Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to provide him with adequate support when he approached it for help with his homelessness. He adds the Council wrongly removed him from the housing register and it failed to put him in the correct priority banding under its housing allocations scheme. We find some fault with the Council as it has failed to demonstrate it properly considered Mr B’s bedroom need and therefore priority banding. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained the Council failed to provide him with adequate support when he approached it for help with his homelessness. He adds the Council wrongly removed him from the housing register and it failed to put him in the correct priority banding under its housing allocations scheme.
2. Mr B says the Council’s failures have affected mental and physical health.

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. 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)
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. I considered information from Mr B. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
6. Mr B and the Council 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

Homelessness

7. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)

8. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. 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)
9. 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. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. This is called the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
10. 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 called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

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. 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 allocations scheme

13. The Council runs a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.
14. Qualifying applicants are placed in one of five priority bands following an assessment of their housing needs which includes welfare and medical. Band A is the highest priority band and Band E is the lowest. Bids on properties are shortlisted in priority order.
15. Applicants who are owed the prevention duty will be placed in Band E.
16. Applicants that need to move on medical grounds because their home is having an adverse impact on their health will be placed in Band C.
17. Applicants that need to move on medical grounds because their home is having a severe impact on their health will be placed in Band B. Households living in accommodation where the household is lacking one bedroom will also be placed in Band B.

What happened

18. This chronology provides an overview of key events and does not detail everything that happened.
19. Mr B contacted the Council for housing assistance in December 2022. He said the property (Property A) he was living in was not affordable and unsuitable for his medical needs. The Council asked Mr B to provide supporting information. He provided this in mid-February. He said he wanted a self-contained property for him and his son. He also said he received overnight care and support and so he needed a third room for the carer to sleep.
20. Mr B called the Council to chase for an update. He said his landlord served him with a section 21 notice and he had to leave Property A by the end of June. A section 21 notice is a formal document served by a landlord to notify the tenant of their intention to repossess a property. The notice does not end a tenancy. The tenancy continues until the landlord obtains a possession order and enforces this with a warrant of possession.
21. The Council awarded Mr B the prevention duty in March. It provided him with a personal housing plan. It agreed to provide him with details of estate agents and other agencies to help with his search for housing. It also agreed to refer his case to the team that deals with applications to join the housing register.
22. The Council assessed Mr B’s application to join the housing register and placed him in Band E in April. It spoke to Mr B and said there was no legal paperwork to state he had custody of his son and his ex-partner was receiving child benefit. Therefore, he had a one-bedroom need. It also said based on the medical information it received, it did not consider he had a priority need to qualify for immediate interim accommodation.
23. Mr B asked the Council to review its decision on his banding priority and his bedroom need. An officer from the Council’s adult social department provided the housing department with a report in late April. This said Mr B has physical and mental health issues and he needed a suitable two-bedroom property for his carer. The officer said they had referred Mr B for an assessment from an occupational therapist. The Council contacted Mr B and agreed to review his documents.
24. Mr B contacted the Council in early May and said an old landlord had offered him a one-bedroom property (Property B). He said this would help him get out of Property A while he waited for the Council to review his banding priority and bedroom need. He asked if its private rental team had found any alternative housing for him. The Council responded to Mr B and said the team did not have any affordable two-bedroom properties for him in his preferred neighbourhoods, but they were continuing the search. It agreed to contact the potential landlord to discuss the tenancy agreement.
25. The Council contacted the potential landlord to get some further information about the deposit Mr B had to pay. It also sent an internal email to see if Mr B could get access to the homeless prevention fund. The fund provides financial support to those who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. The team that deals with the fund said it needed more information about the registered owner of Property B.
26. The Council sent several emails to the potential landlord to ask about the ownership of Property B.
27. Mr B phoned the Council for an update in mid-May. He said he had access to Property B, and he paid half of the rent in advance. He said Property B was on the second floor which was not suitable in the long term. The Council said it was unaware Property B was unsuitable and it had concerns about supporting him financially with Property B because of this.
28. Mr B emailed the Council two days later and asked it to support his move to Property B. He said he did not want to go into interim accommodation and he was concerned about his mental health.
29. The Council contacted Mr B’s occupational therapist. The therapist provided an occupational therapy (OT) report at the end of May about Property A. She said in the long-term Mr B needed a more suitable home that did not have stairs.
30. The Council emailed Mr B and said it could not approve the funding for Property B because it was unsuitable. It said it was concerned he had chosen to move into the property without having confirmation it would support him financially. It sent him a further email and said it was waiting for his carers allowance award letter and a completed medical assessment form before it could review his priority banding on the housing register.
31. Mr B phoned the Council in early June and said he was considering going ahead with Property B because he did not want to face eviction or live in interim accommodation. He also provided some more information about his health conditions. The Council contacted a social prescriber from the NHS. It said it wanted an accurate representation of Mr B’s health conditions to understand whether he met the priority need threshold and would be eligible for interim accommodation when his section 21 notice expired.
32. Mr B contacted the Council a couple of days later and said he had decided to sign the tenancy agreement for Property B. He also said the Council had not told him whether he was eligible for interim accommodation. The Council responded and said it had been looking into whether he was eligible for interim accommodation, but he chose not to wait and instead signed the tenancy agreement.
33. The Council sent a letter to Mr B and said it had ended the prevention duty because he found alternative housing. It also closed his application to join the housing register in August.
34. Mr B called the Council in mid-September and said he could not access his housing register application. The Council told him it had closed his application.
35. Mr B complained to the Council at the end of September. He said it placed him in Band E despite his medical evidence. He said he could not live in Property B because it was unsuitable for him. He also said it closed his housing application without fully assessing his circumstances.
36. The Council emailed Mr B in early October. It said it closed his previous application because he found alternative accommodation in the private sector. It said he would need to provide up-to-date information so it could assess whether Property B was suitable for his needs. It also awarded him the prevention duty and issued another personal housing plan.
37. The Council received on OT report about Property B in late October. The therapist said Mr B needed to live in a property that was all on one level. She also recommended a two-bedroom property. She noted the GP and social prescriber had previously provided information about Mr B’s bedroom need.
38. The Council responded to Mr B’s complaint. It said he decided to move to Property B against the advice of the housing officer. It ended the prevention duty as he had resolved his housing need.
39. Mr B referred his complaint to stage two in November. He said its failures affected his mental and physical health and he had fallen in Property A and Property B. He said it failed to offer him suitable alternative accommodation.
40. The Council wrote to Mr B in late November and said it would not accept him onto the housing register. It said its medical adviser had reviewed his OT report about his mobility. It said it was not clear what basis the therapist gave her opinion, and it appeared to rely on his statements rather than an orthopaedic opinion. It said there was not enough evidence to recommend ground floor accommodation. Mr B asked the Council to review its decision. He said it had not fully considered his circumstances and his medical evidence.
41. The Council sent an email to Mr B in early December. It said it was ending the prevention duty because he was living in suitable housing.
42. Mr B approached the Council for further housing assistance in January 2024. He said his landlord had served a section 21 notice and a section 8 notice. A landlord may issue a section 8 notice if a tenant has rent arrears. An officer contacted Mr B to discuss the issues. It sent him further letter and awarded him the prevention duty.
43. The Council received further medical documentation about Mr B’s health in early January. It wrote to him in mid-January and said he had not provided the medical information from his private consultant, and this had affected its decision. It said it noted the OT report was based on statements from him rather than a medical diagnosis. It said it had enough evidence, on balance, that Property B was having an adverse impact on his health because he had to use steps. It said his health would not deteriorate in Property B, but the adverse impact would be reduced if he moved to alternative housing. It awarded him priority Band C, and it said he qualified for a one-bedroom property. It gave him a registration date of September 2023.
44. The Council issued its final response to Mr B’s complaint in early February. It said it should have told him in June to complete a new housing register application so it could reassess his position. It apologised for the frustration caused.

Back to top

Analysis

45. Mr B says the Council did not provide him with enough support when his landlord served him with a section 21 notice for Property A. He says he had to accept Property B as the Council failed to find him alternative accommodation.
46. The Council acted appropriately by assessing Mr B’s circumstances. It awarded him the prevention duty and issued a personal housing plan. It followed the steps in the plan by contacting its private rental team to see if there were any suitable properties. It sent him details of agencies that would help with his search for housing and made relevant enquiries about Property B. It did not consider it had an immediate duty to provide him with accommodation as the section 21 duty did not expire until the end of June. That was a decision it was entitled to take. I do not find fault.
47. The Council told Mr B before he signed the tenancy agreement for Property B it was making enquiries to see whether he would be eligible for interim accommodation when his section 21 notice expired. However, Mr B decided not to wait, and he signed the tenancy agreement against the advice of the Council. That was his choice, but I find no fault in the Council’s consideration of his case.
48. The Council has accepted it should have told Mr B in June 2023 to complete a new housing register application so it could reassess his position. I agree the Council was at fault. If the Council had acted without fault, it is likely it would have accepted Mr B back onto the housing register sooner. The Council has apologised to Mr B for the frustration caused and has now backdated his registration date to June 2023. I welcome the steps has taken. It is unlikely the Council’s fault has caused Mr B to miss out on property because of long waiting times for social housing.
49. With regards to the banding on the housing register, the Council was reviewing whether Band E was appropriate when Mr B was living in Property A. It received medical documents in April and June 2023. Before it had a chance to make its decision, Mr B decided to move to Property B. Therefore, his circumstances had changed, and the review about his housing need at Property A was no longer necessary. As I have mentioned in paragraph 48 above, the Council should have invited Mr B at that stage to submit a new housing application.
50. The Council has, after a review, awarded Mr B Band C priority. The focus was of this review was the steps Mr B uses and the adverse impact this is having on his health. However, the Council did not comment on Mr B’s bedroom need. Property B has one bedroom. The OT report said Mr B needed two bedrooms (because of his care and support needs). The Council did not comment on this, and it instead awarded Mr B one bedroom. This is fault. The Council should have considered the relevant documents and explained whether it considered Mr B needs one or two bedrooms and explained why. If Mr B has a two-bedroom need, he is one bedroom short and therefore he qualifies for Band B. The Council’s fault has caused Mr B a significant injustice in the form of uncertainty as he cannot be satisfied the Council considered his review properly.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. By 18 September 2024 the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B for the uncertainty caused from how it handled his review.
52. By 16 October 2024 the Council has agreed to carry out a new review of Mr B’s housing application, with particular attention to his bedroom need. If it decides he qualifies for another bedroom, it should backdate his registration date to June 2023.
53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

54. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr B an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman