Summary: The complainant, Mr X complained the Council failed to provide suitable temporary accommodation or decide if it owed him a housing duty within a reasonable time. Mr X says this left him in unsuitable accommodation for much longer than it should. The Council says it reviewed suitability and found the accommodation suitable for Mr X. We found the Council acted with fault and it has agreed a remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mr X, says the Council failed to properly manage his temporary accommodation and properly and without delay respond to his complaints about the accommodation. Mr X also complains the Council then failed to properly consider his housing needs, and the impact on his medical conditions caused by the temporary accommodation. This he says resulted in the Council awarding less priority for housing than it should.
2. Mr X says this caused him to live in unsuitable temporary accommodation for longer than if the Council had properly considered the application. Mr X wants the Council to apologise and to pay him for the significant distress it has caused him.

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. 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)
5. If 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

6. In considering this complaint I have:
• Spoken with Mr X and read the information presented with his complaint;
• Put enquiries to the Council and reviewed its responses;
• Researched the relevant law, guidance, policy, and practice.
7. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and the Council and reflected on comments received before reaching this my final decision.
8. The Council was a victim of a cyber-attack in October 2020 and has been unable to provide records to show what happened in respect of issuing a bidding number for Mr X to use.
9. We cannot say what happened about the bidding number because of the service failure by the Council as record keeper. The ability to investigate and respond to complaints are functions, we expect authorities to maintain at all times.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

10. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
11. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
12. There are no statutory time limits for completing inquiries. However, the Homelessness Code of Guidance recommends that councils aim to complete their inquiries within 33 working days.
13. 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)
14. If satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure accommodation that is available for their occupation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193, and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
15. 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)
16. Homeless applicants may ask for a review within 21 days of receiving notice of certain decisions. This includes 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).
17. Councils must complete reviews of suitability within eight weeks of the date of the applicant asking for a review. The period can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
18. Under the Council’s Housing Allocations Policy anyone wishing to join the housing register must show they have been resident in the Borough for three years. That is unless they have been accepted as a homeless person to whom the Council owes a duty to provide a home.
19. The Council’s Housing Allocations Policy allows housing officers to offer a homeless applicant a direct let rather than the applicant bidding for a home.

What happened

20. In September 2019 Mr X asked for help as a potentially homeless person. The Council placed Mr X in Hostel Q while it conducted enquiries into whether it owed Mr X the main housing duty. Mr X says he complained often to the Council about the housing in which it had placed him. Commercial noise from local businesses in the early morning disturbed him and Mr X says this adversely affected his conditions.
21. In October 2020 the Council accepted it owed Mr X the main housing duty because he was homeless. This meant Mr X had become homeless from 6 September 2019. However, due to the loss of records through the cyber-attack in October 2020, the Council could not issue a bidding number for him to bid for properties.
22. The Council’s decision that it owed Mr X the main housing duty resulted in Mr X’s right to ask for a review of Hostel Q’s suitability. Mr X says the conditions in Hostel Q aggravated his physical and mental health conditions making it unsuitable for his needs. So, Mr X asked for a review of Hostel Q’s suitability in December 2020.
23. The Council began the review but in January 2021 following Hostel Q’s ending of Mr X’s tenancy, the Council moved Mr X to Hotel Y. The Council wrote to Mr X on 28 January 2021 ending its review of Hostel Q’s suitability. The Council said it saw no merit in continuing the review because Mr X had now moved. In its response to my enquiries, the Council says it was ‘on the verge’ of finding Hostel Q suitable accommodation for Mr X. However, it did not issue a decision to confirm that view because Mr X could no longer stay there his occupancy having been ended by the owner.
24. On 4 February 2021 Mr X asked for a suitability review of Hotel Y. It presented in Mr X’s view similar impacts on his mental health as Hostel Q.
25. The Council undertook a review. The Council considered information presented by medical professionals who had assessed Mr X. The Council found the medical opinion inconclusive on whether the accommodation in Hotel Y made Mr X’s conditions worse. The Council told Mr X that it did not need to ask for a view from its medical adviser having seen several professional medical opinions presented by Mr X. The Council explained that its housing officer must decide the application but may ask for a medical view if they feel they need further advice.
26. Mr X says the Council failed to properly consider the impact of the conditions in which he lived and how they made his conditions worse. Mr X told the Council he had experienced bed bug and mice infestations in Hotel Y. The Council noted when reviewing Hotel Y’s suitability, the Hotel management had twice fumigated the bed and provided a new mattress. The Council noted staff had set traps to eradicate the mice. Mr X found the communal nature of living in Hostel Q and Hotel Y noisy and intrusive and that affected his depression and anxiety. Mr X says the Council did not consider this properly or seek further expert professional advice.
27. The Council set out its decision in a letter to Mr X on 14 April 2021. The Council found Hotel Y suitable for Mr X and set out its reasons. The Council says it properly considered the review of Hotel Y’s suitability. Mr X did not exercise his right of appeal to the County Court. Mr X had legal representation at the time.
28. Under the Council’s housing allocations policy, it may offer someone a direct let in certain circumstances. The Council says officers noted that people who applied for housing in similar circumstances to Mr X with a band date of 2019 usually gained a home within twelve to eighteen months. Mr X had not gained a settled home by this time and so the Council offered him a direct let of a one-bedroom apartment in July 2021. Mr X accepted the offer. That fulfilled the Council’s housing duty to him.
29. The Council says the agency which inspects accommodation across London graded Hostel Q as ‘C’, acceptable, and Hotel Y ‘A’ which is the highest grade.
30. Mr X complains the Council’s delay left him living in unsuitable accommodation without the right to apply for a review. But for that delay Mr X says he may have achieved more suitable temporary housing or indeed settled housing earlier.
31. Mr X says the Council prevented him from bidding for homes. The Council says it offered Mr X a direct let partly because of the loss of accurate records in the cyber-attack.

Analysis – was there fault leading to injustice?

32. I must consider if the Council assessed Mr X’s homelessness application and suitability of his accommodation properly. If I find the Council did not properly consider its duty or delayed its decision I must decide if that caused an injustice. If it did, I must decide what the Council should do to put that right.
33. On his application in September 2019 the Council acted quickly to place Mr X in interim accommodation. Interim and temporary accommodation should be suitable. Although applicants only have a right to a review once a council accepts it owes them the main housing duty councils should note and investigate allegations of poor conditions. Mr X complained often but I have not seen any record of the Council having checked its suitability before placing Mr X in Hostel Q or while it conducted enquiries into his homelessness.
34. Guidance recommends councils complete enquiries into homelessness applications within certain timescales. Mr X presented as potentially homeless in September 2019. The Council only completed its enquiries in October 2020. The decision took far longer than it should. I find the Council at fault for the delay in deciding the application. This resulted in a delay to Mr X having housing priority and his right to apply for a review of his temporary accommodation’s suitability.
35. When Mr X asked for a review of Hostel Q’s suitability in December 2020 the Council started the review. The Council decided to end the review because Mr X then moved to Hotel Y the owner of Hostel Q having ended his tenancy. I understand the reasons given. However, applicants have a legal right to a review. It follows that a formal decision in response to them exercising that legal right must be given. The Council says it had reached a view on suitability. So why not issue it? I find the Council failed to follow best practice when it failed to issue its view of Hostel Q’s suitability. It says it is suitable. That decision should have been given to Mr X in January 2021 not in response to my enquiries into his complaint.
36. Mr X asked for a review of Hotel Y’s suitability. In deciding that review the Council noted that Hotel Y’s management had fumigated the bed, and then replaced the mattress and set traps for mice. It considered the information presented by Mr X’s medical team but decided that was inconclusive on the impact of the conditions on Mr X’s health. However, the housing officer decided not to ask for advice from the Council’s medical adviser. They believed the information they had from Mr X’s medical team provided all they needed to decide the issue and it is for the housing officer to decide. I find the Council had before it all relevant information when it decided Hotel Y’s suitability. Any challenge on a point of law Mr X could follow up in the County Court and that is outside my jurisdiction.
37. I find the Council at fault for:
• Failing to keep records of the bidding number and history;
• Failing to consider the suitability of Hostel Q before it accepted the main housing duty in the face of so many complaints;
• Ending the review of Hostel Q’s suitability without giving a decision;
• The delay in deciding the Council owed Mr X the main housing duty.
38. What is the impact of these faults? Although the Council says it believed Hostel Q suitable the lack of a formal decision means Mr X will never know if he lived in unsuitable accommodation for far longer than he should. That said, it is unlikely the Council’s final decision would have found Hostel Q unsuitable and so I find that lessens any injustice.
39. The Council’s delay in accepting it owed Mr X the full housing duty resulted in a delay to the offer of a settled home. It resulted in Mr X living in Hostel Q and Hotel Y for longer and delayed Mr X’s right to a review of their suitability. The Council recognised that and so offered Mr X a direct let so it could ensure he received an offer of a home within a similar timescale to other homeless applicants who applied in 2019. I have considered the Council’s action when deciding on my remedy proposals because I would have recommended it consider a direct let.
40. We try to place someone in the position they would have been, but for the faults identified. However, where that is not possible, we apply our ‘Guidance on Remedies’. The Guidance sets out a symbolic payment in recognition of the avoidable distress and inconvenience caused. We have a scale of between £100 and £300.

Back to top

Agreed action

41. To address the injustice experienced by Mr X I the Council agrees to within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mr X;
• Pay Mr X £300 in recognition of the avoidable uncertainty it caused;
• Shares the decision with staff to reflect on the need to complete reviews of suitability and assess homelessness applications without delay.

Back to top

Final decision

42. In completing my investigation, I find the Council at fault for which it has agreed a proportionate remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman