Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in accepting a main housing duty. The Council has agreed to take appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in accepting a main duty after he became homeless, which caused a delay in him being able to ask for a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation provided. When the Council carried out a review, it decided it was not suitable. Mr X says this meant he remained in unsuitable accommodation longer than he should have done.
2. Mr X also complained the effective date on his housing register application was incorrect, which will likely mean he waits longer than he should for an offer of social housing. He says the effective date should be the date he made his homelessness application.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

6. Mr X first contacted the Council for assistance in June 2023 as he had been given notice to leave accommodation provided by the Home Office in late August 2023. The Council carried out a homelessness assessment in early August 2023, accepted a relief duty and provided interim accommodation.
7. The relief duty usually lasts for 56 days, following which the Council decides whether it owes a main housing duty. If a main duty is accepted, interim accommodation becomes temporary accommodation. Applicants have the right to a review of the suitability of temporary (but not interim) accommodation.
8. On 2 February 2024, Mr X complained the Council had not yet made a decision about whether it owed him a main housing duty, despite having accepted a relief duty in August 2023. He said he needed a review of his accommodation, which was severely overcrowded.
9. The Council accepted a main housing duty on 21 February. Its letter did not explain Mr X now had the right to ask for a review of the suitability of the accommodation provided. However, Mr X did ask for a review on 8 March 2024. The Council carried out a review and decided the temporary accommodation was not suitable on 25 March. Its records indicate three adults, and one child were sharing a small room with two sets of bunk beds. It offered alternative temporary accommodation on 18 June, and Mr X moved there by 2 July 2024.
10. The Council also accepted Mr X onto its housing register. It awarded priority band 3, effective from 18 June 2024, and said Mr X needed 3 bedrooms.

My assessment

11. The Council accepted a relief duty in early August 2023 and should have made a main duty decision in early October 2023. If we investigated further, it is likely we would find the Council at fault for this delay. The delay in making the main duty decision delayed Mr X getting statutory review rights, which means Mr X and his family were in unsuitable temporary accommodation for 20 weeks longer than they should have been before gaining that right.
12. Further, when a council has decided temporary accommodation is not suitable, it has an immediate duty to arrange suitable alternative accommodation. In this case, the Council offered alternative temporary accommodation 12 weeks later. Whilst we recognise the current housing shortage, if we investigated further it is likely we would find this delay amounts to service failure, which means Mr X and his family remained longer in unsuitable temporary accommodation than they should have done after the Council decided it was unsuitable.
13. The Council’s allocation scheme awards band 3 for homeless applicants (except where they have support needs, in which case band 2 is awarded). The scheme does not state this is effective from the date it accepted a main housing duty, although in practice it is likely to process an application at that point if the homeless applicant has not already made an application. Therefore, the effective date should be the date the Council accepted a relief duty. In this case, the Council set the effective date as 18 June 2024. If we were to investigate further, it is likely we would find fault with the Council because the effective date should be no later than the date it should have made a main duty decision. This has caused an injustice to Mr X because it means he is likely to wait longer for an offer of social housing than he should have done.
14. We therefore asked the Council to take steps to remedy the injustice caused and it has agreed to take the following action within one month of the date of this decision:
• apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice;
• pay him £1,400 to remedy the injustice caused by the delay. This is calculated on the basis of £200 per month for seven months and is in line with our guidance on remedies for remedying unsuitable accommodation; and
• amend the effective date for Mr X’s housing register application to the date it accepted a relief duty.
15. The Council has recently agreed actions on another case to improve its homelessness service so further action is not needed on this case.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in accepting a main housing duty. The Council has agreed to take appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman