Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not dealt properly with his housing because it has placed him in unsuitable accommodation between June 2022 and June 2023. The Council placed Mr X and his family in two unsuitable locations. Mr X suffered avoidable distress and financial loss. The Council should apologise, pay Mr and Mrs X a total of £6,000 for being placed in unsuitable accommodation, and provide information to the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has not dealt properly with his housing because it has placed him in unsuitable accommodation between June 2022 and June 2023 and it did not provide financial assistance with furniture or transport when moving.
2. Mr X says he and his family suffered avoidable distress and significant financial loss as a result.

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 an injustice, 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

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered documents he provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response and the supporting documents it provided.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law, guidance and policies

7. Homeless applicants may request a review, within 21 days of being notified, of 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.
8. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)
9. Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request about the suitability of accommodation.
10. Space and arrangement will be key factors in determining the suitability of accommodation. However, consideration of whether accommodation is suitable will require an assessment of all aspects of the accommodation in the light of the relevant needs, requirements and circumstances of the homeless person and their household. The location of the accommodation will always be a relevant factor. (Homeless Code of Guidance Paragraph 17.4)

What happened?

11. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
12. Mr X and his family became homeless. The Council provided temporary accommodation at location 1. Mr X requested a review of the suitability of accommodation at location 1. The Council agreed that it was unsuitable.
13. The Council provided new temporary accommodation at location 2. Mr X requested a review of the suitability of accommodation at location 2. The Council agreed that it was unsuitable.

Analysis

14. The Council found that the accommodation it offered Mr X at location 1 and location 2 was unsuitable. This is fault by the Council. Mr X and his family had to live in unsuitable accommodation between June 2023 and July 2023.
15. The Council has offered to pay Mr X £2,600. It says it calculated this amount at £200 per month for 13 months of not providing him with suitable accommodation and provided the following justification for arriving at this proposed remedy:
• Location 1 – “Whilst this was a single room in a family hostel with shared facilities, it was intended as short term accommodation and had appropriate bed spaces for the family. It was also deliberately located on the ground floor and the Council had obtained medical advice that suggested the property was suitable on medical grounds. In truth, it is likely that initially this was suitable accommodation given it's short term nature but by the date of the Council's decision, the reviewing officer had found that it was unsuitable. however, we have agreed to give the benefit of the doubt and accept that compensations should paid from the start. In light of this, the Council believes £200 per month is adequate.”
• Location 2 – “Similarly, the property was considered to largely meet the family's needs, however, there was an issue of disrepair that the reviewing officer had not bene able to obtain clarity on and therefore gave the benefit of the doubt to the applicant that the issue was live. In the event, it was confirmed that actions had been taken to address the issue of damp by March. The issue of mobility within the property was also a contributory factor but was not so severe as to render the accommodation completely unsuitable.”
16. The Council has provided no evidence to support the statements above in paragraph 15.
17. In respect of location 1, I have reviewed extensive documentation provided by the complainant that shows:
• Mrs X suffered significant medical problems which were affected by the unsuitable accommodation;
• The family of six were accommodated in one room;
• Mr X raised problems on many occasions regarding the condition and safety of the accommodation for his family;
• Mr X raised concerns about unavoidable costs being incurred as a result of the unsuitability of the accommodation; and
• Mr X suffered mental health problems with the main contributory factor being his housing situation.
18. In respect of location 2, I have reviewed extensive documentation provided by the complainant that shows:
• Mr X complained about the property not being maintained and suffering from damp and black mould;
• Mrs X had difficulties with the toilet as it was not accessible given her medical circumstances;
• Mrs X suffered physical and mental health problems, including mobility, pain management and anxiety as a result of her housing situation;
• Mr X and his family had particular difficulties with the location as it was far from work, hospitals and schools;
• The Council visited location 2 to inspect the accommodation in early January 2023 and decided it was not suitable. A Council occupational therapist report dated March 2023 confirmed this, but the Council did not take any action to move Mr X and his family until months later;
• An independent occupational therapist report dated March 2023 states, “Mrs X requires a minimum of a three bedroom property within the London Borough of Redbridge, specifically the Wanstead area. Due to Mrs X reduced mobility I would recommend a ground floor flat or a flat with lift access.”
• The Council’s review outcome letter states, “a Senior Social Worker….deemed the property unsuitable for Ms. X. … it is clear that they have visited the property and assessed Ms. X’s needs in person, and in their professional capacity/opinion, are of the view that the property is not suitable for her.”
• A property inspection in May 2023 found that, “hazards relevant to the premises are Excess Cold (Category 1 Hazard), Damp and Mould, Entry by Intruders, Falls on Levels, Falls on Stairs and Structural Collapse and Falling Elements (Category 2 Hazards). I have assessed these hazards and consider that there is a higher than average likelihood of a person’s health suffering due to these hazards in this property.”
19. I therefore do not consider that the Council’s proposed remedy is sufficient. It is clear that the properties were unsuitable and impacted on Mr X’s family’s health, as well as causing him practical difficulties including working and attending medical appointments. Location 2 also posed multiple category 1 and 2 hazards to health for a long time. Mr X and his family suffered distress, physical and mental health problems, financial loss and were exposed to risk of further significant harm at location 2.
20. I have reviewed evidence provided by Mr X regarding weekly financial costs he says he incurred as a result of being placed in unsuitable accommodation.
21. The Council says, “the severity of the current housing crisis is widely acknowledged to be unprecedented in nature and scale. The severe shortage of alternative accommodation is even more acute in relation to accommodation for households with specific mobility need. The Council is constantly balancing the needs and interests of many families at any given time and seeks to work in a way that is as fair as possible.”
22. Given the limited availability of suitable housing, I cannot conclude that Mr X would have been housed in his preferred location. On the balance of probabilities, the Council would have had to provide him with suitable accommodation outside of London which involved travelling costs. I have therefore not considered Mr X’s travel costs in paragraph 27 below as I cannot say what, if any, proportion of his travel costs could have been avoidable.
23. I have reviewed evidence provided by Mr X regarding weekly laundry costs incurred while in location 1. Mr X was in location 1 for approximately 10 weeks. However, on the balance of probabilities Mr X would have incurred laundry costs regardless of the accommodation he was in. I have therefore not considered Mr X’s laundry costs in paragraph 27 below.
24. The review concerning suitability of location 2 was not completed within eight weeks. This is fault by the Council. Mr X and his family were unnecessarily exposed to multiple category 1 and 2 hazards to health for approximately six months, as a result of the delay.
25. I have had regard to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, which states, “Where a complainant has had to remain in unsuitable accommodation …financial redress is likely to be in the range of £150 to £350 a month. The figure should be based on the impact on the complainant and other household members and take account of factors such as:
• overcrowding and disrepair;
• any specific needs arising from a disability – for example, a wheelchair user who cannot access some rooms; and
• any particular vulnerability of the complainant or household members. So a situation where three young children had to continue sharing a bedroom would usually require a remedy at the lower end of the range; and a situation where a disabled person could not access bathing facilities would usually require a remedy at the upper end of the range.”
• The injustice is likely to be greater if the complainant or a household member is particularly vulnerable or has dependants who were also affected.
26. I consider the remedy for the time period at location 2 should be higher than the guidance above due to the overcrowding, disrepair, identified hazards, Mrs X’s medical circumstances and vulnerability, the impact on physical and mental health, and the number of dependent children affected.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of this decision:
• Apologise to Mr and Mrs X;
• Pay Mr and Mrs X £300 in respect of each month they were living in unsuitable accommodation at location 1, a period of approximately two and a half months, totalling £750.
• Pay Mr and Mrs X £500 each in respect of each month they were living in unsuitable accommodation at location 2, a period of approximately ten and a half months, totalling £5,250.
• Provide the Ombudsman with information about the number of requests for reviews which are currently outstanding and the average waiting time for a decision; and
• Provide up an action plan, with targets, to clear any identified backlog of review requests.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have found fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Mr X and his family. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman