Ombudsman Case Digests

Mrs R was a tenant of a two bedroom Housing Association property and had applied to the Council for accommodation as the family needed a larger home. Living with Mrs R at the time of her initial application were her husband, and three children. In addition a step son periodically stayed with the family and this arrangement had become more permanent in later years.

The family had by the time of this investigation been on the Council’s housing waiting list for almost ten years. Within that time the Council’s housing policy had been revised twice, most recently in 2007. In addition to citing the cramped conditions within her home Mrs R had written to various officers within the Council’s housing section on many occasions, querying her position on the waiting list and why she did not fare better in line with the Council’s policy.

The overcrowding was affecting her and her husband’s health and the family had a number of reasons for wanting to stay within the locality. By February 2005, the conditions had become so intolerable at the property that one of Mrs R’s sons had to go to sleep every night at his grandparents who were themselves in poor health and relied on Mrs R’s proximity for daily support.

Investigation

The Ombudsman’s investigation found that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the threshold for conducting homelessness inquiries into Mrs R’s housing circumstances had been breached and merited investigation from the housing application form and supporting evidence submitted by Mrs R.

Specifically, by February 2005, it was possible to say that it was no longer reasonable for the family to continue occupying the property and they were, in law, homeless. This meant that the Council’s more extensive duties would be engaged as well as an expectation of an increase in the level of points awarded to Mrs R’s application in line with the Council’s policy. The family could also have been assessed as “homeless at home”.

The Council failed to recognise that the level of overcrowding and the family separation merited investigation. Neither had it adduced any evidence which might show that Mrs R’s circumstances were no worse than other families on the Council’s housing waiting list. These failures amounted to maladministration.

In light of the Ombudsman’s finding in earlier investigations that the Council’s housing allocation policy (before its radical revision in 2007) was unlawful, it was not possible with any degree of certainty to know whether Mrs R would have received an offer of permanent accommodation acceptable to her sooner.

Given evidence of housing offers made within the same period to applicants Mrs R would have at least equalled their points total but, without a review of all those applications in some detail, it would be impossible to know whether they would also have benefitted from increased awards themselves if assessed in line with a lawful policy.

Determination

On balance, it was highly probable given the length of time Mrs R had been on the list, that she would have received an earlier allocation. In light of that the Ombudsman recommended that as well as apologising to Mrs R and her family for its failures, the Council should:

offer them redress in the sum of £2500
offer her the next suitable and available 3 bedroom property in her selected area
implement within 3 months a training programme for all frontline housing staff (and Senior Managers) on the recognition of homelessness and when enquiries should begin

A Senior Officer in the Council’s housing section should thereafter undertake a review of all applicants on the housing waiting list (with homelessness issues in mind) to ascertain whether those applicants had been properly assessed. Details of that review, to be completed within 9 months of the report’s issue, should be provided to the Ombudsman.

Complaint reference - 200800969 - Allocations, Tenancy management

Investigation

Determination