| Publishing organisation: | Local Government Ombudsman |
| Topic: | Homelessness |
| Determination: | Maladministration causing injustice |
| Tenure: | Applicant |
Organisation:
| LB of Lambeth |
| Country of relevance: | England |
| Report link: | Click here to view this document |
London Borough of Lambeth’s mishandling of a vulnerable young man’s homelessness application deprived him of the opportunity to be rehoused in permanent accommodation. The Ombudsman said: “had he been given that opportunity, I consider it is likely he would now be living in social housing accommodation.”
David Henry (not his real name for legal reasons) suffered from haemophilia A, and first approached the Council for housing assistance when he was 19 years old. His father complained on his behalf about the way the Council dealt with his homelessness assessment, medical assessment, and housing register application. He said that his son was placed in unsuitable temporary accommodation without support.
His father said that David Henry needed an additional bedroom for a carer, but the medical assessment did not recommend this. His father said that, had it been clear that his son would have to accept one-bedroom accommodation, he would have been a council tenant rather than homeless.
Determination
The Ombudsman’s investigation found that:
- the Council had accepted David Henry’s vulnerability, yet it did not take action to assist him in completing housing benefit applications or advise him of the implications of increasing rent arrears when there was still a reasonable prospect of recovering them; and
- there were poor communications by the Council, particularly in the failure to pass on information from the Council’s medical advisor to David Henry or his father, and to make it clear that David Henry would be considered for one-bedroom accommodation only.
The Ombudsman said: “I consider it is likely that David Henry would eventually have accepted an offer of a property with one bedroom in a block with a lift (the recommendation of the medical advisor in November 2007) before his application was suspended. Subsequent events would then have been very different.”
The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended that the Council should:
- offer David Henry a tenancy of one-bedroom accommodation that meets his identified needs (this would put him in the position he should have been in by the end of January 2007);
- write off all the arrears he incurred apart from £11.05 per week (the amount of the charge he was initially advised that he was liable to pay);
- offer to pay him £2,000 in recognition of the injustice he has experienced, some of which has already been acknowledged by the Council (the balance of Mr Henry’s arrears after the write-off recommended in ii above can be offset against this sum); and
- pay £250 to Mr Henry’s father in recognition of his time and trouble pursuing this complaint on his son’s behalf.