Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her housing application and failed to respond to her contacts appropriately. We found there was no fault in communication with Miss X, but the Council could not evidence that it had properly considered changes of circumstances Miss X raised with the Council and medical evidence she submitted. We recommended an apology, corrective action and a review of some of the Council’s procedures.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that the Council:
1. failed to properly respond to her homelessness and housing applications since 2022 and failed to act on mould and pest issues at temporary accommodation she had up until late 2023.
2. failed to respond to contacts made to a housing officer and to the housing allocations team and she had to resend evidence to the Council when an officer left.
3. failed to take proper account of her disability while she was in temporary accommodation (TA) and in respect of her priority and eligibility for housing and she was subjected to disability discrimination.
4. victimised and bullied her due to her making previous complaints.
2. She says the felt bullied dehumanised, stressed and hopeless because of the actions of the Council.

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

What I have and have not investigated

5. We will not investigate part a of the complaint; events prior to October 2023. This means we will not consider the way the Council dealt with Miss X’s homelessness application as the Council accepted a duty to house her in July 2023. We will also not consider the issues Miss X raised about the first temporary accommodation she had. This is because we expect someone to bring a complaint to us within 12 months of being aware of the issues the complaint concerns. We will be investigating the issues raised in Miss X’s complaint from October 2023 to October 2024 when the complaint was raised with us. We are also considering if appropriate review rights were made known to Miss X.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have considered the comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Eastbourne Council Housing Allocation Policy

8. The Council’s housing allocation policy explains the way it will prioritise applications for housing. It sets out a banding system and the criteria for each band. At the time of Miss X’s complaint the Council’s Housing Allocation policy stated:

Band A* - emergency/urgent priority

9. This included (amongst other things) applicants with ‘exceptionally high medical priority’. This is expressed as entitlement to highest components of DLA or enhanced PIP. It also includes applicants receiving Attendance Allowance (medical evidence dependent). The policy stated each case was decided on its own merit and the criteria would not dictate automatic Band A acceptance. It also included applicants who had exceptional need of housing where discretion should be exercised to grant Band A.
10. The policy stated housing needs staff would assess how and why the applicant’s specific medical circumstances affected the type of property they could live in and would consider evidence presented.

Band A - very high priority

11. This includes (amongst other things) applicants who need to move on medical or welfare grounds. Medical or welfare priority is awarded when the applicant’s current housing is adversely affecting the health or wellbeing of the applicant and a move is necessary to improve their health or wellbeing. It also states Band A may be awarded if someone requires specifically adapted accommodation which they are lacking.

Band B – high priority

12. This includes applicants who have medium medical priority (who have a lower DLA, PIP or AA entitlement) and have relevant evidence of an urgent need to move (e.g. from an OT or other medical professional).

Direct Allocations

13. The Council’s policy states that it reserves the right to directly allocate a property to an individual in certain specified circumstances or where the Council considers there are exceptional reasons to do so.
14. The policy states that where an applicant refuses a reasonable direct offer of housing, they may be removed from the housing register or have their priority banding reduced. For homeless applicants, a refusal to accept a reasonable offer would also result in the Council discharging its duty to house them.

What Happened

Background

15. In Summer 2023 the Council accepted a main housing duty to Miss X and awarded her Band B housing priority with an effective date of 12 May 2023.

Events of Miss X’s complaint

16. The Council placed Miss X in Temporary Accommodation (TA) in November 2023. It sent a letter to confirm this. The letter explained that Miss X could request a review of its suitability within 21 days and explained how to do this. I understand no review request was made at that time and Miss X had indicated she thought it would be suitable.
17. The Council did a suitability check on the property in January 2024. It determined the flat met what was required for Miss X and considered it was suitable.
18. Between April and July 2024 Miss X says she made repeated attempts to contact a particular officer in the Temporary Accommodation Team with queries and concerns about her housing application and her TA. She says she received no response. The Council’s case notes evidence several calls made by Miss X to chase up a response.
19. In May 2024 an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessed Miss X to determine what housing would be suitable for her. The OT assessment noted Miss X’s medical conditions and difficulties mobilising. It noted Miss X was unable to fully use the bathroom facilities in her TA and was presently strip washing. The OT recommended:
• a property with a maximum of four shallow steps at the entrance.
• level accommodation or with lift access (provided it is fully transparent).
• a level access shower, specialist toilet and other mobility aids.
20. The OT report noted Miss X’s view that she could not live in a flat. This was because she was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which is triggered if she hears other people arguing.
21. Miss X told us she was unhappy that she was not offered a house that she wished to be considered for in early 2024. She stated it had a stair-lift fitted. The Council explained that various features in the house made it unsuitable and unsafe for Miss X because she suffered from vertigo. The Council explained the house was not suitable for adaptations.
22. In a complaint to the Council in July 2024, Miss X stated she had left many messages with her case officer and she had been ignored. She stated she had also left messages with other staff and not had responses. Miss X stated the TA she was placed in was not suitable. She stated she struggled to maintain hygiene as she could not fully use the bath or shower. She noted she was due to have surgery within a few months. She also stated the noise from people above her triggered her PTSD and affected her mental health and her sleep.
23. At the end of July the Council responded. It stated the particular officer Miss X was contacting had been away from the office for three months. During that time, her out of office message directed people to contact other staff in the team. The Council did not say if other staff had got back to Miss X when she made contact with them. The Council told Miss X that housing applications and reviews were taking 8-12 weeks to deal with due to staffing levels. It stated the OT recommendations had been received and were being considered.
24. The Council noted Miss X considered her TA unsuitable. It stated the Emergency Accommodation team considered it was suitable for her needs. It stated the landlord would be contacted regarding some minor repairs issues.
25. Miss X asked to escalate her complaint on 5 August 2024 and she provided further details of the difficulties she had. She sought higher priority for bidding on new properties as a result. She explained she still considered her TA was unsuitable. She stated since March she had not received one call or email back when she contacted the Council.
26. The Council’s final response repeated its position, stating it understood Miss X’s needs via the OT assessment report and it understood her preference was not for a flat within a block. It stated staff were attempting to accommodate this. The Council noted that because of the shortage of housing, they could not say when a suitable vacancy would arise.
27. In response to our enquiries the Council told us it did not conduct a review of Miss X’s housing priority when Miss X expressed concern about the TA’s suitability as part of her complaint. It stated this was because no new substantial medical evidence was submitted to the Council for a potential review to be initiated.
28. In Autumn 2024, the Council nominated Miss X for a two-bedroom, ground floor accessible flat in a new development of council homes (Property A). As this was a flat, Miss X did not agree it was suitable. Her view was that a flat would be triggering for her due to domestic violence she suffered in the past and the feeling that she could not escape.
29. The Council provided records of several discussions that officers had with Miss X about the nomination for Property A in late September and the start of October 2024. The officers explained in detail that they considered the offer of housing to be reasonable. They recognised Miss X wanted to hold on and seek a house, and that she said she would crawl up the stairs if needed. The officers explained that because of the OT recommendations for level accommodation, placing her in a property with stairs would pose risks which the Council could not allow. They noted that successfully bidding on a house this may take years. They also noted a GP letter the Council received in late 2023 requested that Miss X be considered for accommodation without stairs.
30. In addition, the officers addressed Miss X’s comments about PTSD and Domestic Violence she suffered in the past. They stated Miss X had provided no medical evidence that a flat would not be suitable.
31. On 8 October, following the conversations Miss X had with the Council about the nomination of a property, Miss X provided the Council with a letter from her GP which confirmed she suffered with PTSD. The letter stated Miss X had a confirmed history of PTSD related to domestic violence that she had suffered more than once, while living in flats, particularly on high floors. The GP stated Miss X was finding a flat had a negative effect on her mental health and had triggered her PTSD. The GP also set out other medical conditions that would impact her physical as well as mental wellbeing.
32. On 11 October the Council formally offered Property A to Miss X. It explained that if Miss X refused the offer, the Council would discharge its duty to house her. It explained Miss X had the right to request a review.
33. Ultimately, Miss X was unable to view Property A for health reasons. As a result, the Council agreed with withdraw the offer (rather than consider this a refusal by Miss X). This meant that she would not be penalised for refusing it, and the Council could proceed to make a further final offer of accommodation.
34. Miss X remains on the housing register with Band B priority.

Was there fault buy the Council

Miss X’s original banding decision

35. The Housing Act, Section 166A(9) states that applicants have review rights to challenge decisions taken about the facts of their case. Section 166(1A) of the Act requires councils to advise them of their review rights. The Council sent a standard letter to Miss X explaining it’s original decision to grant Band B priority. This did not explain that a review of this decision could be requested. This was fault.

Suitability of Miss X’s TA

36. I recognise Miss X did not seek a review of the suitability of her TA within 21 days of when she first moved to it in November 2023. It is clear the Council made it known that she had that right at that time. However, paragraph 17.8 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance states that housing authorities have a continuing obligation to keep the suitability of accommodation under review, and to respond to any relevant change in circumstances which may affect suitability. Miss X explained that she could not use the bath or shower at the property, which the OT assessment in May 2024 confirmed. As part of her complaint she explained she was concerned about the continuing suitability of the TA because she soon had to attend hospital to have surgery. I would have expected the Council to review the suitability of her TA as a result of this. If it thought it remained suitable despite her concerns it should have told her its decision in writing, explaining she had a right of review of their decision. I found the Council’s failure to review the situation and write to Miss X was fault.
37. Miss X is left with some uncertainty about whether, had a review been considered, the Council may have found it appropriate to seek alternative TA for her, and in any event, she has not had the benefit of a review of suitability taking place.

Consideration of Medical Information Miss X provided

38. There is evidence the Council’s OT had assessed Miss X’s needs in May 2024 to decide what properties the OT would be suitable for her. However, there was a delay in the Council considering it and reaching its decision. In July 2024 the Council’s complaint response indicated it had not been considered yet, and explained there were delays due to staffing issues. The delay in reaching decisions in her case represents fault.
39. We asked what medical information the Council had received from Miss X to support her application between October 2023 and October 2024 and we asked for evidence showing how it had assessed it and reached its decisions. The Council summarised the medical information it had received from Mrs X and sent us copies of it, but despite us asking repeatedly, the Council did not provide evidence of its assessment both in terms of Miss X’s banding and the suitability of her TA. The Council repeatedly asserted that it had assessed medical evidence, and that it had done this in line with its policy, but it provided no evidence to show what it made of the information presented to it or how it reached its decisions. The lack of a suitable records of its decision making represents fault. It creates doubt about whether the Council reached its decisions properly.

Properties offered to Miss X

40. Miss X raised concerns that a house she was offered was later found unsuitable. It is clear from the OT Housing Needs Assessment from May 2024 that the Council’s OT considered the type of housing suitable for Miss X should be level accommodation (or lift access subject to specific limitations). The property had a stair lift, but when assessing this particular property (in March 2024, I understand) the Council considered this was unsafe because of Miss X’s health conditions. The OT assessment of Miss X’s needs that I have seen, evidences that this property did not meet her needs and would not have been safe for her. There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to pursue it for her.
41. Miss X also complained that it was inappropriate for the Council to nominate and then offer her Property A in October 2024. This was on the basis it was a flat and she stated she had PTSD relating to flats. When the Council nominated Miss X for the flat it had not received any evidence to support Miss X’s concerns about PTSD so there was no fault in the Council proposing Property A. She did provide this shortly before the formal offer. Miss X could have sought a review of the suitability of the property to challenge the Council’s decision, but this was unnecessary as the Council withdrew the offer. So, in any event, because the offer was withdrawn, the Council offering Miss X Property A caused no detriment to Miss X.
42. As we have stated above, the Council has not been clear how it assessed medical evidence it received. This includes the GP letter Miss X provided to evidence her PTSD. The Council has not indicated that it went on to review the letter to make a decision about whether it changed the type of property it considered suitable for Miss X.

Communication

43. In response to Miss X’s complaint that her contacts were ignored, the Council provided a summary of her contacts and responses it had provided. This indicates that overall, there was fairly significant contact and correspondence with Miss X during the period we are investigating. However, Miss X referred to having no responses to queries she was making from March 2024. The chronology of contacts from the council shows only one contact from Miss X. At around this time (in April 2024), Miss X’s case officer had changed. There is evidence Miss X was chasing responses to queries. The change of case officer had not been made clear to Miss X, and it is possible that contacts from Miss X were not responded to. However, on balance, I do not consider there was a significant failure to communicate with Miss X appropriately.
44. We have not seen evidence of bullying or unreasonable behaviour towards Miss X.

Back to top

Action

45. Within four weeks of our final decision the Council should:
46. Apologise in writing to Miss X for the fault we have identified. The apology should adhere to our guidance on making effective apologies. This can be found on our website, within our Guidance on Remedy here.
47. Review the Council’s standard letter explaining banding decisions and redraft this as appropriate to include reference to review rights that exist.
48. Carry out a review of the medical information the Council has received on Miss X’s case since October 2023. It should review Miss X’s priority band and the properties the Council considers are suitable for her needs. It should document this review clearly on its files and it should write and advise Miss X of the outcome setting out her rights of review. If it decides any greater priority should have been provided, the Council should determine when this decision should have been made and review if Miss X has lost out on properties as a result of this. It should then, if appropriate, provide further remedy for this based on Section 7 of our guidance on remedy.
49. Review its procedures for assessing medical evidence on housing applications and how it records its decisions on its records. The Council should also issue a briefing note to relevant staff to ensure they are clear that appropriate records of such assessments must be made on its records.
50. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

51. I find fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman