Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council had handled his housing case, including failing to offer him suitable long-term accommodation, properly consider the medical needs of the household, Mr B’s caring responsibilities or serious health risks facing the family and failed to properly consider his complaint about these matters. We cannot investigate matters relating to Mr B’s appeal to the County Court and we have not found fault with the remaining issues.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that the London Borough of Barnet (the Council) had mishandled his housing case since April 2023, leaving his household in unsafe, and overcrowded housing. He says it has failed to make an offer of suitable long-term housing, or to consider the medical needs of the household, the serious health risks to household members or the caring responsibilities of Mr B, contrary to homelessness law, the Equality Act 2010, the Children Act 1989, the Care Act 2014, and the Council’s Public Sector Equality Duty. Mr B says the Council has also delayed in responding to his complaints and failed to respond to all the issues he has raised.
2. He says these failings have caused him and his family significant distress and uncertainty living under the threat of eviction in overcrowded accommodation.
3. Mr B also complained about the Council’s handling of his personal data, which caused him distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

6. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
7. 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

8. We previously considered a complaint from Mr B about events from 2023. I have investigated events from April 2024.
9. Mr B submitted an appeal to the County Court against the Council’s review decision, dated 1 April 2025, upholding its decision to end the main housing duty towards Mr B as he had refused a suitable offer of accommodation in January 2025. I am not able to investigate any of the matters which will be considered by the court.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Mr B 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

The main housing duty

12. 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 (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Suitability of accommodation

13. 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)
14. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) 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)
15. 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)

Review rights

16. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the of a decision about the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

The Council’s housing allocations scheme (October 2023)

17. This scheme describes the criteria and procedure the Council uses to prioritise housing applicants for social housing. The Council allocates priority according to a banding system where Band 1 is the highest priority and Band 4 is the lowest.
18. Band 1 is for people with a very urgent need to move; for example applicants who have a sudden or severe progressive life-threatening condition or disability, or who are experiencing exceptional circumstances such as a fire, flood or other disaster and applicants who are statutorily overcrowded (in accordance section 325 and 326 of the Housing Act 1996) or who lack three bedrooms.
19. Band 2 is for people with a need to move, including homeless households who are owed the main housing duty, applicants who lack two bedrooms and applicants with long term severe health needs made worse by their current housing.

What happened

Background events

20. Mr B is living in private rented accommodation with his partner, two children and two other relatives. His landlord has given him notice to leave the property. He approached the Council as homeless, and it accepted the main housing duty towards him. His current accommodation lacks two bedrooms, and the family have medical needs. The medical recommendations do not require the family to stay within the borough of Barnet.
21. The Council also awarded him Band 2 priority on the Housing Register to enable him to bid for permanent accommodation. Mr B had asked for a review of this decision in October 2023. The Council upheld its decision that Mr B was eligible for Band 2 priority and did not qualify for Band 1 priority.

April/May 2024 – first offer of accommodation

22. In April 2024, the Council while responding to an earlier complaint explained that the household was not statutorily overcrowded (sections 325 and 326 of the Housing Act 1996), and was not eligible for Band 1 priority as they did not lack three bedrooms.
23. Also in April 2024, the Council made Mr B an offer of long-term temporary accommodation outside the borough. Mr B did not accept the offer, following which the Council ended its main housing duty on 2 May 2024. Mr B asked for a review of the decision. He said he had sent further evidence in late April that had not been considered.
24. On 14 May 2024, the Council responded to the review request. It said Mr B had not sent the additional evidence directly to the housing officer, which meant they had not seen it when making their decision on 2 May. As a goodwill gesture, it withdrew that decision and reinstated the main housing duty. It made clear it had not withdrawn the offer of accommodation, which it considered was suitable. It rather withdrew its decision to end the main duty because the accommodation was no longer available.

June – September 2024

25. In early June 2024 the Council considered Mr B for three properties. The first was too small and the floor level unsuitable for the medical needs. The second property was unsuitable due to the distance from a family member’s employment and no ground floor bedroom to meet the medical needs of the household. The third was not suitable as there was no walk-in shower. In July 2024 the Council considered the household for another property but it was considered unsuitable due to the lack of access to public transport. Another property was considered in August 2024 but again did not meet the medical needs of the family. The Council considered two more properties in September 2024, but they were too far from either the household’s support network or place of employment.

October 2024 - Formal complaint

26. Mr B made a formal complaint on 3 October 2024 about the delay in providing him with suitable accommodation, the lack of communication from the Council since July 2024 and the incorrect banding assessment. He requested senior managers become involved in his case given its seriousness.
27. The Council responded on 17 October 2024. It explained the shortages of accommodation, particularly social housing and larger properties, and the difficulties in providing housing within the borough. It said the Council could meet its housing duty by offering accommodation outside of Barnet and Mr B could request a review if he disagreed it was suitable. It explained that as he was in Band 2, applicants in Band 1 would take priority for accommodation. It explained he had the option of seeking private rented accommodation himself and the Council could offer some financial assistance to secure a property. It also said he could consider splitting the household, as there was more chance of securing smaller properties more quickly.
28. It said it would continue to look for suitable accommodation. It said it had considered several properties between June and September 2024, but these were too small or did not meet the household’s medical requirements or were too far from the household’s employment and support networks.
29. The Council again explained that he was not statutorily overcrowded, and this had been explained to him in 2023. It also confirmed it had reviewed the medical evidence and referred it to the medical advisers, but it still considered Band 2 was the correct priority. It said the medical evidence had been considered previously by medical advisers and nothing had changed. It provided a link for him to request a carer’s assessment. It did not uphold any aspect of the complaint.
30. Mr B escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure. The Council acknowledged the complaint and said it would respond by 20 November 2024.
31. In the meantime, Mr B sent in further medical and other evidence. The Council wrote to Mr B on 13 November 2024, explaining that it had referred the evidence to the medical assessment team to see if this altered Mr B’s banding or medical recommendations. It also responded to his query about the number of available four-bedroom properties in the borough, explaining that the wait for these as permanent accommodation was very long, hence its advice to seek private rented accommodation with financial assistance from the Council.
32. The Council went on to explain how it had met its duties under the Children’s Act 2004 and the Public Sector Equality Duty, arising from the Equalities Act 2010. It explained that it had considered reasonable preference categories in awarding Mr B Band 2 priority under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 and was following its homelessness duties under Part 7 of that Act. It said it considered his current accommodation was suitable as a temporary measure pending him securing longer-term accommodation, but it continued to look for more suitable longer-term accommodation.
33. The Council again suggested measures it could help with, to aid one family member moving back to their previous accommodation which would reduce the household need to a three-bedroom property. It did not consider it was appropriate for the Chief Executive to get involved in the complaint and did not consider a meeting with them would facilitate a different outcome.
34. The Council sent a very detailed 17-page letter on 20 November 2024 responding to Mr B’s stage two complaint and covering much of the ground already set out above. It included responses to Mr B’s allegation that the Council had failed to adhere to its obligations under:
• The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017
• The Housing Act 1996, Part 7
• Its allocations policy
• The Human Rights Act 1998
• The Care Act 2014
35. It also clarified that it had forwarded to the medical adviser every piece of medical evidence Mr B had submitted. The medical adviser had not considered nay of the evidence provided grounds to warrant an award of Band 1 priority.

January 2025 – second offer of accommodation

36. On 8 January 2025, the Council offered Mr B long term temporary accommodation out of the borough. The offer letter explained why the Council considered it was suitable: it was big enough for the household’s needs, it was affordable, within a reasonable distance of family, friends, support networks, medical facilities, employment, schools, nurseries and church. The letter explained that if he refused the property, the Council would not have a duty to find him accommodation unless he successfully challenged the decision. It said he could also request a review of the suitability of the property and could still do that if he accepted and moved into the property. The Council gave Mr B until 13 January to accept or refuse the offer. It also telephoned him on 8 January 2025 to advise him that it had made an offer and sent an email and pictures of the property on 10 January 2025.
37. The Council telephoned Mr B twice on 9 January 2025, twice on 13 January and once on 14 January, but did not speak to him and was unable to leave a message. It extended the deadline to respond to 15 January 2025.
38. Mr B responded by email on 14 January 2025. He said he had only received the offer letter that day and needed more time to consider the offer. He also gave detailed reasons why the household needed to stay in Barnet.
39. The Council responded on 15 January 2025, saying that the agents had given Mr B several opportunities to view the property, but Mr B would not accept them until he received a response from the Council to his suitability concerns. It extended the deadline to accept or refuse the property until 20 January 2025 and confirmed an opportunity to view on 17 January. It responded to the suitability concerns in the email.
40. The Council acknowledged that Mr B had requested a suitability review but advised him to submit it formally.
41. It offered him a further day to view the property and extended the deadline to 21 January 2025. Mr B said he could not attend the viewing due to his caring and other commitments and requested another date. The Council said remote viewings were standard and still available to him, and that it had already offered him three dates for an in-person visit and it would not arrange another. It confirmed the deadline of 21 January 2025.
42. Mr B continued to ask for a viewing and responses to the suitability issues. The Council confirmed it was treating his correspondence as a refusal.
43. On 30 January 2025 the Council sent Mr B a letter confirming its decision to end the main housing duty towards him because he had refused a suitable offer of accommodation. It gave him a right of review against the decision.
44. On 20 February 2025, Mr B requested a review of the decision. On 1 April 2025, the Council sent Mr B its review decision. It confirmed that the offer of accommodation was suitable, and it upheld its decision to end the main housing duty.
45. On 22 April 2025, Mr B submitted an appeal to the County Court against the Council’s decision of 1 April 2025. The Court has acknowledged the appeal and set a hearing date for November 2025.
46. Mr B said the decision was legally flawed, procedurally unfair and failed to comply with statutory obligations under the Housing Act 1996, the Equality Act 2010, the Care Act 2014 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance. His grounds of appeal included:
• a failure to conduct safeguarding or risk assessments;
• procedural unfairness and a flawed review process;
• a breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty;
• a mis-application of local policy on in -borough caring;
• mishandling of personal data and bias; and
• a risk of care system breakdown and a failure to consider cumulative dependency.
47. He asked the Court to quash the decision.

Analysis

Appeal to the County court

48. Mr B has appealed to the County Court about the Council’s decision to end the main duty because he has refused an offer of suitable accommodation. This means that I am unable to investigate any of the issues he has raised in his appeal. This includes the suitability of the offer of accommodation, the decision to end the main housing duty, the way in which the Council carried out a review of that decision, the alleged breaches of the Housing Act 1996 (Part 7), the Equality Act 2010, the Public Sector Equality Duty, the Children Act 1989, the Care Act 2014 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance. These are all raised in Mr B’s grounds of appeal and will be considered by the Court.

Other matters

49. I have considered other matters raised in Mr B’s complaints to us which relate to events before the decisions subject to the appeal were made.

Statutory overcrowding

50. Mr B said the Council had failed to respond to his complaint about statutory overcrowding in his current property. The Council explained, in April and October 2024, that the household was not statutorily overcrowded due to the age of the children and the number of rooms in the property. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council made this decision, and I am unable to comment on it, regardless of how much Mr B disagrees.

Personal Housing Plan (PHP) and delay in providing accommodation

51. Mr B complained that the Council failed to provide a meaningful PHP and delayed in offering any suitable accommodation. The Council made offers of accommodation it considered were suitable in May and November 2024. It has taken some time, but there is an acute shortage of housing in the area particularly of larger properties, and despite its efforts, many properties did not meet the household’s needs. It also considered seven properties during this period, but none were suitable for the household’s needs.
52. It has offered Mr B advice on finding his own accommodation in the private rented sector with financial assistance from the Council and made other suggestions such as exploring whether the family was prepared to split up, as smaller accommodation was easier to find. It also suggested a property which met most, but not all, of the medical requirements. It accepted Mr B’s refusal without penalty. I do not find fault in the actions of the Council and find it has made reasonable efforts to address the situation.

Additional priority on the Housing Register

53. Mr B said that the Council had failed to award additional priority in accordance with its allocations scheme where overcrowding poses health risks. The Council explained in April, October and November 2024 that it did not consider Mr B’s household qualified for Band 1 priority as the family did not lack three bedrooms, only two and so did not meet the overcrowding criteria for Band 1. It reviewed all medical evidence supplied but did not consider this justified a recommendation to remain in Barnet or go into Band 1. I am satisfied the Council explained why it had reached those conclusions and it is not our role to comment on the merits of a decision made without fault. It had already applied its reasonable preference criteria by placing the household in Band 2. I do not find fault in the Council’s decision-making.

Mishandling personal data

54. This is a matter which Mr B has raised with the Information Commissioner. They are a public body specifically set up to deal with complaints about personal data, and I consider they are best placed to handle this aspect of Mr B’s complaint.

Complaint-handling

55. Mr B complained the Council’s responses were dismissive and it refused to engage with him because the Chief Executive declined to meet with him. The substantive complaint relates to the failure to provide suitable accommodation which is now the subject of the appeal. I would not expect the Chief Executive to meet with complainants. Mr B received two detailed and timely responses through the complaints procedure, responding to all the aspects of his complaint. I am satisfied the Council dealt with the complaint properly.

Back to top

Decision

56. I have not investigated part of the complaint as Mr B has appealed to the County Court about those matters. For the rest of the complaint, I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman