Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to carry out three suitability review requests and notify him of the decision. The evidence shows the carried out two reviews. One decision was sent to Mr X’s solicitors and the other decision was sent but not received. There failure to complete one review and delays in respect of the other two are fault. The evidence does not support Mr X’s claim that he was unable to bid because of the fault in these cases.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to carry out three suitability review requests and notify him of the decision.
2. He says this delayed his ability to bid on properties and so he has been in temporary accommodation much longer than he should have been.

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 a council’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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X applied to the Council as homeless in March 2013. We previously considered a complaint by Mr X about how the Council handled his application and found fault.
7. In June 2016 the Council wrote to Mr X saying it owed him a duty to be housed. Mr X had been accommodated in temporary accommodation, property A. In July 2016 Mr X requested a review of the suitability of the accommodation he was living in.
8. The Council says it logged the review request onto its system on 20 September 2016. It has not provided any explanation for the delay. The Council sent Mr X a decision on his review request on 28 October 2016. The Council took the view Mr X’s accommodation was suitable for his needs. Mr X says he did not receive this letter until January 2017. The Council says it sent the letter by post and email in October 2016. Mr X believes the Council failed to send the decision letter in order to prevent him taking action in court against the Council.
9. On 23 January 2017, Mr X made a further suitability review request regarding property A. The Council logged this review request on 22 March 2017. In response to my enquiries the Council says this review request was allocated to a temporary officer who left without completing it. It says the case was then reallocated to another temporary officer who also left without completing it.
10. The Council offered Mr X a tenancy at property B on 30 January 2017. Mr X viewed the property on 2 February. He accepted the property and immediately sought a suitability review.
11. Property B is a studio flat. Mr X sought a suitability review on the grounds that his physical and mental health problems require larger accommodation including a separate bedroom. This suitability review request was made by solicitors on behalf of Mr X.
12. On 2 March 2017, the Council wrote to Mr X discharging its housing duty on the basis of the offer of property B.
13. The Council sent an email on 1 May to Mr X’s solicitors with a copy of its review decision letter dated 19 April 2018. This letter referred to an address Mr X had never lived at and not property B. The review decision letter included details of how to further challenge the decision. Mr X says he did not receive a copy of the review decision letter.
14. The Council says the solicitors acting for Mr X did not raise the issue of the wrong address until several months after the letter was issued. It says by this time a manager had informally reviewed the case file and noticed the error. The Council did not reissue the letter but instead the Head of Service used his discretion and reinstated the duty to accommodate which meant Mr X had the opportunity to bid for properties directly. It is not clear to me exactly when this decision was made, when it was communicated to Mr X and when he was able to start placing bids for available properties.
15. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council about how it had dealt with his housing situation. In its response dated 26 September 2018 the Council accepted there had been mistakes in respect of the administration of his case which caused confusion. It said that even though it had agreed action with the Ombudsman previously in respect of these errors it had given Mr X the opportunity to accept a further offer through its special needs fast track scheme.
16. Mr X placed a successful bid for property C in May 2019. He signed the tenancy agreement on 22 May and was given the keys the same day. I am aware Mr X is unhappy with this property and has been making complaints but these are new issues and are not being considered as part of this investigation.

Analysis

17. Mr X complains about the Council’s actions in relation to three accommodation suitability review requests.
18. The first request, made in July 2016 regarding property A was not upheld. The Council found it was suitable for Mr X’s needs. Mr X says he did not receive the decision on this review request until January 2017. The Council disputes this and says the decision letter was sent by post and email.
19. I am not persuaded any investigation into this issue would now provide evidence of what happened. It is possible that both positions are correct and the letter was posted but never received. In such circumstances, I could not say the Council was at fault.
20. However, the Council did delay in making the review decision. A suitability review request decision should be made within eight weeks but in this case took 16 weeks. This is fault.
21. I have to consider how these faults have affected Mr X. Even if Mr X had seen the decision letter in October 2016, I cannot say if Mr X would have challenged the decision in the courts but in any case, I think it is unlikely this process would have been concluded before the Council made an offer of accommodation to Mr X on 30 January 2017, which he accepted. I consider the Council should recognise the distress caused to Mr X as a result of its delay by making a payment to him.
22. The second suitability review request about property A was made on 23 January 2017. The Council took two months to log the request. I have not seen a copy of any response to this request. This is fault.
23. While the Council was at fault for not completing this review request after logging it, I am not persuaded Mr X was caused a significant enough injustice for me to investigate further. The Council is required to complete the review within eight weeks of Mr X making the request. The Council offered Mr X accommodation which he accepted and the Council then discharged its homelessness duty to accommodate Mr X by 2 March. As all that happened within the eight week period, the issue of whether property A remained suitable for Mr X is hypothetical. It is because Mr X was no longer living in property A by the time the Council should have taken a decision on the suitability review that I do not consider any remedy is due for this fault.
24. The third suitability review request relates to property B. This request was made by solicitors acting for Mr X. The evidence I have seen includes email communication between the Council and the solicitor which shows the solicitor requesting further time to submit the review request. The solicitor sent the request to the Council on 13 February 2018. The Council sent its decision to the solicitor on 1 May 2018, 11 weeks after the request was made.
25. The Council’s decision on the suitability review request for property B took longer than it should have and this is fault. Mr X says he never received a copy of this response. I consider the injustice to Mr X as a result of not receiving a copy of this review decision, flows directly from the actions of his solicitors. The delay by the Council, while fault, has not caused the injustice Mr X is claiming.

Agreed action

26. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr X as a result of the fault identified above the Council will apologise to Mr X and pay him £100 to recognise the distress caused. The Council should do this within one month of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman