Summary: There was fault by the Council because it took too long to complete a review of whether Miss B’s property was suitable for her. It has made changes to how it monitors progress and agrees extensions for reviews. It has agreed to also apologise to Miss B for the impact of the delay.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains that the Council has taken too long to complete a review of the suitability of her current accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

6. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193).
7. 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)
8. Homeless applicants may request a review of the suitability of accommodation after a homelessness duty has been accepted. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
9. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the Council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)
10. Councils must complete a review of the suitability of accommodation within eight weeks of receiving the review request. These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing. The council must advise applicant of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the Council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)
11. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)

What happened

12. Miss B 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. Miss B had been homeless and the Council accepted that it had a legal duty to secure housing for her.
13. Miss B accepted a flat from the Council and moved in during November 2019. 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 said she had been a victim of hate crime in the area. She told the Council that the accommodation was having a significant effect on her mental physical health.
14. The Council said that it was not clear that Miss B had requested a review of the suitability of her accommodation. However, it agreed in February 2021 to complete a late review.
15. The Council’s review procedures are carried out by a contractor on its behalf. The Council remains responsible for the contractor’s actions. The Council received a consent form allowing it to obtained Miss B’s medical records in May 2021. It received the records in July and referred these to its medical assessor.
16. The Council issued a provisional decision to Miss B on 27 August. It decided that her property was suitable and asked her for comments on this. Miss B submitted her comments which raised repair issues, as well as that she would soon need an electric wheelchair outside and the lift was unreliable, and that she was having difficulty using the bath.
17. During September, the Council’s contractor considered the medical information and got information about the lifts. However, it could not move forward with the review until it had properly considered the repair issues. In the meantime, it wrote to Miss B to arrange numerous extensions of time to complete the review.
18. In November, Miss B submitted an independent survey of the repairs needed. The Council did not issue a schedule of work until late January 2022, showing what work it will complete.
19. On 3 February the Council issued a second provisional decision. The Council explained that it had considered the emails, videos and photographs she had sent it. The information from the police, her physiotherapists and occupational therapists, her psychiatrists and GP, as well as other medical professionals.
20. The Council found that two years ago, Miss B had reported two incidents to the Police that happened in her local community. There had been no other incidents. It acknowledged that Miss B has anxiety and low mood, but there was no evidence that she was being threatened or harassed.
21. Miss B lives in a block of flats and her occupational therapist has recommended she use a powered wheelchair outside. The Council checked that the lift to Miss B’s floor is working and has had only two incidents in the last year, both resolved on the same day. In addition, there are alternative lifts by which Miss B could access her flat.
22. It acknowledged that Miss B was struggling to transfer to and from the bath and there is no shower. However, the occupational therapist had agreed to provide adaptations to help with this. The therapist had also confirmed that although Miss B finds the layout and size of the flat makes it hard for her to move around it, the kitchen is big enough for her walking aids and perching stool.
23. Miss B’s solicitor had instructed a surveyor who submitted a report to the Council in November 2021. This said there was dampness to the outer bedroom wall, damage to the flooring and to the balcony. The Council’s surveyor inspected the flat and agreed that it would do the work to be completed by 23 February.
24. The Council’s provisional decision says taking into account all the information, it intends to decide that the accommodation is suitable for her in terms of her mental and physical health needs, that she is not being harassed, and there is no threat to her from living in the property.

Analysis

25. There is fault by the Council because it took too long to complete the review of whether Miss B’s accommodation was suitable for her. It took around six months to send her its first provisional decision, and then when she challenged this, it took a further five months to send its second provisional decision.
26. I understand the delay was due to the time it took the Council to agree the repair works. This allowed it to decide the flat, once repaired, is suitable for Miss B. However, there was no fault in the Council’s decision-making itself. The Council has considered all the relevant factors properly in arriving at its decision that the flat is suitable for Miss B. Although, the repairs have been outstanding for some time, and no doubt impacted on Miss B, as the Council intends to find the flat is suitable for her, the impact on her of the delay in completing the review is limited to her uncertainty and frustration.
27. In response to my enquiries, the Council has explained that it has periodic reviews with the contractor to monitor performance. It has decided that it will now not allow more than one extension without referring the case to a Council manager. I welcome this as an appropriate means to make sure avoidable delays do not recur.
28. I have not investigated the issue of the repairs because the provision and management of social housing and is outside the Ombudsman’s remit. Miss B has already consulted solicitors and the Housing Ombudsman on this issue.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. In addition to the changes to the Council’s procedure for agreeing extensions of time, it should within one month of the date of this decision apologise for the delay in completing the review.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman