Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing case since she became homeless in June 2017. The Council was at fault. It delayed moving her from unsuitable temporary accommodation for 14 months and delayed reviewing her case for four months following its stage 1 complaint response. The Council agreed to pay Miss X a total of £1200 to recognise the distress, uncertainty and time and trouble caused by the faults.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing case since she became homeless in June 2017. Miss X said the Council:
• placed her and her children in bed and breakfast accommodation for six months;
• delayed moving her from unsuitable temporary accommodation for over one year;
• offered her unsuitable temporary accommodation in a different council area;
• delayed reviewing her case for over three months after it had agreed to do so.
2. Miss X said she suffered distress, uncertainty, frustration and time and trouble because of the Council’s actions in handing her case.

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. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Miss X about her complaint.
6. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter.
7. I considered the information the Council sent me following my enquiry letter.
8. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. Neither provided any comments for me to consider.

Back to top

What I found

9. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. Generally, the council carries out the duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation.
10. Applicants have a right to ask for a review of a council’s decision about their homelessness application or the suitability of temporary accommodation. There is no right to review the suitability of interim accommodation provided while the council makes enquires.
11. Where a council has accepted a main housing duty to an applicant, it may not be able to make an offer of permanent accommodation for some time. In such cases, it may have to provide temporary accommodation during that period. Any offers of accommodation made to comply with this ongoing duty have to be suitable. If an applicant refuses a suitable offer, the authority may be able to end its main housing duty.
12. The accommodation must be suitable for the applicant and all members of their household. Until such time as the council’s duty is finally ended, it has a continuing obligation to keep the suitability of accommodation under review and if the applicant's circumstances change, the authority must reconsider whether the accommodation is still suitable. This includes considering the health needs of the household, standard of accommodation, overcrowding and location.
13. This Council’s ‘Placement procedure’ for temporary accommodation states due to the acute shortage of affordable housing in its area and close to it, an increasing number of households are likely to be placed outside the area. The procedure states all offers of accommodation will be given in writing, and the letter will provide details of the applicants right to review the offer.
14. The Council’s website states the number of people applying for homes in its area is rising. Therefore, it may take a number of years for applicants to be offered permanent homes in its area.

What happened

15. In June 2017, Miss X told the Council her landlord was evicting her and her two children from a property. She submitted a homelessness application and the Council provided her with interim accommodation at property 1.
16. The Council accepted it had a housing duty to Miss X in July 2017. Following that decision, Miss X appealed against the suitability of property 1 and sent the Council evidence showing why it was unsuitable. In October 2017 the Council carried out a review of property 1 and agreed the property was not suitable because it was overcrowded
17. In November 2017, the Council found Miss X alternative temporary accommodation (TA) at property 2. Miss X went to view the property which was a flat on the 9th floor of a tower block. Miss X said her child had a panic attack due to the height of the property. The Council told Miss X to submit a health questionnaire which she did the day after moving into the property.
18. The Council’s senior medical advisor reviewed Miss X’s health questionnaire which outlined her child’s anxiety with living in a high rise flat. They said in January 2018 that Miss X should not be housed in accommodation more than three floors up because of her child’s fear of heights and panic attacks. Following this, Miss X met with the Council’s Move on Team to discuss her case and work towards finding her permanent settled accommodation.
19. The Move on Team decided Miss X did not have any particular need for housing in a specific location, so was therefore eligible of offers of accommodation outside the Council’s area. The Council’s temporary accommodation strategy says families are only placed outside the area as a last resort and then only after consideration of the impact on the wellbeing of the children within the household. There is no evidence in the records to show how the Council considered the impact on the children when deciding this.
20. In March 2018 the Council made Miss X a verbal offer for an alternative TA which was located in a different council area. Miss X refused the offer as it was too far away from her children’s school and away from her support network for her medical needs. The Council said Miss X should continue to pursue permanent accommodation through the Move on Team.
21. Miss X remained at property 2 and continued to make enquiries with the Council between April and September 2018 about further offers of alternative TA. Miss X said property 2 continued to be unsuitable due to her children needing their own bedrooms and because of her child’s fear of heights. There is no record the Council made any further attempts find Miss X alternative accommodation during this period.
22. In September 2018 the Move on Team carried out a further suitability assessment of Miss X’s housing needs. The assessment considered the children’s school location, the children’s medical needs and noted Miss X suffered from depression and insomnia. The assessment found no evidence of any mental health services involvement or any care from statutory services. The assessment considered Miss X’s self-employment as a hairdresser however there was no record of any income or statement of earnings. The assessment concluded that Miss X could be housed in areas outside the Council’s area.
23. Miss X was unhappy with the outcome of the assessment and sent in new medical evidence to show the Council should not move her outside the its area. Miss X said she had recently broken her leg and was bed bound. Miss X said she relied on physio and care from her support network and therefore needed housing close to that support network.
24. The Council’s medical advisors considered Miss X’s case in December 2018. They said Miss X’s broken leg was not long term and although the current property 2 was not ideal on medical grounds, it was acceptable. The medical advisor said residing close to family and friends was beneficial but not a necessity in Miss X’s circumstances.
25. Miss complained to the Council. Miss X said the Council had left her in unsuitable TA for over one year. Miss X said the Council had not properly considered all of her medical evidence which showed it should only house her within its area. Miss X said the Council was trying to discharge its housing duty by moving her permanently out its area. Miss X provided a letter from her GP which gave information about her ongoing medical issues, and also evidence that her child was being assessed by mental health.
26. The Council moved Miss X to a new TA (property 3) in March 2019 which was within its locality.
27. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint in March 2019. It accepted property 2 was unsuitable and that it had taken a long time to find an alternative property for her. The Council said it had reviewed all of Miss X’s medical information and its medical advisor made no recommendations that she needed to remain housed within its area. The Council noted Miss X’s complaint contained reference to increased medical needs which the Council not yet taken account of. It said it would ask an officer to contact her within 14 days to review her case. Miss X was unhappy with the Council’s response and asked to escalate it to the next stage.
28. The Council did not reassess Miss X’s case until May 2019 and did not send her new medical information for assessment until June 2019.
29. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint at stage two in June 2019. It said Miss X remained in TA because of the unprecedented demand for housing, however it had no recommendations that said she needed to be permanently housed within its area. The Council did not accept it was trying to move Miss X out of its area to discharge its housing duty, however it said it could legally do that if she refused a suitable offer of permanent accommodation. The Council apologised that nobody had contacted her following the stage one response. However, said its review of her case would ensure it has not missed any evidence.
30. The Council’s medical advisor reviewed Miss X’s case in July 2019. It considered Miss X’s previous medical submissions and the letter from the GP. They decided it was appropriate for Miss X and her children to stay within the Council’s area in ground floor properties.
31. Miss X remained unhappy with the Council’s actions and asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint.

My findings

32. Miss X complained the Council left her in bed and breakfast accommodation in property 1 for six months. The accommodation was not bed and breakfast, it was classed as self-contained because it had private kitchen and bathroom facilities. Although the property was not necessarily suitable when she moved in, she had no right of review at that point. That was because the Council provided the property as emergency interim accommodation while it considered her homelessness application. The Council accepted it had a housing duty to Miss X at the end of July 2017. Following this Miss X exercised her right of review for the suitability of property 1 which the Council upheld. The Council carried out the review and moved Miss X without delay. I found no administrative fault during that process, so the Council was not at fault.
33. The Council’s medical advisor recommended Miss X should live in a property no higher than three floors up in January 2018 due her child’s fear of heights. Therefore, at that point, property 2 was unsuitable. The Council delayed moving Miss X from property 2 until March 2019. That was fault. The delay meant Miss X stayed in unsuitable TA for 14 months which caused her distress and the time and trouble of pursuing the Council about this.
34. The Council made a verbal offer to Miss X for alternative TA outside its area which she refused because it was away from her support network and her children’s school. On balance I find that offer was a formal offer. I say that because, the records show the Council told Miss X it would make no further TA offers and advised her to seek permanent accommodation through the Move on Team. As it was a formal offer the Council should have made it in writing in line with its placement policy procedure. It did not and that was fault. It meant Miss X was not given her statutory right of review and she was not formally told the consequences of refusing an offer of accommodation. There is no evidence this offer was for permanent accommodation, therefore I cannot say the Council was trying to discharge its housing duty at this point.
35. The Council said this offer of accommodation was suitable based on the location. However, there is also no evidence to show how the Council properly considered Miss X’s circumstances or the impact on her children at the time it made this offer, which was not in line with its TA strategy. That was fault and caused Miss X distress and uncertainty.
36. The Council’s medical advisor said in December 2018 that property 2 appeared ‘acceptable if not ideal on medical grounds’. However, the Council’s senior medical advisor had already decided in January 2018 that it was unsuitable due to her child’s fear of heights. There was no evidence the medical advisor considered that recommendation when they reviewed Miss X’s case in December 2018. That was fault and contributed to the delay in moving Miss X from property 2.
37. The Move on Team assessed Miss X’s suitability for offers of accommodation outside the area in January 2018. There is no evidence to show how it considered Miss X’s circumstances, specifically the impact on her children. That was fault and caused Miss X distress and uncertainty.
38. The Council said in its stage 1 complaint response in March 2019 that an officer from its Move on Team would contact Miss X within 14 days to review her case. There is no evidence anybody contacted Miss X and it did not review her case until July 2019. That was fault and caused Miss X uncertainty, distress and time and trouble.
39. When the Move on Team reviewed Miss X’s suitability for accommodation outside its area in September 2018 the records show it did consider all factors, including Miss X’s medical issues and her children’s school circumstances. Although Miss X disagreed with that assessment, as the Move on Team considered the relevant evidence and policies there was no fault in how it made that decision.
40. In July 2019 the Council considered new evidence from Miss X and decided she should be housed within the area.
41. I have decided the remedies below in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Agreed action

42. The Council agreed within one month of the final decision to:
• apologise to Miss X and pay her £1050 to recognise the distress, uncertainty and time and trouble caused by the 14-month delay in moving her from unsuitable temporary accommodation at property 2;
• apologise to Miss X for the uncertainty caused by failing to properly consider her circumstances and for failing to formally write to her with its offer of temporary accommodation at property 3 in line with its placement procedure policy and temporary accommodation strategy;
• pay Miss X an additional £150 to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the its delay in reviewing her case following its stage one complaint response.
• remind relevant staff not to make informal verbal offers of accommodation and to write to applicants in line with its placement procedure policy;
• remind its medical advisors to review previous medical recommendations when deciding whether properties are suitable.

Back to top

Final decision

43. The Council was at fault and it agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman