Summary: Miss D complained the Council failed to review the suitability of her temporary accommodation. Based on current evidence I consider the Council is at fault. It failed to refer the case to its Review Team for over 12 months and then delayed progressing the suitability assessment. This caused Miss D avoidable distress and a lost opportunity to have a suitability assessment completed. I have asked the Council to pay Miss D financial redress and to explain how it will improve its service.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) complains the Council failed to carry out a suitability assessment of her temporary accommodation. She first reported suitability issues in March 2023. She had to pursue a formal complaint in 2024 and never received an assessment decision causing her distress and uncertainty.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

What I have and have not investigated

4. My investigation looks at what happened from when Miss D first reported suitability issues with her temporary accommodation to the Council in March 2023 through to October 2024 when she received the final formal complaints reply from the Council. I am unable to look at events that have happened since October 2024, these would need to form a new complaint to the Council in the first instance.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. On 6 March 2023 Miss D called the Council and spoke to a Temporary Accommodation Officer. The note of the call made by the Council says Miss D reported “her property is not suitable” because of problems with its size, ventilation and medical conditions. She was advised to request a medical assessment. On 25 March Miss D emailed a Temporary Accommodation Officer asking for an update on her housing situation. On 18 September a Council Officer emailed housing teams stating Miss D was chasing up actions on her case and “we have a placement suitability review query for you to review”. The action required was stated as a “suitability review”.
8. Miss D continued to chase up her case in 20204. On 21 February the Temporary Accommodation Team emailed her that it would contact her shortly to carry out a “suitability assessment”. In February 2024 Miss D lodged a formal complaint. She set out various problems with her temporary accommodation. She said the Council had told her in the March 2023 telephone call that someone would visit her and carry out a suitability review. She said she had made multiple suitability review requests since March 2023, and they had all been ignored. On 17 April the Council replied to Miss D. It said her “suitability request” had been referred to the Review Team who would contact her with its decision. In June the Council told Miss D it would now carry out a temporary accommodation suitability assessment. On 9 July Miss D sent additional information to the Review Team. On 15 July Miss D complained to the Council that it was delaying progressing her case. Miss D also sent an email chasing up the case a month later. The Council sent its final complaints reply on 10 October. It said Miss D had now been approved for a direct offer of housing. It made no reference to the suitability assessment.

What should have happened

Homelessness legislation and statutory guidance

9. 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.

Interim and temporary accommodation

10. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
11. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
12. If, having made inquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible, and in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.
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)

Suitable temporary accommodation

14. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
15. If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
16. The duty to provide suitable accommodation is an ongoing duty. Councils must keep the issue of suitability of accommodation under review. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.8)
17. A suitability review should be completed within eight weeks of being requested.

The Council’s non-statutory suitability review process

18. The Council’s Review Team should carry out a non-statutory review of the applicant’s accommodation, it is called a suitability assessment. This should be completed within eight weeks. The Ombudsman expects an authority to accept a review request if an applicant reports suitability issues by telephone.
19. When this non-statutory assessment is finalised, it gives the right for a tenant to request a formal suitability review under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996, as outlined above.

Was there fault by the Council

20. Miss D first reported suitability issues to the Council in March 2023. The Ombudsman expects a council to recognise when an applicant is reporting suitability issues and to refer them to the correct assessment process. I cannot see any action was taken about this issue at that time, except Miss D being advised to request a re-assessment of her medical priority. That is fault by the Council. It should have referred her suitability concerns to the Review Team to carry out a suitability assessment. I also see in September the Council noted a “suitability review” was needed and in February 2024 it stated a suitability assessment would be carried out shortly. However, the evidence shows me the suitability assessment was not referred to the Review Team until mid-2024 after Miss D made a formal complaint. I also see the October complaint response failed to explain to Miss D why the suitability assessment was not carried out at any point from March 2023 onwards.
21. I consider there is delay by the Council. It could and should have requested a suitability assessment in March 2023, that should have been completed by May. If Miss D had remained dissatisfied, she would have had the right to take forward a statutory suitability review. I also find fault in the poor complaint handling. Neither complaint response explained to Miss D why her suitability issues had not been assessed sooner.

Did the fault cause an injustice

22. I cannot say what the outcome would have been if the suitability assessment had taken place, however I am satisfied Miss D was subject to unreasonable delays and lost the opportunity to have an assessment. She was caused avoidable distress and uncertainty. Given Miss D remains in the temporary accommodation at present there may be the option for the Council to now carry out a suitability assessment. Any subsequent offers of accommodation hold a fresh right to review.

Back to top

Action

23. To remedy the injustice caused to Miss D the Council has agreed to:
• Pay Miss D £500 for avoidable distress and significant delay. Also to apologise for the poor handling of her case within four weeks of this case closing
• Carry out a suitability assessment as a matter of priority if Miss D is remaining in her current temporary accommodation in the short term. The assessment decision should be sent to Miss D. The Council should consider if any additional redress is due if it finds the accommodation is unsuitable.
• Set out to the Ombudsman what action has been taken to improve delays in the Review Team within four weeks of this case closing
24. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

25. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman