Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council considered his request to place him in a higher priority band on its housing register. Mr X also complained the Council did not properly consider his homelessness approaches to it. He says the Council’s actions have negatively impacted his mental and physical health. We found some fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy to Mr X and make some service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council considered his request to place him in a higher priority band on its housing register. He says he should be in a higher priority band because of his disability. Mr X also complained the Council did not properly consider his homelessness approaches to it. He says it is not reasonable for him to remain in his current accommodation because he is at risk following several incidents of threats and abuse from his neighbours.
2. Mr X says the issues reported to the Council have been ongoing since 2021.
3. Mr X says the Council’s actions have negatively impacted his mental and physical health. He would like the Council to apologise, reconsider his request to place him in a higher priority band and offer him alternative accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in May 2024. I consider there are no good reasons to investigate the complaint dating back to 2021. I have however exercised discretion to investigate the complaint dating back to April 2023.
8. The end period of my investigation is May 2024 when Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
10. I made enquiries to the Council and considered the information it provided.
11. Mr X and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I have considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing Allocations

12. 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))
13. 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))
14. Housing applicants have the right to request a review of any decision as to eligibility or qualification, and a right to be informed of the decision on review and the grounds for that decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9)(c)). This includes decisions about priority banding.

Homelessness

15. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
16. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
17. 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)
18. 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)

What happened

19. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
20. Mr X lives in a property managed by a housing association, Organisation A. In early April 2023, Mr X approached the Council as homeless. He said his accommodation had a pest infestation and mould which negatively impacted his health. Mr X said it was not reasonable for him to continue to live in the property as a result.
21. The Council asked Mr X to provide evidence of the reported issues. It said it required the evidence because at that time, it had no reason to believe Mr X had no accommodation, or that it was unreasonable for him to continue living in the property.
22. At about the same time, the Council received contact from Organisation A. Organisation A confirmed Mr X had raised his concerns about the property with it.
23. Mr X approached the Council as homeless again in early July 2023. Mr X told the Council he had contacted the Police who advised him to contact the Council. Mr X said he had needed to leave his accommodation urgently because he had received verbal abuse and threats of harm from his neighbours.
24. The Council made inquiries regarding Mr X’s contact and the concerns he raised.
25. The Council discussed Mr X’s concerns with him and advised Mr X it had liaised with the Police. The Council told Mr X the Police considered he could return to his accommodation as they had put safeguarding measures in place. The Council acknowledged however that Mr X disagreed with this explanation.
26. Mr X told the Council it should treat his case as a priority due to his disability and because of the verbal and physical threats made to him. Mr X said he was scared for his wellbeing.
27. The Council wrote to Mr X on 7 July 2023 regarding his approach as homeless in early April 2023. The Council told Mr X it had decided that although it considered he was eligible for assistance, Mr X was not homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days. The Council said this was because Mr X was able to return to his property provided by Organisation A. The Council said it considered it reasonable for Mr X to continue living in his current accommodation. It said this was because following consultation with the Police and Organisation A, the Council considered Mr X’s return to his accommodation did not place him at risk. The Council’s letter explained Mr X had the right to request a review of its decision under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996.
28. The Council wrote to Mr X on 25 July 2023 regarding his approach as homeless in early July 2023. It said with all requests for assistance, the Council is required to ask if the person is homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days. The Council acknowledged Mr X had reported a pest infestation and abuse from his neighbours. However, it said after careful consideration, it had no reason to believe Mr X was homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days. The Council said this was because it considered Mr X had accommodation available to him, which was reasonable for him to occupy, and because he was not under a legal threat of homelessness.
29. Mr X complained to the Council on 25 July 2023 about the actions of the Council.
30. The Council provided its complaint response on 31 July 2023. It said following Mr X’s homelessness approach to the Council in July 2023, it had contacted the Police, Organisation A and a third party named by Mr X. The Council said these inquiries confirmed the issues raised by Mr X, but it considered Mr X was not homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days.

What happened next

31. The Council took part in a multi-agency meeting in August 2023 to consider Mr X’s case.
32. In October 2023, the Council received a referral to consider Mr X’s case via a Vulnerable Adults Panel (VAP).
33. Shortly after, in late October 2023, the Council wrote to Mr X to tell him it had accepted his application to join its housing register. The letter explained the Council’s housing register has four priority bands, with band one having the highest priority and band four having the lowest priority. The Council said it had placed Mr X’s application in band four. The letter explained Mr X’s right to request a review of the Council’s decision.
34. A few days later, the Council called Mr X. It said it would not change the priority band for his housing register application as it considered Mr X was adequately housed. The Council suggested however that Mr X may appeal the banding decision.
35. The Council attended a VAP meeting in early November 2023. It considered the concerns raised by Mr X and agreed to carry out a full housing assessment.
36. Mr X approached the Council as homeless in mid-November 2023 and provided copies of a mental health assessment. Mr X said he considered his case was a high priority due to his vulnerability and because he was fleeing abuse.
37. The Council carried out a full housing assessment in December 2023. It acknowledged Mr X considered it was not reasonable for him to remain in his accommodation due to the issues with his neighbour.
38. The Council made inquiries with the Police and Organisation A regarding the concerns raised by Mr X.
39. The Council attended a further VAP meeting in January 2024 and subsequently told Mr X his case with the VAP was closed.
40. On the same day, the Council wrote to Mr X regarding his most recent homelessness approach in November 2023. It said the Council considered Mr X was not homeless or currently threatened with homelessness within 56 days. The Council said this was because Mr X had accommodation available to him, which was reasonable for him to occupy, and because he was not under a legal threat of homelessness.

Mr X’s complaint

41. Mr X wrote to the Council on 11 January 2024 and said he was saddened by the decision to close his case with the VAP. Mr X said he was fleeing abuse whilst being in high priority need and asked for a second opinion on his case.
42. Mr X contacted the Council again on 17 January 2024. He said it had been almost seven days since his stage one complaint and he had not received confirmation of receipt from the Council.
43. The Council provided its stage one complaint response on 9 February 2024. The Council said it had reviewed Mr X’s case and was satisfied its previous decision was correct. The Council said it had not progressed Mr X’s case to a homelessness application and as a result, it could not review its decision under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996.
44. Mr X complained again on 16 February 2024. He said he had presented as at risk of homelessness on several previous occasions. He said it was unreasonable and inappropriate for him to remain in his current accommodation due to the fear of potential harm as a result of abuse and assault by his neighbours.
45. The Council acknowledged receipt of Mr X’s complaint and confirmed it would consider it at stage two of its complaints process.
46. The Council provided its stage two response on 18 April 2024, apologising for the time taken in providing its response. The Council acknowledged its communication regarding the VAP lacked clarity, but said it was satisfied it had thoroughly responded to Mr X’s complaint in its stage one response.
47. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and brought the complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis – Mr X’s approaches as homeless

48. Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider his homelessness approaches to it. He says it is not reasonable for him to remain in his current accommodation because he is at risk following several incidents of threats and abuse from his neighbours.
49. The Council says Mr X made three approaches as homeless during the period April 2023 to May 2024. In each case, the Council decided Mr X was not homeless and was not threatened with homelessness within 56 days. I acknowledge Mr X strongly disagrees with these decisions.
50. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision made.
51. I have reviewed the Council's records regarding Mr X’s approaches to it, its records of how it considered Mr X’s case, and how it made its decisions. This includes the records of the VAP meetings and the multi-agency meeting in August 2023. I have reviewed the steps the Council took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding Mr X was not homeless. The evidence shows the Council reviewed the information provided to it by Mr X, and other bodies such as the Police and Organisation A. As a result, I have found no fault regarding Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not properly consider his homelessness approaches to it.
52. However, there is fault by the Council regarding the decision letters dated 25 July 2023 and 11 January 2024.
53. The Council says these letters are ‘general advice’ letters. The Council stated in its complaint response to Mr X dated 9 February 2024 that his case “never progressed to a homelessness application”. The Council stated for this reason, Mr X was unable to request a review of the decision under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996.
54. I acknowledge the Council’s comments regarding Mr X’s case not progressing to a homelessness application. However, a person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department for the duty to consider a homelessness approach to be triggered. As a result, the Council’s explanation that Mr X’s case never progressed to a homelessness application is flawed.
55. Section 184 of the Housing Act 1996 says 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.
56. The evidence shows the Council made inquiries following Mr X’s contact with it. As a result of those inquiries, the Council decided it did not owe any further duty to Mr X.
57. The Council’s letters dated 25 July 2023 and 11 January 2024 are therefore ‘not homeless’ decision letters rather than simply ‘general advice’. This is because the Council made its decision that Mr X was not homeless after it made inquiries about his claims it was not reasonable for him to remain living in his accommodation.
58. The Housing Act 1996 says councils should inform the applicant of their right to request a review of the decision under section 202 of the Act. Whilst I acknowledge the Council’s letter dated 7 July 2023 explained the right to request a review, the letters dated 25 July 2023 and 11 January 2024 did not. This is fault.

Priority band decision

59. Mr X complained about how the Council considered his request to place him in a higher priority band on its housing register. He says he should be in a higher priority band because of his disability.
60. I have reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council’s records. The Council provided its banding decision in writing to Mr X in a letter dated 25 October 2023. The Council’s records indicate it placed Mr X in band four because it considered he was adequately housed but had some support for a move from his mental health team.
61. I acknowledge Mr X says he did not know he could request a review of the banding decision; he says the Council did not tell him this. However, the letter to Mr X dated 25 October 2023 explains the right to request a review of the decision. In addition, the Council’s case notes refer to a call to Mr X on 27 October 2023 in which an officer suggested he may appeal the decision.
62. Both parties confirm Mr X did not appeal the banding decision and I have seen no evidence to show Mr X requested a higher priority, other than in connection with his complaints about the Council’s decision that he is not homeless. The Council provided its banding decision and informed Mr X of his right to request a review. I have seen no evidence the Council is at fault regarding this aspect of the complaint.

The Council’s complaint handling

63. Mr X complained to the Council on 11 January 2024. The Council provided its stage one response on 9 February 2024.
64. Mr X complained again on 16 February 2024, and the Council acknowledged this as a stage two complaint by email on 4 March 2024. The Council provided its stage two response on 18 April 2024.
65. The Council’s complaints policy says it will provide a stage two response within 20 working days. In cases where it is necessary to extend this period, the Council says it will inform the complainant.
66. The Council took more than 20 working days to provide its stage two complaint response. I have seen no evidence it informed Mr X about the delay prior to its response. This is not in line with the Council’s complaints policy. The Council is therefore at fault regarding this matter.
67. Having identified fault, I must consider if this caused a significant injustice to Mr X. Mr X says the Council’s actions negatively impacted his mental and physical health. The injustice to Mr X is also the missed opportunity for him to request a review of the Council’s decisions if he so wished, and the uncertainty regarding how any potential review may have concluded. The delays in the complaint handling also incurred avoidable time and trouble to Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

68. To address the injustice identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:
1. Provide an apology to Mr X for the fault identified. 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;
2. Make a symbolic payment of £250 to Mr X in recognition of the missed opportunity, uncertainty and time and trouble incurred;
3. Remind staff that where the Council makes inquiries about potential homelessness, it must provide an appropriate decision letter advising the service user of their right to request a review of the decision under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996, and
4. Remind staff to adhere to the timescales of the Council’s complaints policy.
69. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

70. I have found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to take the above action to resolve the complaint. I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman