Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his homelessness and housing register applications. We have found fault, causing injustice, in the way the Council dealt with the homelessness application, including delay and providing inaccurate information about review rights. We have not found fault in the way the Council dealt with the housing register application. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused by apologising to Mr X and making service improvements.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the way the Council dealt with his homelessness and housing register applications in the period from April 2023 to January 2024. He says the Council:
1. failed to properly consider the medical evidence he provided;
2. failed to communicate with him, as a vulnerable person, in a proper manner;
3. refused to provide him with accommodation when he was homeless and then failed to offer him suitable temporary accommodation;
4. charged him for accommodation he was unable to access or occupy because it was not suitable for his needs as a wheelchair user;
5. wrongly suspended his housing register application on the basis of debts he did not owe the Council;
6. failed to consider his medical needs and that he was at risk of domestic abuse when assessing his housing register application and priority; and
7. refused to make him a direct offer of housing which he is eligible for under its allocations policy.
2. Mr X says the Council’s failures caused him stress and anxiety. He wants it to make him a direct offer of social housing and apologise for its failures.

Back to top

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 Mr X, made enquiries of the Council and read the information Mr X and the Council provided about the complaint.
7. I invited Mr X 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

Homeless applications

8. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)

The relief duty

9. A council must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When it decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

10. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
11. 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.  This duty applies to interim and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
12. There is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. This then carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.

Priority need

13. Examples of applicants in priority need include:

• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age;
• care leavers; and
• victims of domestic abuse.

The main housing duty

14. 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).
15. 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)

Review rights

16. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of a number of decisions including:

• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end;
• giving notice in cases of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate; and
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

Decision letters

17. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.30)

Housing allocations

18. 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))
19. We recognise the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has assessed and prioritised applicants and allocated properties in line with its published allocations scheme.

The Council’s allocations policy

20. The Council’s policy says;

• housing register applications can be suspended in certain circumstances, which means an applicant is eligible to be on the register but not eligible to receive an accommodation offer. This includes cases where the applicant owes rent arrears or other debts to the Council (paragraph 3.5);
• it can lift suspensions for housing related debts at its discretion having regard to factors including the size of the debt (paragraph 3.6);
• priority of applicants on its housing register is based on the number of points they have been awarded; and
• it may exercise discretion to make an applicant a direct housing offer in certain circumstances. This includes applicants with 200 medical points or requiring disabled adapted properties.

What happened

21. 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.

April 2023: Mr X’s homelessness application.

22. Mr X approached the Council for housing assistance in April 2023. He told it the friend he had been living with had sold the house and moved away at short notice. He was now homeless and sleeping in his car.
23. The Council received Mr X’s homelessness application on 11 April. In his application Mr X said he had support needs, a history of mental health issues, a learning disability and repeat homelessness.
24. Mr X did not hear anything further about his application and contacted the Council about this on 21 April. The housing needs team spoke to him the same day. It explained the additional documents he needed to provide.
25. The Council reviewed Mr X’s application on 24 April and:

• assessed he was homeless but not in priority need and so it did not owe him a duty to provide interim accommodation; and
• referred him to its Rough Sleepers Initiative (RSI) scheme which had a discretion to offer accommodation to applicants who were homeless but assessed as not being in priority need.

26. The Council’s RSI team contacted Mr X on 24 April and discussed possible housing options with him. It told Mr X it could arrange a room for him in shared or supported accommodation. Mr X said he could not share accommodation with others because of his anxiety.
27. The RSI team told the housing needs team it could not help Mr X because it could only offer shared accommodation which Mr X said was not suitable for him. It also passed on the medical information Mr X had provided to the RSI team.
28. The housing needs team assessed the medical information on 25 April. It considered this wasn’t sufficient because it was over 11 years old. It asked Mr X to provide his current medical information by the end of the following day (26 April). It noted it would close his case if the information was not received by then.
29. Mr X’s MP’s office contacted the Council on 26 April about the concerns Mr X had raised with it, including his mental health difficulties and need for self- contained accommodation.

27 April 2023: Council accepts the relief duty

30. The Council notified Mr X by letter on 27 April it had decided it owed him the relief duty. It told him:

• it had assessed his application and decided he was eligible for help and homeless;
• it owed him a duty to take reasonable steps to help him find somewhere else to live. This did not mean it must offer him social housing or any other accommodation;
• it had sent his Personal Housing Plan (PHP) confirming the actions Mr X and the Council would take to resolve his homelessness;
• there were circumstances where the duty would end including if Mr X failed to co-operate with the action needed to resolve his homelessness or refused an offer of accommodation it thought was suitable; and
• he had the right to request a review of the Council’s actions set out in the PHP.

4 May 2023: Council ends the relief duty

31. The Council notified Mr X by letter on 4 May it had ended the relief duty because he had refused accommodation offered to bring the duty to an end. It told him:

• he was not in priority need. It had notified him, in a separate letter, why it had found he was not owed the main housing duty because he was not in priority need;
• he had been offered shared accommodation under its discretionary RSI scheme. It considered this was suitable accommodation available for occupation for at least six months;
• this offer was made to him in writing. He was told the relief duty would end if he either accepted or rejected the accommodation offer, and about his right to request a review of the suitability of the offer; and
• as he had refused the offer it had ended the relief duty.

32. The Council also told Mr X he had the right to ask, within 21 days, for a review of its decisions about the suitability of the accommodation and to end the relief duty.

May 2023: Mr X’s complaint to the Council

33. Mr X complained to the Council on 4 May about the decision to end the relief duty. He said:

• the housing needs team failed to contact him when promised;
• it had failed to give him the details of how to send his further medical evidence;
• his last contact with the team was on 25 April. His requests for contact were ignored;
• he had told the team about his mental health conditions which made it impossible for him to be housed in shared accommodation; and
• he was not given any warning his case would be closed.

Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint

34. The Council contacted Mr X about his complaint on 5 May 2023. He said he was still homeless and sleeping in his car and explained the impact this was having on his mental health. He also said there had been a lack of contact from the housing needs team, and he had not been given details of how to provide further medical information.
35. The Council team told Mr X it would re-open his case and re-assess his application. It said, while it was doing this it would provide him with temporary accommodation immediately under the RSI scheme.
36. The Council sent an email to Mr X on 5 May confirming the conversation. It said it would contact him that afternoon to arrange a two week placement while it assessed his case and identified settled accommodation. It asked him to send his up-to-date medical information.

5 May 2023: Temporary placement offer

37. The Council arranged a temporary placement for Mr X at a local hostel under the RSI scheme. It advised him he would be sharing bathroom and kitchen facilities with other residents. It asked Mr X to attend its offices to sign the licence agreement. When Mr X arrived, he said sharing accommodation would impact his condition. He refused the offer and left.

18 May/19 May 2023: Mr X’s further contact with the housing team

38. Following a visit to the Council’s offices, Mr X contacted the housing needs team by email about his situation. He said he was still living in his car but was now using a wheelchair. He told the team he had gone to hospital because he was in so much pain. The hospital advised he had a slipped disc and gave him a wheelchair. He said any accommodation provided would have to be wheelchair accessible.
39. On 19 May the Council notified Mr X by letter it had accepted it owed him the relief duty. It offered him a ground floor room at a shared accommodation hostel, while it determined whether he was in priority need.
40. Mr X told the Council he could not accept this as he required self-contained accommodation. It said there was nothing in the medical information he had provided which indicated he required self-contained accommodation for medical reasons.
41. Mr X provided further medical information. The Council told him there was nothing new. It confirmed its previous offer of accommodation was still available.

22/23 May 2023: Council’s request to its medical adviser

42. On 22 May Mr X contacted the Council again. He said the accommodation offer was not suitable for him. He required adapted accommodation because of his mobility issues.
43. The Council sent all the medical information Mr X had provided to its medical adviser and asked for their opinion on Mr X’s vulnerability.
44. The medical adviser issued their report on 23 May. They said:

• they had considered the information provided - an x ray request form and Mr X’s GP computer print outs - and whether Mr X was vulnerable on medical grounds;
• Mr X had a history of back pain and had been referred for x rays. They noted he was using a wheelchair to mobilise, but there was nothing to suggest this was required on medical grounds. There was no suggestion of long-term disability; and
• based on the information provided they did not think the specific medical issues in this case were of particular significance compared to an ordinary person.

30 May 2023: contact with Mr X’s family

45. A member of Mr X’s family told the Council he was staying with them for the time being.

10 July 2023: Decision on priority need

46. On 10 July the Council notified Mr X:

• it had decided it did not owe him a duty to provide him with temporary accommodation while it helped him find somewhere to live. It was satisfied he did not have a priority need for accommodation;
• it had considered what it had told it about his health difficulties – a history of back pain, suffering from sciatica and a disc prolapse, a limp when walking, depression and anxiety – and the medical information it had submitted before making its decision;
• he had the right to request a review within 21 days if he did not agree with its decision; and
• it could still offer him a room in shared accommodation under its RSI scheme.

13 to 28 July 2023: Mr X’s further approach for housing assistance

47. Mr X approached the Council again for housing assistance on 13 July. He said, in his application: he was at risk of, and had experienced, domestic abuse; had a history of mental health problems, physical ill-health and disability; his family were no longer willing to accommodate him; and he would become homeless on 28 July.
48. The Council recorded it had decided Mr X was in priority need.
49. It discussed Mr X’s accommodation needs with him. Its notes say he told it he suffered with depression, anxiety and agoraphobia and living in shared accommodation would make his condition worse. He wanted self-contained accommodation and confirmed he was currently using a wheelchair.
50. On 17 July the Council notified Mr X by letter it owed him the prevention duty.
51. It says it accepted on 27 July it owed him the duty to provide him with interim accommodation. It arranged to provide him with a self-contained studio apartment. Mr X signed and returned the licence agreement for this accommodation on 28 July.

10 August 2023: Mr X tells the Council he has left the accommodation

52. Mr X called the Council on 10 August and told it he had left the interim accommodation. He said it was not suitable because it did not have access for his wheelchair. He had left the property and handed back the keys on 7 August. Mr X asked the Council to review of the suitability of the accommodation. In the meantime, he would return to his family’s home.
53. The Council issued a letter on 10 August telling Mr X it had accepted it owed him the relief duty. It also confirmed it could end the relief duty if he relinquished the interim accommodation provided for him.

September 2023: Mr X contacts the Council about his situation

54. Mr X complained on 20 September he had not heard from the Council about the suitability review of his interim accommodation.
55. He contacted the Council again on 27 September. He said he was now sleeping rough in his car. He asked again about the suitability review. The Council told him there was no right to a review of the suitability of interim accommodation.
56. The Council also says it asked Mr X for details of the car he was sleeping in and its location. Mr X said it was a family member’s car, he didn’t know the registration and would not give the owner’s contact details so they could confirm the information. The Council told Mr X it would end the relief duty if he did not provide the information by the end of the day.

29 September 2023: Council ends the interim accommodation duty

57. The Council notified Mr X on 29 September of its decision to end the interim accommodation duty because he had refused an offer of suitable accommodation. The decision letter said it:

• had carried out an assessment on 17 July and decided he was homeless, and due to his circumstances, it had a duty to offer him suitable temporary accommodation;
• no longer owed him a duty to provide interim accommodation because he had relinquished the offer of suitable temporary accommodation. He was told, when it made the offer of accommodation, it would end its duty to provide interim accommodation if he refused the offer;
• was satisfied he had voluntarily relinquished the interim accommodation. He said he had left the accommodation and would move back with family;
• had considered his reasons for doing this, and advised him of right to request S202 suitability review but he did not do this;
• was satisfied the interim accommodation offered was suitable and reasonable for him to occupy; and
• was now ending its duty under S188 to provide any accommodation and all other duties for non -engagement and withholding information.

58. It also advised Mr X there was no statutory right of review if he did not agree with the decision and the only recourse would be a judicial review.

3 October 2023: Council ends the relief duty

59. On 3 October the Council issued a letter to Mr X telling him it had decided to end its relief duty to him because he had:

• made himself intentionally homeless from accommodation it had provided for him;
• not asked for a review of the suitability of this accommodation; and
• not engaged with staff trying to help him with his housing situation and withheld information needed to establish his circumstances.

60. It also told Mr X he had the right to ask, within 21 days, for a review of its decision to end the relief duty.

December 2023/January 2024: Mr X’s housing register application

61. Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register in December.
62. The Council asked him to provide further information for his application and sent him a medical form to complete.
63. On 4 January the Council told Mr X it had suspended his application because he had outstanding debts with the Council. It told him the debts were for unpaid charges for accommodation provided to him some years ago and the interim accommodation in July/August 2023.
64. Mr X disputed these debts. He said there were no outstanding accommodation charges owed to the Council.

Mr X’s complaint to the Council

65. Mr X complained to the Council in January 2024 about the way it had dealt with his homelessness and housing register applications.
66. In its response to his complaint the Council said:

• following his approach for homelessness assistance in July 2023, it had offered him interim accommodation which he had accepted. He did not tell it this was unsuitable until August. It offered him alternative accommodation which he declined saying he would return to his family’s property;
• as he did not provide information required from him in September 2023, it had closed his homelessness application in October 2023;
• his housing register application was currently suspended from bidding because of the outstanding accommodation charges; and
• it required further specified medical evidence from him so it could decide whether to award medical points to his housing register application. It only made direct offers of housing to those with sufficient medical points or determined as needing an adapted property.

Current position with Mr X’s housing register application

67. The Council has told us it has cleared part of the debt it said was outstanding and exercised its discretion to remove the suspension of Mr X’s housing register application due to the small size of the remaining debt.
68. Mr X’s housing register application is live and he can place bids for one-bedroom properties.
69. He is not eligible for a direct offer of accommodation. This is because:

• Its allocations policy says “ vacant adapted properties may be let outside of the points system if suitable for applicants with a substantial disability or other special needs. And …wheelchair adapted accommodation may be ringfenced for applicants who require this type of accommodation, following recommendations from an Occupational Therapist (OT)” (section 7.7 “persons requiring disabled adaptations”); and
• Mr X has not been assessed by an OT as needing wheelchair adapted accommodation.

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

The way the Council dealt with Mr X’s homelessness application

70. The Council’s actions during the period from April to 4 May 2023: I have identified the following failures in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s homelessness application during this period.

• A delay in its response to Mr X’s initial request for assistance. He told it he was homeless on 11 April but it didn’t contact him about his application until 21 April – a delay of 10 days;
• There is no record of the basis on which it decided, on 24 April, Mr X was not in priority need;
• It did not tell Mr X, when it decided on 27 April it owed him the relief duty, that it had also decided he was not in priority need and it did not have a duty to provide him with interim accommodation. This was an adverse decision. It should have told Mr X about this and his right to request a review of the decision;
• It failed to give him a reasonable opportunity to provide further information about his medical condition and other support needs before deciding to end the relief duty; and
• Its letter of 4 May telling Mr X it had ended the relief duty contained incorrect information. I have not seen any evidence the Council made Mr X a written offer of accommodation or told him the relief duty would end if he refused the offer. And there is no right to request a suitability review of interim accommodation.

71. In my view these failures were fault by the Council, which caused Mr X avoidable upset and uncertainty about his housing situation.
72. But I consider the Council then took appropriate action to resolve these failures in response to Mr X’s complaint on 4 May. It re-opened his homelessness application and invited him to submit further medical and other information. It also offered a temporary placement through its discretionary RSI scheme while it re-assessed his information.
73. The Council’s actions during the period from 4 May to 10 July 2023: I don’t consider there was fault in the way the Council made its decision about Mr X’s priority need. This is because the Council properly:

• considered the further information Mr X provided about his medical condition and support needs before making its decision he was not in priority need; and
• notified Mr X about this decision and his right to ask for a review.

74. But although it had received the further information from Mr X before the end of May, it did not notify him of its decision he was not in priority need until 10 July – a delay of six weeks. This delay was fault which caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty about his situation.
75. The Council’s actions from 10 July to August 2023: My view is the Council properly considered what Mr X had told it about being a victim of domestic abuse.
76. Having then decided it had reason to believe Mr X was homeless and in priority need, I don’t consider there was fault in the way the Council assessed the suitability of Mr X’s interim accommodation. This is because it:

• properly considered what Mr X had told it about his housing needs, mobility issues and requirement for self-contained accommodation;
• provided him with self-contained accommodation on the ground floor as Mr X had requested; and
• Mr X did not contact it, until after he had left the accommodation some days later, to say it was not suitable for a wheelchair.

77. But there was a delay by the Council in telling Mr X it had accepted it owed him the relief duty. Its records show it decided this on 28 July but did not issue a letter notifying him of this until 10 August. This delay was fault.
78. The Council’s actions from 10 August to October 2023: I have identified the following failures in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s homelessness application during this period:

• It failed to tell Mr X, when he asked on 10 August for a suitability review of the interim accommodation (the self-contained studio), applicants do not have the right to a review of the suitability of interim accommodation;
• Because of its delay in issuing the letter accepting the relief duty, it failed to confirm in writing, before he relinquished the interim accommodation, this might end the relief duty;
• Although the Council knew on 10 August Mr X had relinquished his interim accommodation, it did not tell him it had decided to end its duty to provide him with interim accommodation until 29 September; and
• It incorrectly said, in its letter of 29 September, Mr X had the right to ask for a suitability review of his interim accommodation but did not do so. It repeated this error in its letter of 3 October. The right to request a suitability review only applies to temporary accommodation (once the Council has accepted the main housing duty) and not interim accommodation.

79. In my view these failures and delays were fault which caused Mr X further avoidable uncertainty and upset about his housing situation.
80. But I don’t consider this caused Mr X any further injustice. This is because the letter of 3 October correctly advised him of his right to request a review of the Council’s decision to end the relief duty. Mr X did not ask for a review.

Conclusion

81. Mr X’s complaints about the way the Council dealt with his homelessness application were that it failed to:
1. properly consider the medical evidence he provided;
2. communicate with him, as a vulnerable person, in a proper manner; and
3. provide him with accommodation when he was homeless and then to offer him suitable temporary accommodation.
82. I haven’t found fault with the Council in relation to these specific complaints. But I have found a number of failings by the Council as set out in paragraphs 71, 74, 77 and 79.
83. I have reviewed the appropriate remedy for the injustice these faults caused Mr X. In other circumstances we would have considered a financial remedy to reflect the distress and uncertainty the Council’s faults caused Mr X during the initial period of his homelessness application. But due to the complainant’s subsequent behaviour towards council officers, I have decided on this occasion a symbolic payment is not warranted.
84. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for its failures and make service improvements. I consider this is an appropriate remedy in this case.

Charges for Mr X’s interim accommodation in July/August 2023

85. Mr X complained the Council wrongly charged him for accommodation he was unable to access or occupy because it was not suitable for his needs as wheelchair user.
86. As explained in paragraph 76, I have not found the Council failed to properly assess the suitability of the interim accommodation it provided for Mr X.
87. But in any event the Council has now removed the charges for this accommodation.

The way the Council dealt with Mr X’s housing register application

88. Mr X’s specific complaints were that the Council:
1. wrongly suspended his housing register application on the basis of debts he didn’t owe;
2. failed to consider his medical needs and that he was at risk of domestic abuse when assessing his housing register application and priority; and
3. refused to make him a direct offer of housing which he is eligible for under its allocations policy.
89. I have not found fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mr X’s housing register application in the period to January 2024. This is because:

• its records at the time Mr X applied to join the housing register showed he owed outstanding accommodation charges. It properly exercised its discretion to suspend his application in accordance with the allocations policy. When he disputed the debts, it properly investigated his complaint, and exercised its discretion to remove the suspension;
• it asked Mr X to provide further medical evidence and information about his circumstances so it could assess whether he should be awarded medical or other priority points under its allocations policy. I don’t consider it failed to properly assess his priority on the housing register based on the evidence it had at that stage; and
• it properly considered Mr X’s eligibility for a direct offer under its allocations policy and explained why it does not consider he is eligible based on the evidence it had at that stage.

Back to top

Agreed action

90. 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 Mr X for the faults identified in this decision in the way it dealt with his homelessness application. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
91. And within three months from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. provide training to all officers handling homelessness applications to ensure they understand the difference between interim and temporary accommodation and when there is a right to request a suitability review;
2. review its procedures for recording decisions with reasons about an applicant’s priority need; and
3. review its procedures for issuing letters confirming decisions about its homelessness duties to ensure they contain accurate information, appropriate review rights and are issued in a timely way once a decision is made.
92. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman