Summary: Mr B complained about the service provided to him by the Council after he became homeless. We cannot investigate part of his complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation the Council provided. But we uphold the other part, finding some fault as the Council failed to give reasons when it declined to reconsider Mr B’s priority for rehousing under its housing allocation scheme. This caused Mr B uncertainty. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to review its decision.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant ‘Mr B’ who complains:

• that, after he became homeless, the Council placed him in unsuitable temporary accommodation; and
• that it has not given enough priority to his application for re-housing through its housing allocation policy.

2. Mr B has a disability. He says his temporary accommodation did not meet his needs and posed a risk to his health and safety, so he could not stay there. But he remains homeless and needs re-housing urgently.

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. 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. 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)
6. 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

7. I have only investigated the second part of Mr B’s complaint, about the priority given by the Council to Mr B’s application for re-housing. I explain in my findings below, why I cannot investigate his complaint about temporary accommodation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Mr B’s complaint to the Ombudsman and any supporting information he provided;
• correspondence between Mr B and the Council pre-dating our investigation, about the matters covered by the complaint;
• information provided by the Council in reply to written enquiries;
• any relevant law, Government guidance or Council policy referred to below;
• any relevant guidance issued by this office.

9. I also gave Mr B and the Council chance to comment on a draft version of this decision statement. I took account of any comments they made before finalising the statement and completing my investigation.

Back to top

What I found

Key law and guidance

Relevant law on homelessness

10. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.

• 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 interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
• If a council finds 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, known as the main housing duty. The accommodation then provided until it can end this duty is temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

11. Homeless applicants may request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation. They must do so within 21 days of the Council’s decision to accept the main housing duty. There is no equivalent right to request a review of the suitability of interim accommodation.
12. If an applicant requests a review of the suitability of their temporary accommodation, then in its response the council must advise them of their right to appeal. This is to the county court on a point of law. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than eight weeks to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

Relevant law on housing allocations

13. Every local housing authority must keep a housing register – or list of households needing re-housing. It must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it will prioritise applications and allocate available housing.  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
14. 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))

15. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

The Council’s housing allocation scheme

16. The Council’s published housing allocation scheme explains it will prioritise applications into one of four bands; band 1 being the highest and band 4 the lowest.
17. Relevant to this complaint are bands 2 and 3. Where housing applicants have a medical need to move, the Council will place them in one of these categories. It will award the higher band 2 priority where it assesses the applicant has a “serious medical condition […] seriously affected by their current housing situation”, where a move to appropriate accommodation would improve that.
18. It will award the lower band 3 priority where the applicant has a “moderate medical condition” adversely affected by their current housing “to a more than minor degree”.
19. The Council explains that it will assess medical needs cases as follows:

• the applicant must complete an online medical assessment form;
• the applicant can also provide any supporting information they want to;
• the Council will then consult an independent medical adviser for an opinion.

20. An applicant can ask the Council to review its decision on medical priority. Otherwise, the Council will only review priority if the applicant has a change of circumstances relevant to the assessment or significant new information becomes available.
21. In addition, the Council awards band 3 priority to all applicants it has agreed that it owes the main housing duty to, because they are homeless.
22. The Council does not increase priority for households with multiple needs. So, if it owes the main housing duty and the applicant has a ‘band 3’ medical need to move, the application will remain in band 3.
23. The scheme says applicants should tell the Council if they have a change of address.

Key facts

24. Before March 2023 Mr B became homeless. The Council found him interim accommodation.
25. Mr B has disabilities. He contacted the Council, via a legal representative, saying the accommodation was unsuitable and asked for a review. The Council told Mr B he had no right to a review as the accommodation was interim, not temporary accommodation.
26. In May 2023 the Council decided it owed Mr B the full housing duty. It told him his accommodation was now temporary accommodation. It told him he had the right to review its suitability within 21 days.
27. In July 2023 Mr B’s representative asked for a late review of the suitability of the accommodation. The Council made inquiries and found Mr B had left the accommodation in April. It said it would not review suitability in these circumstances. Mr B’s representative said Mr B had left because his disabilities made the accommodation unsuitable. But despite this, the Council could still review its suitability. To which the Council responded a second time saying it would not review its decision because the request was late.
28. Concurrent with accepting it owed the full housing duty to Mr B, the Council also accepted an application from Mr B join its housing register. It gave his application ‘band 3’ priority because of his homelessness.
29. In July 2023 Mr B asked the Council to reconsider his priority. He said he should have band 2 priority because of his medical needs. The Council asked Mr B to complete its medical assessment form. Mr B did not do so. In response to our draft decision statement, Mr B indicated he had difficulty completing forms.
30. In September, the Council then wrote to Mr B saying that it would keep his housing priority in band 3 based on his homelessness. The letter offered Mr B a right of review if unhappy with the decision.
31. The Council has said this letter did not meet the standards it expects. In particular, it did not explain what account the Council took of medical evidence Mr B provided, including a GP letter. While it did not think this affected the priority given to Mr B’s application, during this investigation it offered to make a fresh decision on Mr B’s housing priority.
32. Mr B went on to complain to the Council about the matters covered by this complaint. I note that with his complaint he provided further medical evidence.
33. I understand since leaving the temporary accommodation provided by the Council Mr B has had no permanent address, although he uses a relative’s house as a correspondence address. He also uses that property for washing and sometimes meals. Mr B says he does not sleep there and sometimes sleeps in his car.

My findings

The complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation

34. I cannot investigate the first part of Mr B’s complaint because he had the right to ask the Council to review the suitability of his temporary accommodation. This right carried with it the potential to appeal the Council’s review decision to the county court. As I explained in paragraph 5, we will not usually investigate where a complainant has had the right to appeal a decision to a court.
35. I recognise Mr B did not receive a review decision because the Council declined to carry out a review. This was because Mr B made a late request for a suitability review. But this does not impact my thinking, given that Mr B could have appealed to the court if he had requested a review in time.
36. I see no special reasons to make an exception in this case. First, because the Council’s letter to Mr B where it accepted the full housing duty clearly explained the right to review and the timescale Mr B had to use it. Second, because he also had access to legal representation to make his views known.

The complaint about the priority awarded under the housing allocation scheme

37. I understand the Council awarded Mr B’s application Band 3 priority because of his homelessness. There was no fault in that, as this was in line with its housing allocation scheme.
38. Mr B then asked it to consider if he should have a higher priority on medical needs grounds. The Council refused this in September 2023.
39. As the Council recognises, its decision lacked any reasoning. Anyone reading it would not know if Mr B had presented any medical evidence (which he had). Nor what weight the Council gave to any medical evidence on file. Consequently, it is not possible to see how the Council assessed the seriousness of Mr B’s health condition and its impact on his housing need. That was a fault.
40. I also consider the Council has missed opportunities to pick up on this fault sooner. Before we investigated this complaint, Mr B complained to the Council. In doing so, he also gave it further medical evidence. The Council replies to his complaint were not specific in explaining whether the Council considered this relevant or significant. This too was a fault.
41. However, I consider any injustice caused to Mr B by the Council not providing more reasoning limited. I accept he has experienced some uncertainty, which we consider a form of distress, in not knowing the Council’s reasoning. But on balance, I do not think Mr B’s circumstances would be different now if the Council had not acted with fault.
42. This is because I must also take account of Mr B’s own actions and there are three relevant considerations here:

• First, the expectation Mr B tell the Council of relevant changes in circumstance under its housing allocation scheme. He failed to do this when he left his temporary accommodation.
• Second, the expectation that applicants wanting medical priority for a move complete a medical assessment form. The Council sent Mr B this form but did not complete it. While Mr B has implied to me he could not complete the form there is no indication he made the Council aware of this at the time.
• Third, while the September 2023 letter lacked reasoning, it did tell Mr B he could ask for a review. This gave Mr B another chance to make his case for medical priority, but he did not use this.

43. Taking account of the above, I cannot find a better reasoned decision, would have resulted in Mr B’s application having any different priority. Although that said, I still welcome the Council has agreed to now reconsider its original decision. I considered this could form the basis of actions needed to remedy Mr B’s injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. The Council has therefore agreed that it will begin making a fresh decision on Mr B’s housing priority within 20 working days of the date of this decision. It will aim to complete this within three months (unless it agrees a longer time period with Mr B). Its decision will carry a right of review. And, before making its decision, the Council will invite Mr B to complete a medical assessment form and explain his current living conditions. It should be willing to offer Mr B help with completing the form (for example over the telephone) if he indicates he cannot complete it online for any reason.
45. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

46. For reasons set out above I uphold this complaint finding fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr B. The Council has agreed action that I consider will remedy that injustice. Consequently, I have completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman