Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her homelessness and housing register applications. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in: failing to tell Mrs Y about its decision to remove her husband from her application and her review rights; failing to follow the proper process in response to her request it reconsider the suitability of her temporary accommodation; and its poor complaint handling. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by; apologising to Mrs Y; making a payment to reflect the distress caused; and service improvements.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I am calling Mrs Y, complains about the way the Council dealt with her homelessness and housing register applications. She says the Council failed to:

• tell her about its decision to remove her husband and child from her housing register application and give her the opportunity to ask for a review of its decision;
• respond to the information she sent confirming her husband’s immigration status and birth of their second child;
• add her husband and second child to her housing register application;
• properly consider her request to be moved to suitable temporary accommodation. Their current temporary accommodation is unsuitable because of her and her husband’s disabilities and the size of her family (two adults and two children); and
• contact her within two weeks of its complaint response of 5 October 2023 with the outcome of the caseworker’s review of her records as it promised to do.

2. Mrs Y wants the Council to update her application to include her husband and both children, confirm their disabilities are correctly recorded and move them to suitable temporary accommodation.

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.
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I spoke to Mrs Y and her husband, made enquiries of the Council and read the information Mrs Y and the Council provided about the complaint.
7. I invited Mrs Y 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 allocations policy

8. 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)).
9. Under the Council’s policy in force in 2019, applicants to the housing register were placed in one of the following four priority bands:

• Band A: Emergencies and strategic high priority groups;
• Band B: High Priority – households with an urgent housing need because of severe overcrowding (lacking two or more bedrooms); urgent need to move on medical grounds; and those at risk of homelessness and working with the Council to prevent homelessness;
• Band C: Medium Priority – including homeless households in temporary accommodation provided by the Council; and those with a less urgent need to move on medical grounds; and
• Band D: Low Priority – all those not in other groups.

10. The allocations policy was revised in April 2024. Under the current policy homeless households in temporary accommodation are now placed in Band B (instead of Band C).

Housing allocation decisions and review rights

11. The law says councils must notify applicants of certain allocation decisions in writing. This includes a decision an applicant is not eligible for an allocation or is not a qualifying person.
12. Housing applicants can ask councils to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority. Councils must inform applicants of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))

Suitability of temporary accommodation provided to homeless applicants

13. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
14. Councils have a duty to keep the suitability of accommodation under review. An applicant may ask a council to reconsider the suitability of their current temporary accommodation if their circumstances change – for example their medical or disability-related needs change or there is an increase in the size of their household. An officer should then make a suitability decision.
15. If an applicant disagrees with a decision about suitability, they have the right to ask for a review of the decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
16. If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)

What happened

17. 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

18. Mrs Y made a homelessness application to the Council in 2019. She included her partner and new baby in the application.
19. The Council says it removed Mrs Y’s partner from the application in August 2019 because of his immigration status.
20. The Council accepted it owed Mrs Y the main housing duty in September 2019 and provided her with self-contained one-bedroom temporary accommodation.
21. The Council also accepted Mrs Y’s housing register application in September 2019. It placed her in Band C in accordance with its housing allocations policy at that time.
22. Mrs Y and her partner married in July 2020. Her partner, now husband, was issued with leave to remain in November 2020. They had a second child in December 2020.

2022: Mrs Y’s medical assessment

23. Mrs Y asked the Council to assess her medical priority. After completing a medical assessment In November 2022, the Council told Mrs Y it had assessed her as having a less urgent medical need which was prioritised as band C in is allocations policy. The Council also told Mrs Y about her right to request a review of its decision.
24. As Mrs Y was already in Band C, this meant there was no change to her priority on the housing register.

July 2023: Mrs Y’s complaint to the Council

25. Mrs Y complained, on 26 July, about the temporary accommodation she had been living in since 2019. She said it was not suitable for her family of two adults and two children, but the Council had refused to move them.
26. In its reply on 5 October, the Council said her husband had been removed from the application in 2019 because of his immigration status. And her second child was not included in the application. A caseworker would now check they held the correct records for her application and contact her about this in two weeks.
27. Mrs Y heard nothing further from the Council and contacted us about her complaint. We told her to ask the Council for its final response.

November 2023: The Council’s final response to Mrs Y’s complaint

28. Mrs Y told the Council her husband was living and working here lawfully and there was no reason for him to have been removed from the application, or for her second child to be excluded. She did not know why the Council had done this.
29. In its final response, the Council said:

• Her husband was removed from the application in 2019 because of his immigration status;
• her application currently consisted of only Mrs Y and her first child and the property was suitable for them;
• Mrs Y’s medical assessment was carried out in 2022. There was no record of any medical form for her husband; and
• she should add her husband and second child’s details through the form on the link it provided.

30. Mrs Y was not satisfied with the Council’s response and asked us to investigate her complaint.

Action during our investigation of Mrs Y’s complaint

31. In May 2024 the Council asked Mrs Y to send evidence of her husband and second child’s immigration status and her and her husband’s medical conditions. She provided this information.
32. Following this, the Council confirmed Mrs Y’s husband and both children were included in her homelessness and housing register applications, and she had now been placed in priority band B following the change to its housing allocations policy in April 2024. It has also said it would arrange an assessment of their medical housing needs.
33. Mrs Y told the Council about a section 21 notice served by the landlord requiring them to leave their current temporary accommodation by May 2024.
34. The Council assessed their current housing need is for two-bedroom ground floor accommodation. It provided Mrs Y and her family with two-bedroom temporary accommodation at the end of May.

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

Mrs Y’s husband’s removal from her housing application

35. The Council says it told Mrs Y’s husband verbally at the time about its decision to remove him from the application. I have not seen any record of this.
36. But in any event, in my view the Council should have told Mrs Y about its decision to remove her husband from her housing application and her right to request a review of this decision. Its failure to do this was fault.
37. Because of this, Mrs Y did not find out about this decision until 2023 and missed the opportunity to ask for a review.

Failure to add Mrs Y’s husband and second child to the application

38. Mrs Y says she tried to add her husband and second child to her application a number of times between 2020 and 2023, by using the Council’s online link, without success.
39. The Council says it has no record of contact from Mrs Y about adding family members during this period. Mrs Y and the Council have provided information showing she submitted information in July 2021 and August 2022 about her request for medical priority. But I have not seen any record Mrs Y submitted evidence to the Council about her husband and second child’s status before July 2023.
40. Based on the information seen, I don’t consider the Council failed to respond to information Mrs Y provided about her husband and second child’s status before July 2023.

Response to Mrs Y’s contact in July 2023

41. In my view, Mrs Y’s contact in July 2023 was effectively a request the Council reconsider the suitability of her temporary accommodation due to the change in her circumstances. However, it dealt with this as a complaint under its complaints procedure.
42. I consider the Council’s failure to recognise this as a request to reconsider the suitability of the accommodation was fault. Because it failed to follow the proper process it also failed to tell Mrs Y about her right to request a review of its decision about the suitability of her temporary accommodation.
43. In my view the Council has now put this failure right by reconsidering the suitability of Mrs Y’s temporary accommodation on the basis of the updated information she subsequently provided confirming her husband and second child’s status.
44. But this action was prompted by Mrs Y’s complaint to us. Other applicants in similar circumstances could be affected by a failure by the Council to follow the proper process and notify them of their review rights.

Complaint handling

45. The Council’s complaints procedure says it will send its first response to a complaint within 20 working days from receiving it. But the Council took 51 working days to provide its first response to Mrs Y’s complaint.
46. This delay was fault, causing Mrs Y additional frustration and uncertainty while she waited for a reply.
47. The Council also told Mrs Y in first response, a caseworker would check her application to confirm its records were correct and contact her about this within two weeks. It did not do this. This failure was fault.
48. I don’t consider the failure affected Mrs Y’s priority on the housing register. And I note the Council told her in its final complaint response she should send it evidence of her husband and second child’s status. But it caused Mrs Y some distress and uncertainty until the position with her housing application was resolved when she provided the required information, and the Council reconsidered the suitability of her temporary accommodation.
49. She was also put to the time and trouble of bringing her complaint to us.

Service improvements

50. In a recent decision we found fault by the Council in failing to tell a housing register applicant about its decision to change their bedroom entitlement and the right to ask for a review of this decision.
51. The Council agreed, as an improvement to its service, to consider and devise an action plan to change to its procedure, to ensure it informs applicants on the housing register of a right to request a review if their bedroom entitlement changes.
52. My findings in this case indicate there may be a wider failure in the Council’s procedures for communicating its decisions on housing and homelessness applications and notifying applicants of their review rights.
53. I have taken this into account when recommending the further service improvements below.

Back to top

Agreed action

54. 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 Mrs Y for its failure to tell her about its decision to remove her husband from her application and her review rights; its failure to follow the proper process in response to her request it reconsider the suitability of her temporary accommodation; and its poor complaint handling. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology; and
2. pay Mrs Y £250 to reflect the upset and uncertainty, time and trouble caused by its failures. This is a symbolic amount based on our guidance on remedies
55. And within three months from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. review its procedures for communicating its decisions on housing and homelessness applications and notifying applicants of their review rights;
2. consider any changes needed to ensure its procedures comply with the legal requirements for informing applicants of decisions and review rights;
3. ensure its officers understand and follow these procedures; and
4. review its complaint handling process to establish if there are ongoing failures in meeting the required timescales, and if so, devise an action plan to address these.
56. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

57. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above action to remedy this injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman