Summary: Miss F complains about the way the Council has dealt with her application to its housing register. This includes not giving her medical priority, not allowing her a two-bedroom property and changing the start date of her application. We find fault with how the Council dealt with awarding Miss F the correct priority. The Council has suggested a remedy which is suitable, as it follows the principles set out in the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss F, complains that:
• in its assessment of her housing need, the Council refused to acknowledge her medical needs, leading to an incorrect priority band;
• she and her family should be in a two-bedroom home;
• the Council are claiming money from her for a property she did not view or collect keys for.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), 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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Miss F;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• spoken to Miss F;
• sent my draft decision to Miss F and the Council and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. Miss F is living in temporary accommodation. The Council had a duty to provide this as it has accepted she was homeless. The suitability of accommodation provided following acceptance of this housing duty can be challenged by seeking a review and then exercising a right of appeal to the county court on a point of law. Normally the Ombudsman does not investigate complaints where these review and appeal rights apply.
7. So I have not investigated Miss F’s complaint about whether she should be in a two-bedroom house, as that is something for which she had a right of appeal.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Homelessness

8. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them and anyone who lives with them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)

Relief duty

9. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

The main housing duty

10. If 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 (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Housing Allocations

11. 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))
12. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others.

(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

The Council’s Allocation Scheme

13. The Council’s Allocation Scheme places applicants in Bands (1 being the highest and 4 the lowest), based on housing need. In relation to medical need, it has an appendix for assessing need. This notes it would award Band 2 for medical needs that lead to an urgent and immediate medical impact – “reserved for exceptional cases where an applicant or tenant’s health is seriously at risk (including a risk to life)”. Band 3 “covers [a] serious medical impact problem”.
14. The Council’s Scheme:
• operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises;
• has information about its procedure for assessing whether an applicant qualifies for reasonable preference on the basis of medical priority. This says where an already registered applicant provides evidence of a change of medical circumstances, the Council will reassess the applicant’s priority;
• has a ‘priority star’ for people owed a statutory homelessness duty;
• has a ‘priority star’ for working applicants.

What happened

15. Miss F has been on the Council’s housing register since 2017. Since 2019 she had a Band 3 award – based on living in overcrowded accommodation (she and her son were living at her parents’ home). I will call this application Application 1.
16. In July 2022, Miss F approached the Council, advising she was threatened with homelessness. She was pregnant. The Council accepted it had a homeless duty towards her. It gave her advice on finding private rented sector accommodation and offered her temporary accommodation. Miss F refused this accommodation due to its distance from her son’s school.
17. In November, Miss F agreed to move to temporary accommodation, but soon after was hospitalised to give birth to her second child. The Council cancelled the temporary accommodation. Miss F experienced a difficult birth and complications from it. She was in hospital for some time after giving birth and was discharged in December 2022. Miss F continued to live at her parents’ and sister’s homes until January 2023, when the Council found her different temporary accommodation, under its homelessness duties.
18. The Council’s records show it had suspended Miss F’s bidding account for around six weeks before she moved to the temporary accommodation. It says its information technology system suspends homelessness applications following the termination of a temporary accommodation address that a customer has refused. It explained it does this to prompt it to consider whether it should keep the application alive or discharge its homeless duties. It accepts in this case it wrongly suspended Miss F’s account.
19. The Council says, when Miss F moved to temporary accommodation, Application 1 to its housing register should have lapsed. That was because Miss F was no longer living in overcrowded accommodation. The Council did not do this and has accepted that was fault. Instead, the Council opened a second application for Miss F to its housing register, based on Miss F’s homelessness. I shall call this Application 2.
20. Later in the year Miss F gave the Council some information about her employment status. The Council accepts that from the beginning of August it should have added a ‘work star’ to Application 2. It did not do this, and instead added it to Application 1.
21. In October the Council wrote to Miss F to advise it was closing Application 1 as she was no longer living in overcrowded accommodation. It advised her that Application 2 remained open.
22. Miss F replied asking for a review. She challenged the Council’s decision to close Application 1. She also complained she had asked about a working star in 2019, but it was not awarded until 2023. And she noted she should also have a homeless star.
23. The Council included a homeless star on Application 2 from mid-October 2023.

Medical priority

24. On Miss F’s request the Council referred some medical information to its medical advisor. The advisor recommended no medical priority. The Council’s applications team agreed with that recommendation and advised Miss F of this decision by letter. That letter advised Miss F that she could ask the Council to review its decision. Miss F did not ask for a review.
25. In March 2023 Miss F complained. She sent the Council a further medical report from a hospital.
26. The Council sent the medical information to its medical advisor. The advisor recommended no medical priority. Its applications team agreed with that recommendation and advised Miss F of this decision by letter. That letter advised Miss F that she could ask the Council to review its decision. Miss F did not ask for a review of the Council’s decision.
27. In September, an NHS occupational therapist wrote to the Council’s review team advising of the unsuitability of Miss F’s current accommodation. The Council says it did not consider the issue of suitability. This was because Miss F was out of time for asking for a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation.

The complaint to the Ombudsman

28. Miss F complained to the Ombudsman. The Council’s responses included some internal communications. These noted that it was not clear why it did not notice earlier that Miss F had two applications. It apologised.
29. The Council noted Application 2 should have had the following priority:
• Period 1: Band 3 with 1 priority star from December 2022 (when it accepted Miss F’s homeless application), until August 2023; and
• Period 2: Band 3 with 2 stars from August 2023, due to adding the working star to the wrong account.
30. It offered the following remedy:
• as the faults would have affected Miss F’s chances of re-housing, it offered to make her a direct offer of accommodation;
• a payment for the faults of:

Period 1

1. delay of £10 per week = £350 (35 weeks)
2. distress of £10 per week = £350 (35 weeks)

Period 2

3. delay of £20 per week = £740 (37 weeks)
4. distress of £20 per week = £740 (37 weeks)

Time & Trouble - £250

Total: £2,430

31. One of Miss F’s complaints was the Council was charging her for rent arrears for a property she never lived in. I asked the Council about this. It advised the rent arrears were solely related to the property where Miss F was the tenant. Her benefit entitlement did not meet the weekly rent; creating a weekly shortfall since the tenancy started.

Analysis

Medical priority

32. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
33. So the Ombudsman will not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
34. The Council sought advice from its medical advisor on Miss F’s first two applications for medical priority. It then decided to not award priority and advised Miss F of that decision. I see no fault with those decisions.
35. In September a medical professional sent the Council further medical evidence. The Council sent this evidence to its review team. That team took no action – the Council says because Miss F was out of time for a review of its earlier decisions. It would have been good practice for the Council to have written confirming why it did not take action about this letter. But I agree with the Council’s view that it was about the suitability of the temporary accommodation, not about Miss F’s priority on its allocation scheme.
36. The Council has also accepted it was wrong to suspend Miss F’s account.

The housing priority and recommendations

37. I agree with the Council’s analysis of the faults in the way it administered Miss F’s application(s) to its housing register.
38. I have compared its offer of a remedy with our own guidance. My decision is it fits with our approach and so is a suitable remedy. So I recommend that, within a month of my final decision the Council should:
• make Miss F the payment set out in its offer;
• contact Miss F to advise her how it intends to make the direct offer and suggested timescales for making the offer. In line with the Council’s Allocation Policy, the property offered should be a two-bedroom flat, maisonette or house.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I uphold the complaint. The Council has offered a suitable remedy, so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman