Summary: There was fault by the Council. It decided that it should take a homeless application from Miss B but took too long to do this, despite Miss B’s physical and mental ill health. The Council provided interim accommodation during this time but the delay and uncertainty caused Miss B distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss B and make a payment to her in recognition of the distress it caused. The Council has also agreed to review whether Miss B’s current accommodation is suitable.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains about how the Council dealt with her housing situation. In particular, Miss B says the Council:
• Did not enter her onto the housing register between February 2018 and June 2019;
• Put her in unsuitable interim accommodation between 2017 and 2019;
• Did not properly prepare her current accommodation before she moved in;
• Failed to give her support with the move and furnishing the property;
• Has racially discriminated against her since 2017;
• Has not properly assessed all the medical information she has given it;
• Failed to complete all the repairs and the work it has done is substandard; and
• Wrongly claims she has rent arrears and an overpayment of housing benefit.
2. Miss B says that as a result of the Council’s shortcomings, her mental health has suffered, her anxiety has increased to the extent that she could not use a communal kitchen and so did not eat hot meals. Miss B says the flat she has now is too small, and dangerous when she has seizures because she becomes unconscious, falls and hurts herself.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Miss B’s complaints about unsuitable temporary accommodation, the housing register, how it prepared her current accommodation and how it supported her to move there. I have investigated Miss B’s complaints about how it considered her medical information and her complaints about racial discrimination in relation to these issues.
4. 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)
5. Miss B has ill health and her housing difficulties were ongoing and likely to exacerbate her mental illness. For these reasons I have decided to exercise discretion to investigate the Council’s actions from September 2017.
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
7. Miss B can challenge whether her current property is suitable in court. Again, Miss B’s physical and mental health and that this is likely to have been exacerbated by her housing situation, means that I do not think it is reasonable to expect her to go to court to challenge these decisions. This means I am investigating the Council’s actions even when Miss B could have gone to court.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

8. 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)
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. I considered the information provided by Miss B. I considered the information provided by the Council including the file documents. I also considered the law and guidance set out below. Both parties have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I have considered the comments made in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

11. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. Generally, the Council carries out the duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
12. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
13. 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.  This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty.  (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
14. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. There is also a right to request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided once the Council has accepted the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
15. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of receiving the review request. This period can be extended but only if the applicant agrees in writing. If the applicant wishes to challenge the review decision, or if a council takes more than eight weeks to complete the review, they may appeal on a point of law to the County Court (Housing Act 1996, sections 202 and 204)

What happened

16. Miss B was living in university accommodation. She has a neurological disorder which causes her significant pain and means it is very hard for her to stand and walk. Miss B also has significant mental illness.
17. Miss B first approached the Council in August 2017 because she had been asked to leave the university halls. Miss B gave the Council some medical information about her mobility and back pain. On 1 September 2017, the Independent Medical Assessor recommended that Miss B would need a property suitable for a person with limited mobility. The files note the medical information provided at that time was scarce, but that the assessment could be reviewed if more medical information were submitted.
18. The Council took a homeless application from Miss B. She had been living in the university accommodation for a short while and before that had lived with family and in a hostel. The Council could not verify why Miss B had left her previous accommodation and it decided that she had family accommodation available to her, and so was not homeless. On 11 September 2017, Miss B asked the Council to review its decision that she was not homeless.
19. The Council said it would respond by 6 November. On 31 October, Miss B told the Council that the university had obtained a possession order and she was scared she would be evicted. The Council did not complete the review of its homeless decision until 20 February 2018. It said it had agreed with Miss B and her representative to extend the time frame for the review.
20. The Council decided that Miss B had no settled accommodation to return to and so was homeless, and the Council owed her a duty to house her. However, the Council then decided that as the university had evicted Miss B, and her circumstances had changed, she would need to make a fresh homeless application.
21. The Council placed Miss B in interim hostel accommodation but she found it too difficult to live there. She has told me it was intimidating. After two nights, the Council moved Miss B to different interim accommodation. The Council’s files describe this as a B&B double room with ensuite. Miss B told the Council that the accommodation was not suitable for her and that she was scared of the other tenants and that anyone could come into the building. She has told me that the kitchen was shared and difficult for her to access as it was on a different floor. Miss B occupied this room from 21 February 2018. Miss B asked the Council to review whether the accommodation was suitable for her, but there is no date on the review document and I cannot tell whether the Council dealt with this review request. The Council says that the accommodation was self-contained, but Miss B’s subsequent homeless application says that she shared facilities.
22. Despite its decision in February 2018, that it should take another homeless application from Miss B, the Council did not consider this until June 2019. At that time, the independent medical assessor decided that Miss B has a complex mix of physical and mental health problems that means her coping skills are poor and fragile with multiple symptoms. The assessor recommended the Council accept that it has a duty to rehouse Miss B as she is homeless and vulnerable. The assessor said Miss B’s health with deteriorate significantly if she is homeless.
23. The Council wrote to Miss B on 19 July 2019. It confirmed it has a duty to house her and it placed her on its housing register allowing her to bid for properties. In the meantime, Miss B had complained to the Council about its delay and how it had treated her. The Council acknowledged that it delayed unduly in deciding her homeless application.
24. In August 2019, the Council offered Miss B a first-floor property with a lift. The Council’s letter set out that it will only make one offer of housing and that if she refuses it without good reason, the Council will have discharged its housing duty to her and she will be removed from the housing register. The Council’s letter also set out that Miss B had a right to refuse the property and ask the Council to review whether it was suitable or whether she had good reason to refuse this.
25. Miss B refused the property. She said it was too close to the ground floor and that the bedroom was too small and she could hurt herself if she had a seizure and fell. Miss B submitted a letter from her mental health practitioner saying she was at risk from further deterioration and experiencing high stress levels.
26. The Council decided that the offer was reasonable and it could enforce that as the single offer Miss B was entitled to. However, it took into account Miss B’s mental health. It decided that it could make a further offer of housing to Miss B.
27. In October, the Council made a further offer of a flat on a higher floor. Miss B accepted the offer but told the Council she could not move in because the flooring needed a repair, the balcony needed pigeon deposits removing, and she needed to get furniture.
28. The Council extended Miss B’s interim accommodation and referred her to its dedicated resettlement team to help her move to the new flat. The team helped Miss B apply to charities for help with furniture and appliances. It referred her to its handyman scheme for help putting the furniture together. It also helped her claim benefits. Miss B moved into the flat in November 2019.
29. Miss B is not satisfied with the current flat. She complained to the Council that it needs repair, has black mould, and cracks in the walls. The Council continued to liaise with Miss B about the repairs. Miss B complained about the behaviour of contractors and officers she had dealt with and said she had been a victim of hate crime in the area.
30. In January 2020, Miss B told the Council that the flat was not suitable and wanted the Council to review that and offer her a new flat. The Council told her that the deadline had expired for her to request a review of the offer on the basis that it was not suitable. However, the Council has since agreed to consider her review request.

Was there fault by the Council causing an injustice to Miss B?

Delay in resolving Miss B’s homelessness

31. There was fault by the Council. It says it agreed with Miss B to extend the time allowed to complete the review of its homeless decision, but it took from September 2017 until February 2018. This was too long, particularly as by this stage it understood that Miss B was vulnerable and was facing eviction from her university accommodation. The delay is likely to have caused Miss B frustration, uncertainty and distress.
32. The outcome of the review was that the Council should take a fresh homeless application. It took from February 2018 to July 2019 to do so and this was far too long and was fault by the Council. It housed Miss B in interim accommodation in the meantime, but the further delay caused Miss B uncertainty and distress.

Did the Council consider Miss B’s medical information?

33. Overall, it is clear that the Council correctly took into account Miss B’s medical information, but that it took too long to act on this.
34. The files show that as time went on, Miss B was able to submit more medical information, giving the Council a clearer understanding of how her symptoms affect her. The Council properly considered the information it had in 2017 when it decided that Miss B would need a property suitable for restricted mobility. It again properly considered the evidence when it decided in July 2019, that Miss B was vulnerable due to her mental and physical ill health. Lastly, the Council properly considered the medical evidence when it decided in September 2019, that it would make a second offer of accommodation. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered Miss B’s medical information.

Was the interim accommodation unsuitable for Miss B?

35. Miss B says the interim accommodation was not suitable to meet her needs. The Council sent me a form completed by Miss B asking it to review whether the interim accommodation it placed her in from February 2018 to November 2019 was suitable. The form is undated and it is not clear how the Council dealt with this or how it addressed this issue. Miss B complained that anyone could get into the house and she did not feel safe.
36. The Council says this accommodation was self-contained. But its letter to her offering the accommodation says this was a double room with an ensuite. Miss B’s housing application says she shares facilities. Miss B says the accommodation had a shared kitchen which she struggled to use because she felt nervous of the other tenants and it was on a different floor to her bedroom.
37. The accommodation may have been suitable for a short period as an interim measure. However, the Council’s delays meant that Miss B spent around 15 months longer in this interim accommodation than she should have. It is unlikely that this was suitable long term, and so it was fault by the Council not to offer more suitable accommodation sooner.

Is the current accommodation unsuitable for Miss B?

38. The Council took into account that Miss B felt she needed a flat on a higher floor to aid her mental health, and that her mobility problems meant she would need a lift to access this.
39. Miss B and the Council have liaised about repairs to the flat and its fittings. I have not investigated this issue for the reasons set out below. Miss B later asked the Council to review whether the property was suitable for her. She would normally need to do this within one month and she had missed this deadline. Miss B tells me that her earlier emails about the repairs and her concerns about the location, was a request for the Council to review suitability. I agree with the Council that this was not completely clear from Miss B’s emails. The Council has agreed to review this now and this is a reasonable way to settle this part of Miss B ‘s complaint. Miss B can complain again to the Ombudsman if she is not satisfied with the Council’s review.

Did the Council do enough to support Miss B’s move to her current flat?

40. The Council has a dedicated resettlement team. This team applied for grants for Miss B to furnish the property and gave her details of a further grant. The Council also helped Miss B to claim the correct benefits and advised Miss B to make payments to her rent from this. When rent arrears accrued the Council applied for direct payments from her benefit to make sure the arrears did not get worse. There was no fault by the Council here. It gave her the appropriate support with furnishings and her finances. It was also clear what it could and could not help her with.

Did the Council racially discriminate against Miss B?

41. The Council took too long to add Miss B to the housing register and to resolve her housing issues. However, there is no evidence that this was due to racial discrimination. There is no evidence of discrimination in the Council’s dealings with Miss B.

Agreed action

42. To remedy the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed that it will within one month of this decision show the Ombudsman it has:
• Apologised to Miss B;
• Paid her £300 in respect of the distress caused to her when the Council took too long to review its homelessness decision and to implement the outcome of that review;
• Paid Miss B £1200 to recognise that a long time in interim accommodation caused Miss B distress; and
• Shared this decision with staff.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council causing injustice to Miss B.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

44. 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)
45. I cannot investigate what the Council did as Miss B’s landlord. So, I have not investigated Miss B’s complaints about repair issues or whether it should have taken action against her for rent arrears.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman