application.

Mr Y and Mr Z’s housing register application

45. On 16 July, Mr Y applied to join the housing register. He included Mr Z, and the two other family members who provided Mr Z’s care, in the application.
46. The Council’s system automatically assessed the application. A letter was issued saying it had looked at Mr Y’s application, concluded they did not have priority and would not be able to bid for accommodation.
47. Mr X, on Mr Y’s behalf, asked for a review of this decision. On 4 August the Council told him it had quashed the decision and referred the application back to the housing team for further enquiries.

August 2022: The housing team’s further enquiries

48. On 10 August the team told Mr Y it could not take account of people over 21 included in the application, unless they needed to live with the applicant to give to, or receive care from, a household member. They also asked for further information.
49. Mr X provided this information on 17 August, together with a detailed explanation of Mr Z and the family’s circumstances, copying in ASC and Manager A. He said ASC could confirm Mr Y was living at the family’s flat and providing Mr Z with care and support.
50. The team then asked for more information. Mr X provided this by 26 August.

November 2022: assessment of the housing register application

51. The Council told Mr Y it had carried out checks to assess the application and verify he lived at the family’s accommodation. It said, as it had not been provided with sufficient information about this, it could not proceed with the application.
52. Mr X asked for a review of this decision.

December 2022: Mr Y and Mr Z’s homelessness application

53. The family’s landlord told them it was taking action to evict them. Mr X made a homelessness enquiry to the Council on Mr Y and Mr Z’s behalf.
54. The Council contacted Mr Y by phone to discuss the enquiry. It arranged an interpreter for the call because Mr Y’s first language is not English. But the Council was not satisfied Mr Y had provided sufficient information and closed the enquiry.

ASC’s further contact with the housing team

55. ASC asked Manager A for an update on Mr Y and Mr Z’s housing application. They said Mr Z was an extremely vulnerable person and they were concerned about his uncertain housing status because of the threatened eviction action. They asked the housing team to take action to respond to their concerns.
56. Manager A told ASC Mr Y and Mr Z’s homelessness application was currently closed because of insufficient information.

Request for emergency accommodation

57. On 18 December Mr X contacted the housing team. He said the pressure of supporting and caring for Mr Z in their current accommodation had become too much for the family, because of his challenging behaviours, triggered by the noise from the pub. Mr X was concerned the problems caused by the noise would escalate at Christmas.
58. He asked the Council to arrange emergency respite accommodation for Mr Z and his family carers over the festive period.

The Council’s response to the request for emergency accommodation

59. From 19 to 22 December:

• Mr X had meetings with ASC about the escalating problems and Mr Z and his family carers’ need for respite accommodation;
• ASC asked Manager A for an update on the housing register and homelessness applications. They said they were concerned because this was a complex case and it was nearly Christmas; and
• Manager A told ASC the housing team had not been able to proceed with Mr Y and Mr Z’s homelessness application because of the limited information provided and their housing register application was waiting to be reviewed.

60. Mr X contacted the homelessness team about his meeting with ASC. He asked them to arrange interim accommodation immediately.
61. The homelessness team obtained Mr Y’s consent to speak to Mr X about his homelessness enquiry. After making an assessment it then allowed Mr Y to complete a homelessness application.
62. The housing team acknowledged Mr X’s request for a review of its November decision about the housing register application.

23 December: Mr X’s meeting at the Council’s office

63. Mr X went to the Council’s office to discuss his request for emergency accommodation. He met with a senior housing manager, Manager B. He explained the family’s situation and their difficulties caring for, and supporting, Mr Z in their current accommodation.
64. Following this meeting, Manager B discussed Mr Z’s case with ASC and other senior managers.
65. The Council then contacted Mr X about emergency accommodation options. It said:

• There was no suitable accommodation available within the borough;
• It could offer Mr Z and the family carers accommodation some distance outside the borough. Mr X explained this was too far away for support with Mr Z’s care from other family members and unsuitable without an additional care package; and
• ASC would not be able to arrange a care package outside the borough at such short notice just before Christmas.

66. Mr X said they could not accept an offer of emergency accommodation outside of the borough without a care package, because of the difficulties with support for Mr Z’s family carers.
67. The Council agreed to continue to look for emergency accommodation. It also told Mr X it could help with a deposit for suitable private rented accommodation, as part of the homelessness assessment and suggested the family explore this option.

January and February 2023: further discussions about emergency accommodation

68. The housing team was unable to find any suitable available emergency accommodation in, or near, the borough. A property outside London was rejected by Mr X because of the difficulty arranging a care package and its distance from other family members.
69. There were further discussions about finding private rented accommodation within or neighbouring the borough. The housing team looked for possible options but was unable to find anything suitable.

February 2023: review of the housing register application

70. The Council completed its review and decided the application had been properly assessed. Mr Y had not provided sufficient information to establish his eligibility to register for housing in borough.

Mr X’s complaint

71. Mr X was unhappy with the review decision. He complained to the Council about the way it had dealt with Mr Y and Mr Z’s housing applications.
72. He also contacted us about his complaint.

The Council’s further enquiries about Mr Y and Mr Z’s housing applications

73. The housing team made further enquiries to establish whether Mr Y lived with Mr Z in the family’s accommodation. It carried out home visits and spoke to Mr Y at the family’s accommodation on 1 March.
74. The Council then wrote to Mr X on 1 March confirming it:

• had now verified Mr Y was living at the family’s accommodation;
• accepted it owed Mr Y and Mr Z the relief duty on their homelessness application. It would try to find them interim accommodation but there was a shortage of suitable properties; and
• would re-instate Mr Y and Mr Z’s housing register application. They could then bid for permanent social housing properties.

April and May 2023: search for interim accommodation

75. The family’s landlord had now obtained a possession order for their accommodation although they had not yet been evicted. The housing team searched for suitable interim accommodation and discussed an option with Mr X. But this was considered unsuitable because of its distance from Mr Z’s day centre.

May 2023: assessment of Mr Y and Mr Z’s housing register application

76. The Council confirmed it had accepted Mr Y and Mr X’s application to join the housing register. It had assessed they needed two bedrooms and placed them in Band A. They could now bid for permanent social housing.

June 2023: assessment of Mr Y and Mr X’s homelessness application

77. The Council issued its decision on Mr Y and Mr Z’s homelessness application. It decided they were not homeless because it was reasonable for Mr Y to live abroad in a property owned by family members. The decision included notice of the right to ask for a review of this decision.

My decision – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

The assessment of Mr Y and Mr Z’s housing register application

78. ASC discussed Mr Z’s circumstances and housing needs with the housing team at the outset. They explained Mr Z was a very vulnerable person whose family provided his care and support, but their current accommodation was unsuitable for him. They considered Mr Z urgently needed to move to a suitable property which could accommodate the family members providing his care and support and asked the housing team to assist with this.
79. The housing team’s response to the request for assistance was to tell ASC the way forward was for another family member eligible to join the register to apply and include Mr Z on the application.
80. But from this point on, based on what I’ve seen, the Council does not appear to have considered what it could do to meet the needs of Mr Z as a vulnerable resident, and support and protect him as a person in need of its help because his accommodation was unsuitable for him.
81. I have not seen anything to show the Council considered using its discretion to:

• to take the application including Mr Z without requiring it to be made online; and
• provide Mr Z’s family with support in making the application.

82. The Council decided it could not proceed with the application because it did not have sufficient evidence to establish Mr Y lived in Harrow. But I have not seen anything to show the Council considered, before making this decision;

• liaising with ASC to obtain further information about Mr Y and the other family members living with and supporting Mr Z at the family’s accommodation;
• other ways to verify Mr Y’s residency, such as a home visit;
• whether this was an exceptional case in which Mr Y should be considered a qualifying person because of his caring role for Mr Z; and
• whether Mr Z’s mother and another family member should be included in the application because of their role supporting Mr Z.

83. The allocations scheme makes provision for the Council’s housing and ASC teams to work together on a housing application for a vulnerable person like Mr Z. It says housing officers can use information available to them to make decisions, may consult with ASC to determine an applicant’s needs for live-in carers, and should inform ASC in appropriate cases if they decide a person is ineligible to join the register.
84. Based on the evidence seen, I don’t consider the Council’s teams worked together to progress Mr Y and Mr Z’s housing application.
85. In my view, the Council failed to properly consider whether it could help Mr Z to move to suitable accommodation through an application to the housing register, and this was fault.

Impact of this fault

86. The Council finally accepted Mr Y and Mr Z’s application to join the housing register on 30 May 2023. They were placed in band A, with a priority date of 16 July 2022, and then allowed to bid for suitable accommodation.
87. But this was more than 10 months after the Council first became aware of Mr Z’s circumstances and his urgent housing needs.
88. In my view, had the Council properly considered all the information available to it from ASC’s contact with Mr Z and the family, and Mr X, it is more likely than not, it could have completed an assessment and accepted an application including Mr Z to join the housing register within or around the usual 28 day period, so by about the end of August 2022.
89. The Council’s evidence shows there weren’t any suitable properties available for the family from September 2022 to May 2023 for which a bid would have successful.
90. But, because of the Council’s fault, the long delay in their application being accepted caused Mr Z, Mr Y and the other family members caring for Mr Z worry and uncertainty about Mr Z’s housing situation at an already difficult time.

The assessment of Mr Y and Mr Z’s homelessness application

91. The Council already knew about Mr Z’s circumstances when Mr Y made a homelessness enquiry in December 2022. It knew the enquiry concerned Mr Z and that he, as a vulnerable person, was threatened with homelessness. It also knew Mr X was supporting Mr Y and Mr Z with their housing application.
92. I note what the Council said about having to verify information about the enquiry directly with Mr Y. But in the circumstances, my view is it should have considered obtaining Mr Y’s consent to speak to Mr X about the enquiry at the outset. Its failure to do so was fault which delayed the start of the homelessness application.
93. I also note the Council took six months, from December to June to decide it did not owe Mr Y the main housing duty, instead of 56 days. I consider this delay was fault which caused Mr Y uncertainty about his situation.
94. But I have not seen anything to show the Council considered Mr Z’s position, as a vulnerable person threatened with homelessness. In my view this is fault which has caused the family further worry and uncertainty.
95. I don’t consider these faults delayed the provision of interim or temporary accommodation for the reasons explained in paragraphs 96 and 97.

The request for emergency accommodation

96. In my view, the Council properly considered and responded to Mr X’s requests for emergency accommodation for Mr Z and his family carers. It discussed Mr Z and the family’s needs with Mr X, it looked for suitable properties and discussed possible options with him.
97. The Council was not able to find a property suitable for Mr Z and the family’s very specific needs, but I don’t consider this was because of fault.

The Council’s Equality Act duties

98. The Public Sector Equality Act duty requires the Council to reflect equality considerations into the design of its policies and delivery of services to people with a disability.
99. The Council has considered this duty by giving reasonable preference in its Housing Allocations Scheme to people with a disability, and stating its aim and ambition to meet the needs of vulnerable residents and support and protect people in most need of its help when their accommodation is unsuitable for them.
100. My Z has a disability and is clearly, in my view, a vulnerable resident in need of the Council’s support because his current accommodation is unsuitable for him. But I do not consider the Council properly reflected how it could put its aim and ambition into practice in the delivery of its service in response to the applications for help with Mr Z’s housing needs.
101. In my view this was fault, the impact of which is set out above in paragraphs 86 to 90 and 94.

Back to top

Agreed action

102. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults and, within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr X, on the family’s behalf, for failing to properly consider and process Mr Y and Mr Z’s housing register and homelessness applications and properly reflect on its duties under the Equality Act in the delivery of its services to Mr Z. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings; and
2. pay Mr X £500, on Mr Y and Mr Z’s behalf, to reflect the distress and worry caused by the uncertainty about their housing situation. This is a symbolic amount based on our guidance on remedies.
103. And within three months from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Review the procedures it has in place for joint working by its ASC and Housing teams in complex cases involving a housing application on behalf of a vulnerable person living in unsuitable accommodation;
2. Ensure housing and ASC teams are aware of these procedures;
3. Review the guidance to housing officers about the ways in which the Council can, through its housing and homelessness application process, support and protect people who are in most need of its help when their accommodation is unsuitable for them; and
4. Circulate this guidance to, and share the learning from decision with, its housing officers
104. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

105. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the actions above as a suitable way to remedy this injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman