Summary: Mrs G complained about how the Council dealt with her request for a suitability review of her interim accommodation and its subsequent delay in providing her family with suitable accommodation. We found the Council at fault for causing unnecessary delays in the review process and for its ongoing failure to move her family to a suitable interim accommodation. The Council should apologise to Mrs G and make payment to remedy the injustice it caused, and continues to cause, her and her children.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs G, complained about the Council’s failure to move her and her children to a suitable alternative accommodation since deciding her current interim accommodation was unsuitable in April 2023.
2. She also complained the Council failed to take action when her landlord’s workmen let themselves into her property and said it had made errors is her housing register application.
3. Mrs G said, as a result, she and her children have experienced distress and their mental health has been impacted.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Mrs G’s complaint and the Council’s responses;
• discussed the complaint with Mrs G and considered the information she provided;
• considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries;
• considered the law, guidance, and policy relevant to the complaint.
7. Mrs G and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law, guidance and policy

Homelessness

8. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
9. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:
• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)
10. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
11. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household.  This duty applies to interim and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
12. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a council provides it. This is important because there is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. This then carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.
13. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Review rights

14. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions. This includes the suitability of accommodation offered after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.
15. 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)
16. Councils has eight weeks to complete review requests relating to the suitability of accommodation. This can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
17. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5))

The Council’s complaints procedure

18. The Council’s policy says it will respond to the complaints it receives by:
• acknowledging a complaint within five working days;
• providing its stage one complaint response within 20 working days, and inform the complainant if there are delay in doing so; and
• If the complainant remains unhappy, it will provide a stage two response within 20 working days.

What happened

19. Mrs G asked the Council for help with housing to meet her and her children’s needs, and in August 2022 the Council placed her family in interim accommodation outside its area. This was a private rented property managed by an agent. Mrs G moved into the interim accommodation, which is a large property due to the size of her family.
20. In late 2022 Mrs G told the Council her interim accommodation was unsuitable for her and her family. This was primarily because her children receive ongoing support with their medical needs from services within the Council’s area and Mrs G needed access to her own support network. She therefore needed accommodation within the Council’s area.
21. The Council contacted Mrs G’s GP to review the medical records of the family so it could decide whether her interim accommodation was suitable to meet their needs.
22. In January 2023, the Council asked Mrs G if she could send her medical information. It explained this was because it had not received a response from her GP. Mrs G shared some information and provided her GP’s email address for the Council to contact.
23. The Council emailed Mrs G’s GP the same day and received the GP’s response with information about the family’s medical circumstances the following day.
24. In late January 2023, Mrs G told the Council some workmen had turned up unannounced and let themselves into her interim accommodation and had tried to destroy her child’s cot. She shared CCTV footage of the entry with the Council.
25. The Council told Mrs G it would address the issue with the managing agent.
26. The Council contacted the managing agent and asked for an urgent response to the concerns about unauthorised entry to Mrs G’s property. The agent responded the same day and explained it had been a misunderstanding about the tenancy. It had discussed the matter with Mrs G, and it had been resolved.
27. In late February 2023, the Council asked its medical adviser on its view of the suitability of Mrs G’s interim accommodation and shared her family’s medical records for consideration.
28. In late March 2023, a new officer was allocated to Mrs G’s case. She told Mrs G she would carry out the suitability review and had considered her case. She asked Mrs G some further questions about what support she and her children were accessing in its area. The officer also acknowledged the review had taken longer than the 56-day deadline to do so.
29. In April 2023 Mrs G told the Council of her child had been diagnosed with autism and shared the report. The Council told her it was still waiting for information from the Community Mental Health Team. It received the information shortly after.
30. The Council completed Mrs G’s suitability review two weeks later. It found her out-of-area interim accommodation was not suitable for her family due to its location and their needs to access support and services within the Council’s area. It explained it had a duty to provide her and her family with accommodation, which may in private rented accommodation.
31. Six weeks later, Mrs G complained to the Council about its handling of her suitability review and the fact they were still living in the unsuitable interim accommodation. She explained the impact this was having on her and her family’s mental health.
32. Mrs G also told the Council a further incident of unauthorised access to her interim accommodation had occurred. This was late at night when she and her children were asleep. A man had entered her property and remained there for a few minutes before leaving. The man had returned the following day, during the daytime when no one was home, and stayed for over 20 minutes. She had reported the matter to the Police and the managing agent.
33. The Council contacted the managing agent shortly after and asked for an urgent response to Mrs G’s concerns. The agent explained it had already investigated. The entry was by a contractor who did an electrical safety check and believed the property was empty. He returned the following day to complete the work. It had spoken with Mrs G and considered the matter closed.
34. Mrs G told the Council she felt unsafe in the property. The Council again spoke with the managing agent, challenged why entry had been made, and asked if the locks could be changed. The agent did not agree to do so.
35. The Council told Mrs G it would move her to an alternative interim accommodation as soon as somewhere suitable in its area became available.
36. In June 2023 Mrs G continued to chase the Council for a move and asked for a response to her complaint.
37. In July 2023 the Council provided its response to Mrs G’s complaint. It explained:
• it had agreed her interim accommodation was unsuitable, but it was struggling to find a suitable property within its area which would meet the family’s needs. It could not say when a move would take place;
• it had addressed the unauthorised access incident with the managing agent. Although it had refused to change the locks, it had confirmed any access should be agreed with Mrs G first; and
• it had accepted a homeless duty for Mrs G. The long-term solution was likely to be a private rented accommodation. However, her housing register application had been approved and she could now bid for properties. It said only some of her children had been added due to an error, she could therefore only bid for smaller properties until this was resolved.
38. Two weeks later, the Council corrected Mrs G’s housing register application to include all her children. She could subsequently bid for properties of the appropriate size to the family’s needs.
39. In Autumn 2023 Mrs G asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint. She remains unhappy about the Council’s handling of her suitability review and the unauthorised entry. She said she had still not been moved to a suitable interim or temporary accommodation within the Council’s area.
40. In response to my enquiries in January 2024, the Council confirmed Mrs G has still not been moved. This was despite the steps it had taken to try and find her accommodation within its area.

Analysis and findings

The suitability review

41. Mrs G requested a review of the suitability of her interim accommodation in late 2022. The Council’s deadline to complete the review was therefore in mid-January 2023. However, the review was first completed in April 2023 which was 13 weeks longer than it should have taken.
42. I have considered the reasons why the Council’s suitability review decision was late. The evidence shows:
• the Council had attempted to obtain medical information from Mrs G’s GP prior to the deadline. However, it had not received a response as the email address it had used for the GP surgery was incorrect or no longer in use. It took the Council over 6 weeks to follow up its initial request with the surgery;
• the Council asked Mrs G to extend the deadline for a further month, which was agreed. The Council received the GP records a few days later;
• it took the Council five weeks to share Mrs G’s medical information with its medical assessor;
• the Council and its medical assessor considered Mrs G’s medical information. Based on the information it had, it believed the interim accommodation may have been suitable in the short term. However, it was aware Mrs G may have further information and an assessment was due for her son. It therefore sought further information from her, which she provided without delay;
• The Council received diagnosis about Mrs G’s son in April 2023 when his assessment had been completed, which confirmed his needs for support with the NHS in the Council’s area; and
• it decided shortly after Mrs G and her family were in unsuitable interim accommodation.
43. I have found the Council some fault by the Council for causing some unnecessary delays in the suitability review process. This was primarily up to when its new officer was allocated. I accept some delays were not due to fault by the Council.
44. The Council’s suitability decision in April 2023 found Mrs G’s interim accommodation was unsuitable for her and her family. However, the evidence shows the decision was based on the recent medical evidence, and without this evidence the accommodation was unlikely to have been found to be unsuitable.
45. The Council’s delay in completing the suitability review did therefore not mean Mrs G and her family would have been found to be in unsuitable accommodation sooner than April 2023, which is when the Council made this decision.
46. The Council subsequently had a duty to provide an alternative interim accommodation, or temporary accommodation, for her family from that time.
47. Mrs G is still living in the unsuitable interim accommodation. While I understand the Council is trying to find her another accommodation in its area, the lack of available properties does not relieve it of its duty to provide her with a suitable accommodation.
48. I therefore found the Council has continued to be at fault for its failure to provide Mrs G and her family with suitable interim accommodation. This has caused her and her children distress and uncertainty, and impacted their ability to receive the support they need from support networks and services in the Council’s area.

The unauthorised access

49. I understand Mrs G was upset by the experiences, however, I cannot fault the Council’s for the actions of the landlord or the agent. I can only consider the steps it took to resolve and prevent the unauthorised access from happening again.
50. The evidence shows the Council actioned Mrs G’s concerns about the unauthorised access to her interim accommodation on two occasions in 2023. This was by raising the concerns with the managing agent to seek clarification on what had happened and ensure it did not happen again. It had no powers to insist the locks were changed but received assurances Mrs G would be contacted in future before any access was attempted.
51. I have therefore not found the Council at fault for the way it handled Mrs G’s concerns about unauthorised access.

Mrs G’s housing register application

52. The Council accepted it had made an error in Mrs G’s housing register application by omitting some of her children. This meant she was unable to bid for properties of the size she needed for a two-week period.
53. I found this was fault by the Council. However, the two-week period it took the Council to correct the error did not cause her a significant injustice. This is because she was highly unlikely to have been successful for a bid for any accommodation in this period regardless.
54. In reaching my view I was conscious she has still not been successful with a bid under her housing register application. The Council’s apology was therefore enough to address the limited injustice this caused her.

Complaints handling and communication

55. I have considered the Council’s handling of Mrs G’s complaint and how it communicated with her. I have not found the Council at fault. This is because;
• although it was a week late in providing its complaint response, it had spoken with her during this period and explained the delays in finding her an alternative suitable accommodation;
• it communicated with Mrs G throughout and responded to her communication; and
• it was not its lack of communication or responses which caused Mrs G an injustice. Rather, this was its failure to provide her and her family with a move to a suitable interim or temporary accommodation within its area.
56. In this case I have not recommended any service improvements. This is because the Council is fully aware of the issue, the Government has directed it to improve the capability and capacity of its housing service, and there is nothing further we can reasonably ask the Council to do.

Back to top

Agreed action

57. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mrs G and her children, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. Apologise in writing to Mrs G, and pay her £1500 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty the Council’s failure to provide her and her family with a suitable interim accommodation caused them from April 2023 to January 2024;
2. Pay Mrs G £150 for each month, starting from February 2024, until the Council adheres to its duty to provide her and her family with suitable interim or temporary accommodation. This is to acknowledge the ongoing injustice this is causing the family.
3.  
4.  
5.  
58. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

59. There was fault which caused an injustice. The Council has agreed with my recommendations, it is on this basis I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman