Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (24 006 596)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council dealt with her housing situation when her family became homeless. The Council found that it had taken too long to assess her situation and deal with a review, but it failed to remedy the impact of this when Miss X complained to it. The Council caused Miss X distress and uncertainty and this affected her particularly because the failings spanned a long time and the Council was aware of Miss X’s disabilities and mental illness. The Council will apologise to Miss X and make some symbolic payments to recognise the impact on her. It will also backdate her housing priority to take account of the impact of its delays, and update the Ombudsman on its service improvements.
The complaint
- Miss X complains about how the Council dealt with her housing situation when she and her family were made homeless. The Council took too long to assess her situation; it was not clear what it was doing; it asked for information repeatedly; it did not give her the correct priority on the housing register; an officer was dismissive about her mental health; and it did not deal with her complaints properly.
- Miss X says that the Council’s failings caused her distress and uncertainty. It caused her mental and physical health to deteriorate. Her son could not live with her in the accommodation the Council provided due to problems in the neighbourhood and he had to live elsewhere.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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)
- 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)
What I have and have not investigated
- 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)
- Miss X complained to the Ombudsman in July 2024. The events she complains about date back to October 2022, but there are good reasons she did not complain to us sooner. Miss X has significant mental illness which has meant she was hospitalised. The Council has accepted that it took too long to complete a review of her accommodation and to deal with her complaint, and this delayed Miss X coming to the Ombudsman. For this reason, I have investigated the Council’s actions and decisions from October 2022 until October 2024 when it responded to Miss X’s complaint.
How I considered this complaint
- I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
- Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
What I found
The law and guidance
Homelessness
- 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.
- Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent 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)
- 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)
- Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B). This is called the relief duty.
- If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available. This is called the main housing duty.
- If a council finds a person in intentionally homeless, it has a lesser duty when the relief duty ends. The council then only has a duty to secure accommodation to allow the applicant to find their own accommodation.
- Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of various decisions including:
- their eligibility for assistance;
- what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
- giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end;
- Councils have eight weeks to complete a review of the above the decisions. These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing. The Code of Guidance recommends that where a council decides a review in favour of the applicant it should consider the impact of the failure across the whole of the duty in question.
Housing allocations
- 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))
- The Council is a partner in a local choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which are advertised. Its housing allocations policy sets out how it will decide applicants’ priority for housing. Band A is the highest priority and includes those applicants to whom the Council owes the main housing duty.
What happened
- Miss X has long-term disabilities and mental illness that mean she needs support to manage her affairs. She lived in a housing association property with her adult son and daughter, and had fallen into rent arrears. The housing association got a court order for possession but this was suspended provided that Miss X kept up with ongoing rent payments and also made a payment towards the arrears for an agreed amount. At that time, Miss X’s mother was her carer. Her mother made sure the payments were kept up to date.
- Sadly, Miss X’s mother died. This had a significant impact on Miss X’s mental and physical health and also meant the rent payments stopped. Miss X was hospitalised. She contacted the housing association when she came out of hospital, but it had already obtained a bailiff warrant and bailiffs had visited the property.
- In October 2022, Miss X asked the Council to help with housing her and her adult son and daughter. The Council approved Miss X for interim accommodation and accepted it owed her a relief duty. It said it would assess her situation but warned that it may find her intentionally homeless as she had failed to pay her rent.
- The Council got information from the housing association about why it had evicted her despite her hospital stays and long-term illnesses. It also received more information from Miss X about this. The Council advised Miss X to look in the private rented sector while it completed her assessment. It asked her for various documents. The housing association said it would not rehouse Miss X.
- In mid-December, the Council told Miss X that its relief duty would soon end and it still needed some documents from her. Miss X asked the Council to make reasonable adjustments given her disabilities. The Council extended the relief duty as it still needed to assess whether Miss X was intentionally homeless. The Council again asked Miss X for more detail about what had happened. Miss X reiterated that she had asked the housing association for help but she had been very ill in hospital twice in the months before her eviction. Miss X said she had already given the Council all the information she could and her health was deteriorating.
- The Council referred Miss X for a medical assessment to look at her housing needs. It told Miss X that it could lend her the money she would need for a private rented property without charging interest. It also again asked her to complete an income and expenditure form so it could assess what would be affordable to her and also how the rent arrears may have accrued. Towards the end of December 2022, Miss X again gave more information about how she came to be evicted.
- A case note on the Council’s file dated mid-February 2023 says it will decide that Miss X is intentionally homeless.
- In May 2023 the Council told Miss X to apply to the housing register.
- In September 2023, the Council asked Miss X for information about her hospital discharge prior to being evicted. Miss X gave the Council details of the clinics that treated her, but said she has no documents and cannot keep going over the same information. She said that she had emailed the Council but had not heard back in recent months. By this time, Miss X was still in the interim accommodation but her son had gone to live elsewhere as they were worried the local area was unsafe. Her adult daughter still lived with her as her carer.
- In mid-September, 338 days after it had accepted the relief duty, the Council decided that Miss X had made herself intentionally homeless. It gave her a month’s notice to leave the interim accommodation.
- The next day, Miss X complained to the Council and asked it to review its decision. She said the Council had not taken into account her poor health and that she had tried to liaise with the housing association before she was evicted. Miss X was admitted to hospital in mid-October.
- By this time, Miss X had a health professional advocating for her. The Council explained to the advocate that Miss X did not have severe mental health issues that would have affected her ability to manage her tenancy. It said that any treatment she was having had no bearing on her decision to not pay her rent. The Council explained its decision she was intentionally homeless stood.
- However, toward the end of November 2023, the Council decided it would complete an ‘out of time’ review of its decision that Miss X was intentionally homeless. Also at that time, Miss X’s son made a homeless application in his own right.
- In January 2024, the Council collected information from health professionals, Miss X and the Housing Association so that it could complete its review. It met with Miss X to discuss her complaint and agreed it would complete the review first and then deal with the complaint.
- Miss X’s health by this time was very fragile. She told the Council that she was too ill to submit all the financial information the Council asked for. At the end of January, the Council told Miss X that it was minded to alter its decision and find that she was not intentionally homeless provided that her bank statements do not indicate anything to the contrary.
- Miss X’s daughter submitted her bank statements and tried to answer the Council’s questions about them on her mother's behalf. In March and April, Miss X chased the Council for the outcome of the review. On 9 April the Council decided that Miss X had not been intentionally homeless. The Council said it would place Miss X in Band A on its housing wating list with effect from March 2024. By this time, Miss X’s daughter (Also her carer) was expecting a baby. The Council suggested that the family form two households: one being Miss X and her adult son, and the other being Miss X’s pregnant daughter.
- The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint at the beginning of August 2024. It apologised for the significant delay in responding but pointed out that it had to wait until it had completed the review. The Council said:
- It was sorry that she had found some officers to be dismissive. It said that officers must apply the Public Sector Equality Duty.
- It had now overturned its decision and found she was not intentionally homeless.
- It had taken 11 months to assess her homelessness application, and this was too long. The Council said that although it is for Miss X to provide the evidence to support the application, its requests for information had been sporadic and it had not done enough to get this for itself.
- It had wrongly said she had a priority need because she had a dependent child, when her son and daughter were both adults. The Council had since decided that Miss X has a priority need because she is vulnerable due to her disability and ill health.
- The Council is committed to training its officers on the expected standards when dealing with members of the public with mental illness.
- Although Miss X has said that the first interim accommodation she had was not suitable for her, the Council had no record of her telling the Council this at the time.
- The Council should have agreed the Personalised Housing Plan with Miss X.
- The Council acknowledged that it its shortcomings had caused her significant distress.
- Miss X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two of its process. She said that although the Council had acknowledged that it had not handled her case properly, it did not offer her a resolution.
- Also in August, the Council confirmed that she was in Band B on its housing register. Miss X asked the Council to correct this as she should be in Band A. I can see that internally a council officer continued to ask the housing team to correct the band and also asked whether Miss X had missed out on any available properties as a result. The Council did not correct the band until 9 October 2024. It said that as the waiting time for a three-bedroom property is usually around three years, it is unlikely that the delay meant Miss X had missed out on a property.
- At the beginning of October, the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint at stage two of its process.
- The Council again apologised for taking too long to assess her homelessness application and for completing the review.
- It had not rectified her housing register priority and has placed her in Band A with effect from the end of March when it had decided that she was not intentionally homeless and that it owed her the main housing duty.
- The Council will contact her to discuss her temporary accommodation. But she is likely to wait significant time to be rehoused. It reminded Miss X that she still had rent arrears and she should try to clear these.
- The Council will commit to provide officers ongoing training and development to develop their learning.
Analysis
- The Council has found that it:
- took too long to assess Miss X’s housing application and to reach its initial decision that she was intentionally homeless (11 months from deciding it owed her a relief duty).
- took too long to complete the review of its decision that she was intentionally homeless (19 weeks rather than the legal limit of 8 weeks).
- Did not share the personalised housing plan with her.
- I have found some additional fault.
- The Council decided on 9 April to accept it owed Miss X that main housing duty and to award her Band A priority. However, it did not change her priority to Band A for around 5 months.
- The Council failed to show how it considered the impact of the upheld review of its decision that she was intentionally homeless. The Code of Guidance recommends that where a council finds in the applicants favour it should consider the impact of the of the failure across the whole of that duty (here the relief duty).
- The Council accepted the main housing duty, and as a result awarded Miss X Band A priority. However, it only awarded the new priority from the date of its review decision. The Council should have considered backdating this to at least the date of the review request, especially as the Council took too long to complete that review.
- Indeed, given that the Council took far too long to reach its initial decision that Miss X was intentionally homeless, it should have considered backdating the Band A priority to the date on which it should have accepted the main housing duty, that is 21 December 2022. This is because had the Council acted without fault, it would have reached its first decision that Miss X was intentionally homeless on or before that date. This would have given Miss X her right to review, that would ultimately have been successful.
- Miss X complained at both stage one and two, that an officer made a flippant, distressing, and unprofessional remark when she reported her suicidal feelings. The Council did not address this in either complaint response. There is no evidence of the officer saying this, and although I have no reason to disbelieve Miss X, it is not possible to say on balance whether the officer said this to Miss X.
- The Council acknowledged that it took too long to deal with her stage one complaint. There was no fault when the Council agreed to complete the review before it responded to Miss X’s stage two complaint. But it took too long to deal with the stage two complaint following the review decision.
- The Council upheld the various shortcomings. However it did not properly take into account the impact of these on her. The Council also recommended that it would provide training and development, but it was not specific enough on what that training would achieve so that Miss X could be sure that it resolved her complaint to it.
- Overall, the Council’s shortcomings caused Miss X distress and uncertainty. This is particularly so because the failings spanned a long period and the Council was aware of Miss X’s disabilities and mental illness. The poor complaint handling put her to time and trouble chasing the Council for a response and in pursuing the issues. I acknowledge that Miss X was housed in interim accommodation throughout and also that her rent arrears may have impacted on her chances of being rehoused. However, on balance, had the Council acted without fault it would have accepted the main housing duty and awarded Miss X Band A priority much sooner, and most likely from as early as 21 December 2022.
- As part of an earlier complaint, the Council agreed to provide the Ombudsman with an update on the steps it has taken to resolve its staffing issues and recruitment in its Housing Team. This is to ensure it can progress homeless applications. The Council told us at the time of that investigation that it had attempted to recruit staff but was unsuccessful.
Action
- The Council will within one month of the date of this decision:
- Apologise to Miss X. 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.
- Pay to Miss X a symbolic payment of £600 in respect of the uncertainty and distress it caused her.
- Pay to Miss X a symbolic payment of £150 in respect of the time and trouble it put her to when it failed to handle her complaint properly.
- Backdate Miss X’s Band A priority to 21 December 2022.
- Check whether Miss X would have been eligible for any suitable properties had the Council assessed the application and completed the review in good time and report its findings to Miss X and the Ombudsman. If the Council finds that Miss X has missed out on a property in that time, the Council should directly offer Miss X the next suitable property that becomes available within Miss X’s preferred areas.
- Update the Ombudsman on its recruitment to the housing team and other steps it is taking to ensure that homelessness applications are processed on time.
- Share this decision with the relevant staff, and remind staff that it should consider the impact of certain decisions when these are overturned on review, in line with the Code of Guidance.
- The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Decision
- I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman