Summary: Ms B complains about how the Council dealt with her niece’s temporary housing needs as a homeless person with young children. The Ombudsman finds that while there was no fault in the substantive issue of the accommodation offered and the reviews of suitability conducted, there were several other failings in the Council’s handling of this case and the complaint about it. The Council has agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation for remedy for the injustice caused to Ms B and her niece by these failings.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms B, complains on behalf of her niece Ms C about how the Council dealt with her housing needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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. I considered all the information submitted by Ms B about the complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and took account of the information it provided in response. I provided Ms B and the Council with a draft of this decision and took account of all comments made in response, making further written enquiries of the Council as appropriate and considering its responses.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. In January 2018 the council accepted responsibility for housing Ms C and her two dependent children, who were homeless and had previously been accommodated in another Council’s area. The temporary accommodation they were placed in at a hotel was self-contained with its own kitchen and bathroom.

Assessment and offer of long-term temporary accommodation

7. In March 2018 the Council completed a suitability assessment for a flat at Address X, noting Ms B was currently in nightly-booked accommodation. Address X was on the fourth floor, having 72 external stairs with no lift. The assessor noted this and noted also that Ms C reported she could only climb 10-15 steps and with some difficulty so would need first floor only if there was no lift. The assessor noted Ms C was awaiting a GP referral for physiotherapy and an assessment for possible arthritis.
8. The Council assigns a mobility category to its applicants for housing, in order to make the best use of its housing stock and ensure those with the highest medical needs get the most suitable properties. The four categories are:

• Category one: Applicants who use a wheelchair all the time;
• Category two: Applicants who need a home which is wheelchair accessible but may not need to use it inside the home;
• Category three: Applicants with severe mobility problems who require a ground floor or lifted property with level access and no internal stairs. Property may be lifted; and
• Category four: All other applicants.

9. Ms C was placed in category four. That was correct because she was able to manage some stairs. The Council offered her the flat at Address X, having assessed it as suitable longer-term temporary accommodation for her.
10. In April 2018 Ms C viewed the property and considered it unsuitable. On 5 April the letting agent who conducted the viewing sent an email to the Council officer who was dealing with Ms C’s case saying Ms C had struggled getting up the stairs referring to a knee injury she said the Council was aware of; that she had a panic attack once inside the property and had to be calmed; that she said she had vertigo and was reluctant to go near the windows; and that it was too high up and she could not cope with the stairs.
11. It seems a further viewing was offered for 10 May, and on that date the letting agent sent a further email to the Council noting that Ms C did not want to accept the property; that she had stated she had issues with her back and couldn’t walk up the stairs and would struggle with the two children. The agent had to assist her up the stairs. The agent also noted that Ms C said she wanted to be closer to her family for support, felt isolated and suicidal, was frightened of being on the top floor and would consider jumping out of the window.
12. Ms C believed the letting agent had given his view that the property was unsuitable, but the emails simply reported what had happened at the viewing and what Ms C had said to him.
13. Also on 10 May, Ms C contacted the Council to ask that she be considered for accommodation in the West London area, near to her family and support network. The Council asked her to complete a medical assessment form, which she then did. Once the Council had the relevant information from Ms C it referred her case to its medical advisor who was asked to give an opinion on whether Ms C’s mobility category should be changed and whether there were medical grounds to place Ms C in West London.
14. On 6 June the medical assessor wrote to Ms C’s GP, receiving response on 27 June. The medical assessor’s view noted the response from the GP, that Ms C had no need for specialist treatment or intervention, no prescriptions of strong or combination pain medications associated with a person suffering significant pain issues, or medications or treatments associated with a person with a severe mental health diagnosis. There was no evidence Ms C needed to be in West London on medical grounds, and mobility category four was recommended. The Council then wrote to Ms C on 29 June saying it had decided not to change her mobility category and that there was no medical evidence to support the need for housing in West London. It concluded that the accommodation offered at Address X was suitable.

Request for review of suitability of the accommodation offered

15. On 2 July 2018, Ms C and her solicitor both requested a review of the suitability of the accommodation offered at Address X, exercising the right given under Section 202 of the Housing Act 1996. Where an applicant asks for a review of a council’s decision the timescale for review is eight weeks. However, in this case extensions of time were agreed. Throughout August and September, the solicitors gathered medical information to submit to support the review request and it made submissions with supporting evidence on 2 and 25 October. The Council then sought and obtained permission from Ms C to contact her GP as some of the information it had received was unclear. On 5 November a new referral was made to the medical assessor for opinion to inform the review, and on 12 November the Council received Ms C’s ‘patient summary’ print-out containing medical information.
16. On 13 November the Council wrote to Ms C’s solicitors to confirm it had overturned the original decision that Address X was suitable. While the location was still deemed suitable, the property was unsuitable because of the access restrictions. It said the decision took account of the difficulties presented by Ms C’s health and the steps being challenging for children who were not of ‘strong walking age’.
17. Ms B feels that the Council ought not to have deemed the property suitable from the outset since it knew about the steps and the age of the children. However, the Council is not prevented from offering accommodation in flats without lifts to families with young children and most importantly there was evidence made available to be taken into account at the review which had not been available to the original decision-maker. I find no fault in the process followed here.
18. On 9 July 2018 Ms C had signed the occupation agreement for the property and then moved in. Following the review decision, she was offered alternative accommodation on 7 December, which she accepted.

Health and safety concerns

19. On 2 July 2018 Ms C raised a health and safety concern about her fridge being close to the front door of the flat and in a cupboard, which she felt gave insufficient ventilation and presented a fire hazard. She was worried about her escape route in the event of a fire. In another email on 17 July Ms C said she was having to stand on a chair to top up her gas meter, placing herself in danger. The Council has no evidence that it followed this up with the housing provider. That was fault.

Complaint handling

20. Ms C made a complaint to the Council on 19 November 2018. Her complaint included a failure to acknowledge or action a request for a change of officer dealing with her case, as Ms C felt there was a personality clash between them which was detrimental. The complaint also included concerns that relevant information had not been properly considered in the initial decision- making that had concluded Property X was suitable for her, and that two officers had not responded to her emails.
21. The Council issued its stage 1 response on 13 December 2018. In addition to responding on the point about the decision-making, the Council said one of the officers believed she had responded to emails and apologised if this was not the case, while the second officer acknowledged that although he was not dealing with the case he should have responded to advise accordingly, and he had not done so. Although the Council noted the complaint as partly upheld, no apology was given for the acknowledged failing.
22. Ms B wrote back to the Council on her niece’s behalf on 7 January 2019, progressing the complaint to stage 2. This included a complaint about the time taken to provide the response at stage 2, and the lack of responses to emails she had sent to the Council. Ms B also had concerns that Property X had not been fit for letting, based on a copy of an email she had obtained apparently dating from 26 October 2018 from the property inspection officer which said the flat was not ready to let in its current state.
23. The Council responded at stage 2 on 15 February 2019 apologising for the delay. The response Ms B received was a two-page letter and some of the points she had raised were not addressed in that letter. An administrative failing meant the full response letter was not issued: that was fault.
24. In the response the Council said that it did not uphold the complaint about delay at stage 1 because the delay ‘was not excessive’. But there was delay: the Council’s published complaints procedure gives a ten working day timeframe for responses at stage 1 and at stage 2, and both were exceeded. The delay was fault.
25. The lack of responses from several officers to emails was also fault, only partly acknowledged by the Council in the complaint responses issued. This includes a failure to respond to Ms C’s emails requesting a change of officer dealing with her case: while the Council was under no duty to agree to the request, it should have acknowledged the request and responded to it.
26. The email from the property inspection officer in fact dated from 2009 and was related to a pre-letting visit before Property X was let as temporary accommodation in February 2010. It did not therefore have a bearing on the suitability of the accommodation when it was let to Ms C.

Agreed action

27. In recognition of the time and trouble caused to Ms C and her representative in pursuing these matters, frustration at lack of responses and concerns about health and safety in the accommodation, I recommended that within four weeks of the date of the decision on this complaint the Council:

• Issues both of them with an apology;
• Pays Ms C £200; and
• Pays Ms B £100.

28. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation on the basis set out above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman