Summary: Ms X complained that the Council did not assess her homelessness properly and placed her in unsuitable accommodation. Ms X also complained about the way the Council handled her housing allocation. We found the Council was at fault. Ms X suffered significant uncertainty due to this fault. It caused delay for Ms X being re-housed. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Ms X. It will also review its internal procedure, and ensure its staff are fully trained.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to respond to her and her child’s homelessness properly. She complained about the lack of interim accommodation offered to her and the suitability of the accommodation she was placed in. She says the Council did not have a suitable process in place for supporting victims of domestic abuse.
2. Ms X also complained about the way the Council approached its allocation of her housing banding. She reported a significant delay in the Council hearing her case at its social welfare panel and the negative impact this had on her finding longer term housing. She says the Council delayed in responding to her request to increase her banding based on her employment and volunteering status and she could have been housed much sooner had the Council acted properly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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. 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

6. I have decided to exercise discretion to investigate parts of this complaint that we would consider are late. This is because the Council wrongly signposted Ms X to the Housing Ombudsman following completing its complaint process. I have also considered the extenuating factors Ms X and her child faced at the time of complaining. This impacted Ms X’s ability to complain to us sooner.
7. Ms X complained about support in place for existing council tenants, who experience domestic abuse.
8. I will not be considering this point because we cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Homelessness

11. 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.
12. 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)
13. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them and anyone who lives with them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
14. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
15. 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)
16. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

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

17. If, having made inquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible, and in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.
18. If a council is satisfied 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. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
19. If a council ends its interim accommodation duty, but then goes on to accept the main housing duty, it still has a duty to provide temporary accommodation.
20. 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)
21. 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 accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
22. Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) 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)
23. There is no right to request a review of suitability of interim accommodation.
24. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider, among other matters:

• the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district;
• the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household; and
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)

Housing allocations

25. 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))
26. 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))

27. Once an applicant is deemed eligible for social housing support, the Council puts housing applicants into a ‘housing band.’ The higher the banding the more chance an applicant has of being offered a property.
28. The Council runs a ‘priority star’ system. This system allows applicants to be prioritised within their banding, according to the number of stars they have. The stars are awarded for 6 different reasons. Two of the stars are awarded when an applicant can demonstrate they are working, and they volunteer.
29. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
30. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

Human rights

31. The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to. This includes the right to life, freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, liberty and security of person, a fair hearing, respect for private and family life, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom from forced labour, and education. The Act requires all local authorities - and other bodies carrying out public functions - to respect and protect individuals’ rights.
32. The Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to making decisions on whether a body in jurisdiction has breached the Human Rights Act – this can only be done by the courts. But the Ombudsman can make decisions about whether a body in jurisdiction has had due regard to an individual’s human rights in her treatment of them, as part of our consideration of a complaint.
33. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 protects an individual’s right to respect for private life, family life, home and correspondence.

What happened

34. Ms X lives with her child, Y. The following is not a list of everything that happened, but a list of information pertinent to the complaint being investigated.
35. In May 2022 Ms X said she had a telephone assessment about her homelessness with the Council. Ms X and her child were living temporarily with family. The Council have no record of this assessment taking place.
36. Ms X said she told the Council, at this appointment, that she and her child were homeless due to domestic abuse.
37. At the end of June children’s services started to work with Ms X and her child.
38. In July a social worker from children’s services wrote to the homelessness team at the Council. She shared concerns about domestic abuse and explained that Ms X and her child needed emergency housing. She told the homelessness team about Y’s health conditions. She said they needed to be accommodated locally to receive medical treatment.
39. In mid-August Ms X completed a homelessness application online. The Council told Ms X she needed to send it ‘evidence to prove her eligibility and priority need.’
40. At the end of August Ms X shared evidence with the Council. She also sent a ‘notice to quit’ to the Council. She told the Council she had to leave her temporary address due to overcrowding.
41. A few days later more evidence was shared by Ms X with the Council.
42. About a week later Ms X’s advocate, a worker from a charity supporting women who have experienced violence, wrote to the Council. The advocate told the Council Ms X needs to make a homeless application as a victim of domestic abuse.
43. The next day, mid-September 2022, a homelessness application was opened for Ms X, by the Council.
44. Ms X told the Council she had a pet animal she wanted to keep. The Council said it could not find accommodation that would take animals. It said this was the reason Ms X was not offered any interim accommodation at this time.
45. Four days later the Council accepted relief duty for Ms X. The Council said it issued Ms X with a personalised housing plan and gave her information about renting. The Council started to make enquiries into Ms X’s homelessness.
46. A few days later the Council received a report from the police. I do not have details of the report, but the police had previously been involved with Ms X because of domestic abuse.
47. Throughout September 2022 the Council said it sent Ms X a list of available properties, as steps to relieve homelessness. It told Ms X that none of the interim accommodation it had available accepted animals.
48. The advocate continued to speak to the Council, on behalf of Ms X.
49. In mid-October 2022 the Council provided Ms X with interim accommodation.
50. Ms X chose to leave the accommodation. She said it was too far from her workplace. The Council said it believed the placement was suitable, as it assumed she did not have a job.
51. At the end of October Ms X’s personalised housing plan was reviewed. Further enquiries were made by the Council into Ms X’s homelessness.
52. A second interim accommodation placement was provided in November 2022.
53. The Council made enquiries specifically about domestic abuse. It recorded that it considered community related measures including civil orders. It also spoke to private landlords to try to find a property suitable for Ms X and her child.
54. From November 2022 – January 2023 Ms X said the central heating at the property was not working.
55. At the start of December 2022, the Council accepted Ms X was homeless. The relief duty ended. It awarded Ms X the main housing duty. Ms X’s personalised housing plan was reviewed. Ms X was awarded priority banding 3.
56. Ms X said she told the Council about the problem with the central heating at the start of December, after trying unsuccessfully to heat the property herself. She said the Council told her someone would attend the home to fix the issue a few days later. No one did. Ms X called the Council again to report this. The Council sent an engineer to the property. The radiators were broken. When Ms X called the Council again, a few days later, she was told the Council offices were due to shut for the holiday period, until January. It offered to send an electric heater to the property. The electric heater did not arrive. Ms X said she sought help from a caretaker in the building in January.
57. At the start of January 2023, with the heating still broken, the Council gave Ms X an email address for the duty placement team. They told her to email it to report the issues with the central heating herself.
58. A few days later a Council worker referred Ms X’s case to the social welfare panel. The social welfare panel is used to decide when a housing applicants banding should be increased due to vulnerabilities and/or extenuating circumstances.
59. With the help of her advocate, in mid-February Ms X made a complaint to the Council. She complained that the Council:
• Did not offer her interim accommodation when she told it she was homeless,
• Placed her in unsuitable interim accommodation,
• Delayed in hearing her case at its social welfare panel, and
• Does not have a proper process in place to support victims of domestic abuse who are Council tenants.
60. In mid - March a housing officer at the Council wrote to the advocate. It asked her to provide it with a copy of the original complaint because it did not have one.
61. At the start of April the Council made a response to Ms X and her advocate, at stage one of its complaint process.
62. In summary, the Council response said:
• It carried out its duty to assess homelessness appropriately. It said the ‘burden to provide the proof’ was with the applicant, not the Council,
• The Council provided shared accommodation as the first option of interim accommodation due to what was available at the time,
• The second interim accommodation placement was considered suitable at the point of placement. It said it considered the distance to Y’s school, but not to Ms X’s workplace, as it assumed she was unemployed. It invited Ms X to share details of her employer. It said it would carry out a medical assessment. It commented on the repair issues as ‘certainly regrettable’ and noted while repaired now ‘it did take some time.’ It offered Ms X an inspection to assess the dust and humidity issues she reported,
• It was unable to find any evidence of Ms X’s case at a social welfare panel. It said it would investigate this,
• It was ‘a champion’ in supporting victims of domestic abuse. It told Ms X about the initiatives and strategic goals it had achieved.
63. The Council upheld only one complaint point. This was the delay in making a decision on Ms X’s case at the social welfare panel.
64. During April and May the advocate contacted the Council to ask for an update, and to follow up on the actions in the complaint response, e.g. medical assessment. The Council did not reply.
65. Mid-May Ms X, with the support of her advocate, escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaint process.
66. Ms X maintained that the complaint raised at stage one was not resolved.
67. The Council acknowledged the stage two complaint. It said the response would be delayed because of an increase in contact from Council residents.
68. A letter was sent from one of Y’s health professionals to the Council. The health professional expressed concerns about the housing conditions.
69. At the end of the month, the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint, at stage two of its complaint process.
70. The Council did not uphold the complaint. It told Ms X the complaint points had been adequately addressed at stage one. It signposted Ms X to the Housing Ombudsman, to escalate her complaint further.
71. At the start of September Ms X sent a change of circumstances form to the Council. She asked for a medical assessment to be carried out for Y.
72. About a week later Ms X also sent evidence to the Council to request priority stars were added to her housing application. She asked for priority stars to recognise her employment status and her volunteer role.
73. The Council tried to carry out a home visit to Ms X about a week after that. It is unclear why, and whether Ms X knew about the proposed visit. The visit did not take place, as Ms X was not at home.
74. Ms X shared evidence with the Council of her volunteer work.
75. In mid-October the Council asked its medical assessment team to make an assessment and determine Ms X’s property requirements based on this. This was four weeks after Ms X sent her online request.
76. A medical assessment was completed towards the end of October. It did not find Ms X and Y had a medical need to move.
77. The Council shared the outcome of the assessment with Ms X at the start of November. It said her housing priority was the same. It advised her about a right to review the decision.
78. A few weeks later Ms X asked the Council for a review of the decision about Y’s medical assessment. She asked for the review to be delayed while she consulted a legal advisor.
79. In January 2024 Ms X made a second formal complaint to the Council. She complained about the confusing communication from the Council about the priority stars. She said she first sent the Council her evidence in September 2023, and she was still waiting for the stars to be added to her application.
80. A few days later the Council contacted Ms X. It told her it could not award her the volunteering star, because the organisation she volunteers for was outside the Council area. She had not been told this before. It also asked her to send her contract of employment to it.
81. Ms X told the Council the place where she volunteers was within the Council area.
82. The day after Ms X sent more evidence in, as the Council asked.
83. The Council told Ms X it could not award her a volunteer star because the volunteer work she carried out was not done with a registered charity. She had not been told this before.
84. About a week later Ms X and her child moved into a different temporary accommodation placement.
85. At the end of January 2024, the Council made its response to Ms X at stage one of its complaint process. It accepted it was at fault. It said it did not properly process her request for the priority stars. It said it should have taken 28 days. The Council decided to award Ms X both the work and volunteering priority stars.
86. In February 2024 Ms X was re-housed.
87. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman a few months later.

My findings

88. The Council said it had no knowledge of Ms X until August 2022. However, Ms X said she spoke to the Council in May 2022, and told it she was homeless. We have no evidence of this conversation. We are therefore unable to make a finding about whether the Council should have acted in May 2022.
89. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided a copy of a letter children’s services wrote to the homelessness team in July 2022. The letter asked for help for Ms X and her child. The letter demonstrated Ms X was homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need. The Council should have acted when it got this letter. It missed an opportunity to make enquiries into Ms X’s homelessness and consider making her an offer of interim accommodation. This was fault by the Council.
90. In August the Council delayed making Ms X an offer of interim accommodation by several weeks. It delayed starting its enquiries into her homelessness. It said it was waiting for her to submit proof of this. Ms X disclosed she was homeless, eligible for assistance, and in priority need.
91. In its first complaint response to Ms X, the Council justified its actions. It described the burden of proof to be on the applicant to provide evidence. This is in stark contrast to what is described in the Homelessness Code of Guidance. As described in chapter 15 of the guidance, the threshold for triggering the Councils duty to offer interim accommodation to an applicant is low. The Council must have ‘reason to believe’ the applicant ‘may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need’. It does not need definitive proof. It should be helping an applicant while proof is sought. The Council’s interpretation of the code of guidance, and subsequently section 188 of the Housing Act, was incorrect. The delay in offering homelessness assistance to Ms X in August was fault by the Council.
92. Chapter 17 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance provides instruction to local authorities about suitability of accommodation for housing applicants. Section 210 of The Housing Act, 1996, provides clear guidance about what a Council must consider when deciding whether accommodation is suitable. This also includes any accommodation provided on an interim basis.
93. Ms X complained about the suitability of the interim accommodation she was placed in. Ms X’s stay in property 1 was brief. She moved into property 2 in November 2022. The Council accepted a main duty for Ms X in December 2022. Therefore, property 2 became temporary accommodation in December 2022.
94. In its complaint response, the Council said, when deciding to place Ms X in the second placement, it had no knowledge of her workplace. It said it considered Y’s school. There was no reference to Y’s medical appointments. I have not reviewed the suitability assessment. I can only comment on what I have reviewed. The Council should, in its assessment of the placement, have asked Ms X about her day-to-day routine, and whether employment was a factor. The Council did not do this. This was fault by the Council. The Council should have responded to Ms X’s concerns about the proximity of the placement to Y’s health appointments. The Council did not do this. This was also fault by the Council.
95. There was a delay of 28 days in the Council accepting main duty for Ms X. This should have taken place within 56 days of the relief duty being awarded. There was no doubt Ms X was homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need. The Council should have acted within the timeframe outlined by the Homelessness Code of Guidance. Its failure to do so was fault.
96. The delay impacted Ms X. The delay in accepting the main duty resulted in Ms X’s right to review her accommodation being delayed. Had the Council accepted the main duty sooner, Ms X would have had the opportunity to ask for a formal review of suitability sooner.
97. The Council made response to my enquiries in a piecemeal fashion. It did not provide everything I asked for. I have been unable to review Council case notes in full. I am unable to determine the Councils actions at the time Ms X said her central heating was not working.
98. I reviewed email communication between Ms X and the Council in January 2023. In January, the Council gave Ms X an email address to report the heating problem. The Council had a duty to ensure the property was suitable for Ms X and her child to live in. Extended periods of time without adequate heating would have caused Ms X and her child significant discomfort, and potentially exasperated Y’s poor health.
99. The Council referred to the delay to fix the heating as ‘regrettable’ in its complaint response. Ms X and her child were vulnerable individuals who had been subject to domestic abuse. Y had several health conditions. In leaving Ms X and her child in accommodation without sufficient heating, the Council failed to have due regard for Ms X’s Article 8 right to private and family life. This was fault by the Council.
100. The housing officer asking the advocate to resubmit her original complaint was unusual practice. It demonstrated a lack of proper record keeping on the Council’s part.
101. In the stage one complaint made in February 2023, Ms X told the Council about the issues with the temporary accommodation. She said it was too far away from the medical centre treating her child. The accommodation had repair issues which she thought were exasperating her child’s poor health. There is no record of the Council carrying out a suitability assessment for Ms X, following it learning about these issues. There is no evidence of the Council making any assessment of suitability of the accommodation. This was fault by the Council.
102. The medical assessment conducted about Y’s health in October 2023 was brief. It did not list all the medical conditions that Ms X asked to be considered. The decision making was unclear. The outcome of the review request on the medical assessment was unclear.
103. In response to my enquiries, the Council have admitted fault in its handling of the medical assessment. The Council said had the medical advisor referred to a different section of the Councils guidance it would likely have made a different decision. Considering the properties Ms X was bidding on; it said this would most probably have resulted in Ms X being re-housed two months sooner than she was.
104. The Council told us it had taken action to address the discrepancies identified in Ms X’s case, to ensure that the medical assessments are carried out in a fair manner. The Council has conducted a review with the medical assessment provider. This action is welcomed.
105. Despite Ms X believing her case would be discussed at the Council’s social welfare panel, over a period of six months, it never was. Her belief came from assurance from the Council in verbal interactions between her advocate and the Council.
106. Without reviewing all Council case records, I am unable to make a definite analysis of the failings about this. The Council have admitted fault, that, on one occasion, a referral was made for Ms X, but without the proper documentation. The Council, instead of acting upon this, took no action. The Council said, in its enquiry response, that the individual making the referral had since left the Council.
107. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether Ms X should have been heard at the panel. It is not for the Ombudsman to decide whether she would have been awarded any additional priority. However, a process should not fail due to one individual staff member. Knowing the referral was not submitted properly, the Council should have acted to make sure it was. It failed to communicate properly with Ms X. The repeated issues with this demonstrated either an issue with the administrative system in place or a communication issue internally at the Council. There was fault in the way the Council communicated with Ms X about the social welfare panel, and systemic flaws in the procedure in place to deliver it.
108. Ms X was given confusing and contradictory information about her priority work, and volunteering stars. Over a period of five months, she tried to obtain the stars. The Council admitted fault in its handling of the priority stars. It said the whole process should have taken 28 days. The Council has awarded the two stars Ms X applied for.
109. The tone of complaint response made to Ms X in April 2023 was inflammatory and insincere. It referred to matters that Ms X had failed to address, e.g. providing proof of homelessness. It used language that was inappropriate. Failing to fix central heating in winter, for a vulnerable applicant and her child, should not be referred to as ‘regrettable.’ The complaint response failed to apologise to Ms X or offer any meaningful remedy. There was also a delay in making the response. Ms X complained in February, the response was made in April. Where delay occurred, the Council referred to an increase in contact from Council residents.
110. In a stage two complaint response received by Ms X in June 2023, the Council referred Ms X to the Housing Ombudsman. While some of the complaint points may have been relevant to the Housing Ombudsman, the Council failed to signpost Ms X to us. This caused extra delay and confusion for Ms X. The Council said it has since changed how stage two complaint responses are processed. It now makes sure a senior member of staff signs off on the responses. This, it said, should make sure this error does not happen again. This action is welcomed.

Back to top

Action

111. To remedy the injustice caused to Ms X, from fault by the Council, within four weeks of receiving a final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on Making an Effective Apology. 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,
• Make a symbolic payment to Ms X of £1,000 to recognise the uncertainty caused by how the Council handled Ms X’s homelessness. This acknowledges failure to make enquiries into her homelessness in a timely manner, uncertainty about the suitability of the accommodation, failure to conduct a suitability review to determine this and delay in accepting the relief duty,
• Make a symbolic payment to Ms X of £400 to recognise the two-month delay in securing her property, as admitted by the Council,
• Make a symbolic payment to Ms X of £100 to recognise the distress she experienced due to the Council’s poor administration of the social welfare panel and the priority star system, and
• Make a symbolic payment to Ms X of £100 to recognise the poor complaint handling.

Within twelve weeks of receiving final decision, the Council will:

• Share this decision with the relevant housing and homelessness teams involved in Ms X’s case,
• Ensure homelessness legislation is properly understood by front line staff delivering homelessness services,
• Conduct a review of the administrative process in place to deliver the social welfare panel, and the subsequent way in which applicants are informed about their hearings, and
• Conduct a review of the administrative process in place to assess and determine awarding the priority stars to applicants.

112. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

113. I find fault causing injustice. I have recommended actions to remedy the injustice caused by fault of the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman