Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council considered his priority on the housing register and the way it handled his review into the suitability of his accommodation. Mr X says this resulted in him living in unsuitable accommodation. The Ombudsman finds fault in how the Council carried out the review into the suitability of Mr X’s accommodation. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £1,350 for the period he remained in unsuitable accommodation. The Ombudsman finds no fault with how the Council considered Mr X’s priority on the housing register.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council considered his priority on the housing register and the way it handled his review into the suitability of his temporary accommodation.
2. Mr X says this resulted in him living in unsuitable accommodation.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated how the Council carried out the suitability review into Mr X’s accommodation and how it considered his banding on the housing register.
4. I have set out and the end of this statement what I have not investigated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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)
7. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
8. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
9. 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

10. As part of this investigation:
• I considered the complaint from Mr X and the Council’s response.
• I discussed the complaint over the telephone with Mr X.
• I made enquiries to the Council and considered the information it provided in response.
• I sent a draft of this decision to Mr X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

11. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
12. Homeless applicants may request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided once the council has accepted the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
13. The review must be completed within eight weeks. This period can be extended but only with the applicant’s written agreement. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202 and 204)
14. The Council has a ‘Temporary Accommodation Placement Policyʾ. This policy states for temporary accommodation transfers the Council determines priority by the Band in which it places a household. Within the Bands the Council considers the time a household has spent in temporary accommodation. Therefore, households that have been waiting the longest are considered first. Band 3 applies where an applicant is occupying unsuitable property.
15. The Housing Act 1996 says every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. A local housing authority must allocate housing in accordance with its published scheme.
16. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others.
17. The Council’s allocation policy says Band A applies where the homeseeker, or a member of the household, has a life threatening condition which is seriously affected by their housing. And to homeless households in temporary accommodation which is unsuitable due to a severe medical condition. The housing conditions, and/or other circumstances need to have a major adverse effect on the medical condition of the applicant or member of the applicant’s household to warrant emergency priority.
18. In an urgent medical situation where the current housing conditions are having a major adverse effect on the medical condition of the homeseeker or a member of the household, Band B applies.
19. Where the current housing conditions are having an adverse effect on the medical condition of the homeseeker, or a member of the household, which creates a particular need for them to move, Band C applies.

Back to top

Chronology of the main events

20. Mr X suffers with chronic pains and has mobility issues. In 2017 Mr X, and his family, applied to the Council for homelessness support. The Council placed Mr X into temporary accommodation.
21. On 12 December 2017 the Council offered Mr X Property A as it accepted a duty to house him following his application for homelessness assistance. Property A was a one bedroom, ground floor flat.
22. In early January 2018 Mr X’s representative asked for a review of the suitability of Property A on the basis it did not have a shower or suitable adaptations for Mr X. As Mr X did not receive a response from the Council, his representative chased up the review request in February 2018.
23. As Mr X did not receive a response from the Council his representative further chased the review in July 2018. The Council acknowledged the suitability review in August 2018.
24. In September 2018 Mr X’s representative asked the Council to extend the deadline for Mr X to send evidence in support of his review as he was waiting to receive some medical evidence. Mr X’s representative sent the Council their submissions in support of Mr X’s review on 2 October 2018.
25. On 11 December 2018 Mr X’s representative sent the Council a further medical report about Mr X. The representative asked to Council to quickly provide a decision on the review because of the difficulties Mr X has using the bathroom in Property A. Mr X’s representative contacted the Council again in early January 2019 seeking an update with the review.
26. The Council said it emailed Mr X’s representative shortly after to agree a decision date of 8 February 2019. As I have not seen this email, it is unclear whether Mr X’s representative agreed to this request.
27. On 5 February 2019 the Council provided its review decision to Mr X. The Council found Property A was unsuitable on grounds it lacked a shower and the bath was unsuitable for Mr X to use. The Council placed Mr X onto its temporary accommodation transfer list and placed him in Band 3.
28. On 11 February 2019 Mr X asked the Council to review his banding on the housing register. He felt the Council should increase his Band C rating to at least Band B.
29. The Council referred the case to its medical advisers and provided the medical advisers with all the information Mr X sent in support of his case. The Council’s medical noted Mr X’s mobility, balance issues and his difficulty in the bathroom; however, they believed Band C adequately reflected the adverse effects of Mr X’s current housing on his health.
30. On 15 April 2019 the Council provided Mr X with a review response upholding his Band C rating. In the review letter the Council explained the evidence it considered including the medical information provided by Mr X, the Council’s medical adviser’s opinion and an Occupational Health assessment. The Council said while Mr X suffered from mobility issues and had falls in the bathroom, it did not consider this was an urgent medical situation which was having a major adverse effect on his health.
31. In August 2019 the Council offered Mr X alternative temporary accommodation, with a shower, at Property B. Mr X has since moved into this property.

Back to top

Analysis

32. When considering complaints, we may not act like an appeal body. We cannot question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers. Instead, we focus on the process by which the Council made the decision.

Suitability review of Property A

33. The Council was at fault for how it handled the suitability review of Property A. The Council failed to respond to Mr X’s suitability review request until August 2018. From the evidence available Mr X asked for a review of the suitability of Property A in January 2018 however, the Council did not respond to this review request. It was only after Mr X chased this up several times, the Council acknowledged the review request in August 2018.
34. Once the Council acknowledged Mr X’s review request in August 2018, it took until February 2019 for the Council to provide a decision. I also consider this delay to be fault.
35. I recognise Mr X’s representatives asked for further time to provide their representations in support of Mr X’s case. However, from the evidence available they submitted the representations on 2 October 2018, although Mr X did send a further medical report to the Council on 11 December 2018.
36. The law says the review should be completed within 8 weeks unless both parties agree to a new deadline. The Council in response to my enquiries said the further delay to finish the review occurred because of Mr X’s representatives not being able to provide their representations until 11 December 2018.
37. Mr X’s representatives provided representations on 2 October 2018 and sent a further medical report on 11 December 2018. In January 2019 the Council said the review officer sent Mr X’s representatives an email asking for the decision deadline to be in February 2019. I have not seen the content of this email nor have I seen evidence Mr X agreed to this deadline. In fact, Mr X’s representatives sent the Council an email in early January 2019 asking the Council to provide a decision on the review. The Council did not provide the review decision until 5 February 2019, a further 8 weeks from when Mr X’s representatives sent the medical report to the Council.
38. As I have found fault I must now consider whether this caused any injustice to Mr X. The obvious injustice caused is the delay in completing the suitability review meant Mr X remained for a longer period in Property A, which the Council decided was an unsuitable property. As the Council upheld Mr X’s review, on balance I believe Mr X would have been placed onto the temporary accommodation transfer list and moved into alternative property sooner had there not been a delay in carrying out the review.
39. In working out a remedy to this injustice, I have considered that on balance four months would have been a suitable time to conduct the review. This is based on the time taken for Mr X’s representatives to send evidence to the Council in support of the review once the Council acknowledged the review request in August 2018. On balance I am satisfied the Council would have upheld Mr X’s review had it processed the review in January 2018 and made a decision by May 2018.
40. On this basis I have decided Mr X remained in unsuitable accommodation for 9 months because of the delays in completing the review. Our guidance on remedies recommends a financial remedy for distress, hardship and inconvenience that can arise where a council has not provided suitable accommodation. In this instance I consider an award of £150 per month for the period of May 2018 (four months after the initial review request) until February 2019 (when the Council provided the review decision) to be appropriate.

Banding review

41. Based on the information available I do not consider there has been fault in the way the Council carried out Mr X’s banding review. The records show the Council considered Mr X’s medical evidence and sent this to its medical adviser to consider.
42. The Council explained in its decision letter why it does not believe Mr X’s medical situation is serious enough to warrant a higher band and how his circumstances apply to its allocations policy.
43. While I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Council’s assessment of his banding on the housing register, it was a decision the Council was entitled to make. The Ombudsman cannot question the validity of such decision making in the absence of procedural fault.

Agreed action

44. Within one month of my final decision the Council has agreed to carry out the following and provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has done so:
• Apologise to Mr X for the delay in carrying out the review into the suitability of Property A.
• Pay Mr X £1,350 for the period he remained in unsuitable accommodation. This has been calculated at £150 per month for 9 months.
45. The Council has requested the payment be applied to Mr X’s rent arrears of just over £1,000 and provided evidence Mr X’s rent account is in arrears. The Ombudsman is agreeable the Council can apply the payment to Mr X’s rent arrears and pay him the amount left over. The Council should ensure it informs Mr X how much it has deducted from this payment towards the rent arrears.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I have completed my investigation on the basis there was fault in how the Council carried out the review into the suitability of Mr X’s accommodation which caused Mr X injustice. The Ombudsman has made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused which the Council has agreed to. The Ombudsman finds no fault with how the Council considered Mr X’s priority on the housing register.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

47. I did not investigate how Mr X became homeless as a result of the Council deciding he could not succeed his father’s tenancy, nor the Council’s decision to place Mr X in property A. The Council took these decisions several years ago. If Mr X was unhappy with it he should have complained to the Ombudsman at the time. In addition, the decision not to allow Mr X to succeed his father’s tenancy would fall outside of our remit and be for the Housing Ombudsman to consider.
48. I did not investigate the suitability of property B. Mr X can ask the Council for a review if he feels this accommodation is not suitable for his needs.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman