Summary: Ms X complains for Ms Y there were failings in the way the Council dealt with Ms Y’s homelessness situation causing anxiety, uncertainty and distress. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Ms Y’s homelessness situation. The Council accepts it was at fault in dealing with Ms Y’s complaints about the matter as it delayed in responding to her. The Council has already apologised to Ms Y and taken action to improve its communications with homeless applicants. So, we are completing our investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains for Ms Y there were failings in the way the Council dealt with her homelessness situation causing Ms Y anxiety, uncertainty and distress. Ms Y considers the Council has failed to provide her with enough assurance it has taken action to correct the procedural issues arising in her case.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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

4. I have read the papers submitted by Ms X. I considered the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting documents it provided.
5. Ms X, Ms Y 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

Summary of the relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

6. 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.
7. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. If councils are satisfied applicants are homeless and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation. This is called 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)
8. If, at the end of the relief duty, a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Housing Allocations

9. 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))

The Council’s Allocations Policy

10. The Council is one of five councils who are part of a sub-region choice-based lettings scheme know as Be-with-Us along with some social housing providers. The scheme enables the councils to allocate homes to people seeking social housing from local authorities or registered social housing providers. The councils operate a common method of letting social housing through a common allocations policy and applicants can view and bid on properties in all Council areas. The Be-with-Us scheme is run by a group representing all the partner councils and stakeholders.
11. The Be-with-Us scheme has a single register for both new applicants and existing tenants. It is divided in to 4 bands according to housing need, with band 1 awarded to the highest priority and band 4 to the lowest. Applicants are prioritised in the bands according to their individual needs, circumstances and waiting time in line with the common allocations policy.
12. It is the responsibility of each Council to deal with homeless applicants in their areas and decide whether a duty is owed to them.

What happened in this case

13. What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
14. Ms Y lived in a private rented property and stated she had a learning disability and health issues. Ms Y contacted the Council’s Housing Advice service in January 2022 about disrepair at the property and because her landlord served a notice to quit. The Housing Advice service investigated, contacted Ms Y’s landlord and asked Ms Y to update her Be-with-Us application about the disrepair.
15. The Council’s Housing Standards team found the landlord’s notice was invalid so there was no immediate homeless threat to Ms Y. Housing Standards agreed to investigate disrepair at the property. The Council closed Ms Y’s homelessness case and Be-with-Us updated her application priority to band 3 due to the property disrepair.
16. Be-with-Us received a medical letter from Ms Y’s GP. It assessed the information on the Council’s behalf to see if Ms Y was entitled to any medical priority. But did not consider the information sufficient to award such priority.
17. Ms Y contacted the Council on 16 February 2022 to advise her landlord had cut off all utilities to the property. The Council says it dealt with the case as a Housing Standards service request and needed to investigate. It did not consider it was a potential homelessness case. Housing Standards arranged an urgent visit to the property the next day. Officers told Ms Y the Council could arrange temporary accommodation for her if it considered it was not reasonable for her to continue to occupy the property.
18. Housing Standards officers visited the property on 17 February 2022 and found the utilities disconnected. Officers liaised with Ms Y and her landlord to reconnect services. Officers organised an electrician’s visit on 18 February 2022 to inspect the electrics at the property. During the inspection Housing Standards officers found an issue with the electrics and decided it would not be reasonable for Ms Y to continue to occupy the property. Officers referred Ms Y to Housing Advice services to arrange temporary accommodation for her.
19. The Council reopened Ms Y’s homelessness case. The Housing Advice service offered Ms Y temporary accommodation in a nearby town, but she refused it. Officers found Ms X other temporary accommodation in an adjoining Council area, Council M. The Council needed to refer Ms Y to Council M for the accommodation as it was supported living accommodation for vulnerable applicants. It was not part of the emergency housing usually offered by the Council.
20. The Council completed Ms Y’s referral the same day. Council M completed the assessment the same day and accepted Ms Y for the accommodation. The Council told Ms Y the temporary accommodation was available to her until Housing Standards completed its assessment of her property and she could return to it once the landlord carried out the repairs.
21. Housing Standards reported Ms Y had chosen to end her tenancy with her landlord. Ms X said it was because staff at the temporary accommodation said they would help her to with ‘a pathway to suitable and appropriate housing’. The Council closed Ms X’s homelessness case on the basis it had secured her temporary accommodation for up to two years and she could look to find other suitable accommodation.
22. Ms Y updated her Be-with-Us application as she was now in supported accommodation. The Council awarded Ms Y band 3 as she was in temporary accommodation. In June 2022 Council M’s housing needs service asked the Council to add a ‘move on ‘banding to Ms Y’s application as it considered Ms Y was ready to live independently. The Council agreed and awarded her band 2. Council M then took ownership of Ms Y’s case in August 2022 as she was living in one of its housing projects and wished to remain in the area.
23. Ms X contacted Council M on Ms Y’s behalf and Council M awarded Ms Y band 1. Council M then offered Ms Y permanent accommodation.

Ms Y’s complaints to the Council

24. Ms Y complained to the Council in July 2022 about:
• The lack of support to her as a vulnerable person with health conditions when she approached for help in February 2022. Ms X considered the Council failed to adequately consider her disabilities and medical conditions.
• The Council expected her to remain in the property with no heating, water, or electricity.
• The Council initially offering her unsuitable temporary accommodation some distance away which upset her as she wished to remain in the local area.
• She felt she was passed ‘from pillar to post’ by officers. And found it difficult to contact officers about increasing her housing priority to help secure accommodation.
• The Council should have allocated her a higher housing band as Council M had done so.
25. Ms X complained to the Council for Ms Y in August 2022 as the Council had not replied. The Council responded to Ms X in October 2022 apologising for the delay in replying. It explained Ms Y used a wrong email address when sending her complaint, so the Council had not received it. An officer started to investigate Ms X’s complaint for Ms Y but went on leave and did not pick up the matter again on returning to work. The Council apologised for the oversight.
26. The Council explained its response to Ms Y’s contact about disrepair at her property and the landlord’s notice. The Council investigated and accepted Ms Y could not stay at the property due to issues with the electrics and the repairs required. The Council accepted Ms Y was vulnerable and offered her temporary accommodation until the landlord completed the repairs.
27. The Council offered Ms Y temporary accommodation in a nearby town within its borough at first. When Ms Y refused this accommodation, it looked to offer her a placement at the supported living accommodation in Council M’s area. The Council said this showed it was aware of Ms Y’s vulnerability, took appropriate action and arranged for Ms Y to stay there. So did not uphold this part of Ms Y’s complaint.
28. The Council said it only offered Ms Y temporary accommodation in a nearby town, it did not offer her accommodation some distance away as Ms Y alleged. The Council considered that Housing Standards officers may have mentioned the possibility if placing her there which they should not have done. The Council apologised as it was beyond the remit of Housing Standards to refer to possible temporary accommodation locations.
29. The Council explained it dealt with Ms Y’s housing application banding according to the allocations scheme where it decides priority by housing need including homelessness. The Council through Be-with-Us changed Ms Y’s banding to band 3 due to the disrepair issue. Ms Y’s banding remained as band 3 when she was living at the supported living accommodation. This was because the Council considered her to be satisfactorily housed although it was temporary accommodation. The Council through Be-with-Us received medical information about Ms Y which was assessed but not considered enough to award her medical priority.
30. The Council discussed Ms Y’s banding with Council M and agreed to increase it to band 2 in June 2022. Band 2 included those threatened with homelessness, so the Council considered it the correct banding for her then. The Council was satisfied it dealt with Ms Y’s housing banding according to its Allocations policy.
31. Council M then increased Ms Y’s banding to band 1 following contact from Ms X. The Council says Ms X did not send it the information so could not say whether it would have altered its banding award to Ms Y. In addition, Council M did not have the homeless duty towards Ms Y which remained with the Council. But the increase in banding led Ms Y to be offered a property by Council M and she moved into her current property.
32. The Council accepts there were some shortcomings in its communications in Ms Y’s case as Housing Standards officers made a comment on potential temporary accommodation options. The Council has ensured the Housing Standards service are aware they should not be giving advice on temporary accommodation but referring applicants to Housing Advice and the Homeless service as early as possible. The Council confirms it has discussed this matter with the Housing Standards service and arranged a briefing for staff.
33. The Council noted Ms Y’s allegation she felt passed from ‘pillar to post’. The Council considers Ms Y’s case was a dynamic one which started as a Housing Standards case and became a homelessness one. The Council allocates applicants a case worker and Ms Y should have been clear who her case worker was and how to contact them. But the Council cannot be certain Ms Y was aware in this case. It has stressed to the Housing Advice and Homeless service that all homeless applicants must be made aware of their case worker with contact details. The Council has also firmed this up with its Be-with-Us partners to direct homelessness cases to its homeless team.
34. The Council notes Ms Y made many calls to it and to Be-with-Us which meant she contacted different people. The Council can understand why Ms Y felt passed about when she made contact. But says it was clear it allocated a dedicated worker to Ms Y when it had an interim accommodation duty. The worker regularly contacted Ms Y.
35. The Council recognises a shortage of temporary accommodation in its area which increases the challenges in finding suitable temporary accommodation for vulnerable households. The Council confirmed it was aware of this and looking to remedy it although it was not a specific issue in Ms Y’s case as it found her suitable accommodation. The Council is actively looking to increase locally available temporary accommodation and has provided evidence of the options it is considering.

My assessment

36. The Council has explained how it dealt with Ms Y’s case as a Housing Standards service one until it decided it was unreasonable for Ms Y to continue to occupy the property. The Council sourced suitable temporary accommodation for her once its homeless duty started on 18 February 2022. The documents provided show the Council considered Ms Y’s health and vulnerability when allocating temporary accommodation. There is no evidence of fault by the Council when responding to Ms Y’s concerns about the property or allocating her temporary accommodation.
37. The Council explained how it allocated priority to Ms Y’s application. The evidence shows it has been done according to the Council’s Allocations policy on Ms Y’s circumstances including whether to award any medical priority. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it considered Ms Y’s priority. Ms Y’s banding priority was increased to her benefit by Council M although it had not duty to do so, and she has successfully gained accommodation. I do not consider I can achieve anything more for Ms Y on her banding priority through further investigation.
38. The documents show the Council investigated Ms Y’s complaint. I am satisfied the investigation into Ms Y’s concerns was robust and fully considered issues raised. So do not consider I can add anything to the investigation already carried out by the Council.
39. The Council has acknowledged it was at fault as it delayed when responding to Ms Y’s concerns once Ms X submitted a complaint. The Council’s fault will have caused an injustice to Ms Y through uncertainty about her concerns and her time and trouble in pursing the matter. The Council has apologised to Ms Y for the delay. This is suitable action for the Council to take and remedies the injustice caused to Ms Y.
40. The Council acknowledges Ms Y’s case raised some operational issues regarding its communications. This included the advice given by Housing Standards regarding possible temporary accommodation locations and to ensure applicants are made aware of their case worker to prevent multiple contact. The Council has apologised to Ms Y and confirmed the actions taken to resolve the issues which I consider are appropriate and sufficient. I do not consider I can add anything to the investigations and actions already taken by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed my investigation. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Ms Y’s homelessness situation. The Council accepts it was at fault in dealing with Ms Y’s complaints about the matter as it delayed in responding to her. The Council has already apologised to Ms Y and taken action to improve its communications with homeless applicants.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman