Summary: There was fault by the Council. There has been delay in carrying out a review of Mr X’s housing application banding. There was also delay in dealing with Mr X’s homelessness application and an incorrect sentence in a decision notice. Carrying out the review remedies the injustice to Mr X, along with an apology and a payment.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complains there have been delays by the Council in making decisions on a homelessness application. He also complains the Council has not taken into account medical evidence when deciding what band his housing application should be placed in.
2. Mr X complains there has been no response to his complaint to Environmental Health that his current property is too small to live in. Mr X wants the Council to find him a Council property to rent before he is evicted from his privately rented property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated Mr X’s complaints about delays by the Council and how the Council responded to his complaints that his room did not comply with housing standards.
6. 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)
7. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about decisions on his housing and homelessness applications where he has a right to appeal to the courts, after the council has reviewed the decision. Mr X has asked the Council for a review of the decision on his housing banding. I have investigated the delay in carrying out the review, but do not intend to exercise discretion to investigate the banding decision itself as this will be considered by the review.
8. Mr X also received decisions that he was not in priority need and that the Council ended the relief duty. As Mr X could have requested a review of these decisions from the Council, I do not intend to exercise discretion to investigate these decisions.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I read the papers put in by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him.
10. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
11. Mr 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

Housing application

12. Mr X complains the Council has not taken into account medical evidence when deciding what housing band he should be placed in.
13. The Council has said that Mr X’s application is in Band C. Mr X asked for a review of the decision on his banding on 17 July 2023. There has been delay in considering the review, this is fault. The Council said that reviews have not been completed because of staff shortages but will resume when a new staff member starts in March 2024.
14. The Council has said that it has only offered social housing to applicants in bands A or B since 2012. So, unless Mr X’s housing band changes after the review the delay will not have caused him an injustice. To remedy the delay, the Council should complete the review and tell Mr X of the decision. If Mr X’s housing band changes then the Council should backdate the change in band to when Mr X applied to join the housing register. I have considered whether to make service recommendations, as we would usually do. But, the Council is already recruiting staff to ensure reviews are dealt with promptly. If there is any delay or there continue to be issues once the new staff are in place the council should consider how it can effectively address this.

Environmental Health Complaint

15. The Council has said that Mr X is correct, the room he has does not meet the Council’s standards in a House of Multiple Occupation. The Council has said the House of Multiple Occupation is licensed. The Council has spoken to the landlord, who has taken the decision to proceed with the eviction of Mr X. The Council said ‘because of the landlord complying with the extension of the fire detection system and complying with the permitted numbers by a legal eviction, there is no further action for the Private Sector Housing Team to undertake’. I find no fault by the Council on this point, the Council has responded to Mr X’s concerns.

Homelessness application

Key facts

16. Mr X contacted the Council in April 2023, as his landlord was going to serve a Section 21 notice. He also complained that his room was too small.
17. In a telephone call in May 2023 the homeless officer asked Mr X for more information and accepted the Prevention duty to Mr X. The Council sent Mr X a Personalised Housing Plan.
18. The housing officer arranged for Mr X to view a privately rented property. Mr X did not attend the viewing and told the officer he only wanted a Council property. Mr X says that the property was unsuitable as it was not a self contained flat so he did not want to view it.
19. Mr X was contacted by a new Housing Officer in October 2023 as his previous housing officer had left. Mr X’s landlord was waiting for a copy of a possession order and said he would request an Eviction Notice.
20. The Council accepted the Relief Duty on 8 November 2023 but said they did not consider Mr X was in priority need, so no interim accommodation would be provided. The Council said the ‘caseworker also issued a main duty non-priority decision’.
21. Mr X emailed the Council after receiving the non-priority decision as he felt the Council had not considered his medical evidence. The housing officer told him he had a right to request a review of the decision but Mr X did not specifically ask the Council to review the decision.
22. On 9 January 2024 the Council wrote to Mr X to say it had ended the relief duty. The Council told Mr X in writing of his right to a review of this decision.

My analysis

23. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. This is the prevention duty, In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
24. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must tell the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
25. 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)
26. The Council’s initial response to Mr X was without fault. It accepted the prevention duty to him and the officer arranged for him to view another property.
27. The Council has said there was fault. Mr X’s caseworker left in July 2023 and the new caseworker did not contact him till October 2023. The Council has said there is no reason for the delay it can identify.
28. The Council has said ‘the non-priority decision fell below the quality expected’. The decision said ‘Mr X had not disclosed to the service he had any medical problems’. This was wrong as Mr X had provided medical documents for his housing application, which were available to the homelessness team. The failure was fault. However, the decision notice did specifically refer to Mr X’s depression and anxiety and that he took medication. So, I do not consider this fault caused Mr X injustice as his medical conditions were taken into account.
29. There has been fault by the Council, there were delays in dealing with Mr X’s homelessness application and in the wording of the non-priority decision. To remedy this fault, the Council has said it will apologise to Mr X, train staff and pay him £250.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. Within one month of the date of the decision on this complaint, the Council should:
• Apologise to Mr X for the delay in the new caseworker contacting him. 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.
• Pay Mr X £250.
31. Within three months of the date of the decision on this complaint, the Council should:
• Deliver refresher training to all caseworkers on writing good quality decisions.
• Complete the review of the decision on Mr X’s housing banding.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is upheld, as there is evidence of fault by the Council. The steps outlined above remedy the injustice to Mr X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman