Summary: The Ombudsman finds the Council delayed significantly in reaching a decision on Mr B’s homelessness application and failed to properly assess the suitability of the temporary accommodation it provided for his family. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice suffered by the family.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council:
• delayed unreasonably in reaching a decision on his homelessness application; and
• failed to properly consider his family’s circumstances resulting in them being placed in unsuitable interim accommodation away from their extended family and support networks.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information provided by Mr B, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
5. Mr B 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

Legal and administrative background

Homelessness

6. Section 184 of the Homelessness Act 2002 states “If the local housing authority has reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, they shall make such enquiries as are necessary to satisfy themselves-
1. whether he is eligible for assistance, and
2. if so, whether any duty, and if so what duty, is owed to him”.

Suitability of accommodation

7. The Housing Act 1996 requires local authorities to ensure that accommodation, including interim accommodation, is “suitable” for the applicant and all members of their household who normally live with them.
8. In deciding whether the accommodation is suitable the Council must have regard to factors including:
• the space and arrangement of the accommodation;
• the state of repair and condition of the accommodation;
• the location of the accommodation, including ease of access to established employment, schools and specialist healthcare; and
• the specific needs of the applicant and any household members due to a medical condition or disability.
9. The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities states that housing authorities have a continuing obligation to keep the suitability of accommodation under review and to respond to any relevant change in circumstances which may affect suitability, until such time as the accommodation duty is brought to an end.

Location of accommodation

10. Section 208 of the 1996 Act requires a local authority, insofar as is reasonably practicable, to secure accommodation within its own district.
11. The Code recommends that housing authorities, particularly those that find it necessary to make out of district placements, develop policies for the procurement and allocation of accommodation which will help to ensure suitability requirements are met.
12. The Code states that the suitability of the location of the accommodation for all members of the household must be considered by the authority and, where possible, the authority should try to secure accommodation as close as possible to where an applicant was previously living. Where possible it should seek to retain established links with schools, doctors, social workers and other key services and support. The authority should consider the potential impact on the health and well-being of an applicant or their household if such support would be removed or medical facilities were no longer accessible. They should also consider whether similar facilities are accessible and available near the accommodation being offered.
13. The Code says the authority should record how decisions to place an applicant out of district have been reached, taking into account household collective and individual needs.

Key facts

14. In July 2017 Mr B approached the Council as homeless. He and his family had been living with his mother but the property was overcrowded and she asked them to leave. The Council provided the family with temporary accommodation the same day but it was outside the borough and away from their support networks.
15. Mr B applied to join the Council’s housing waiting list. He and his partner, Ms C, contacted the Council periodically, including visiting its offices, but it did not reach a decision on whether it had accepted a homelessness duty towards them.
16. On 13 July 2019 Ms C sent an email to the Council which it treated as a stage 1 complaint. On 2 August 2019 it accepted a homelessness duty to the family and notified Mr B. In recognition of the delay in reaching the decision, the Council backdated the start date for Mr B’s housing application to 1 October 2017, which is the date by which it should have made the decision.
17. The Council sent Mr B a Health Assessment and Vulnerability questionnaire because his application stated Ms C suffered from a mental health condition and two of his children had special needs. Mr B returned the form with supporting medical evidence with a view to obtaining additional priority on the housing register.
18. On 8 August 2019 the Council responded to Mr B’s complaint and apologised for the delay in reaching a decision on its homelessness duty to the family. It confirmed Mr B’s application had been placed in Band 3 on the housing register. It explained the medical information submitted by Mr B would be forwarded to its external independent medical advisers for consideration.
19. On 28 August 2019 the medical adviser notified the Council of a decision in relation to the family’s ‘future requirement to move’. He said the family should eventually be allocated a property no higher than the first floor with a garden or external play area and child/safety locks on all windows and doors. He also stated that being housed within the borough was not ‘medically essential’ because support services could be accessed in all areas and transfer of care within the NHS is an everyday process.
20. Mr B escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 30 August 2019.
21. On 5 September 2019 the Council received a further decision from its medical adviser that there was no compelling case for a move on medical grounds. The Council informed Mr B of this decision the same day.
22. The Council responded to Mr B’s stage 2 complaint on 3 October 2019. It accepted there was poor handling of his homelessness application and delay in making a decision. In recognition of the injustice caused by this, it offered to pay him £475.
23. On 18 October 2019 the case officer contacted the medical adviser for a view on whether one of Mr B’s children, who is autistic, required a separate bedroom.
24. On 10 November 2019 Mr B contacted the Council about the condition of his property. He sent photographs indicating the private landlord was doing little to address issues of mould and damp and a mouse infestation. He was concerned about his son’s welfare as he had been diagnosed with various medical conditions including one which manifested in him eating inappropriate objects. The case officer raised the matter with the placements team stating that alternative accommodation must be sourced. He also chased up the medical adviser for a decision about an additional bedroom for Mr B’s child.
25. The placements team contacted the landlord to ask how he intended to address Mr B’s complaints. The landlord provided a list of proposed actions including a damp/mould inspection and pest control to be carried out the same week.
26. On 23 November 2019 the medical adviser told the case officer that, as Mr B’s son was only two years old, a separate bedroom was not essential. The case officer notified Mr B of this decision. He also explained he was in the process of discussing a potential direct offer of permanent accommodation with the allocations manager.
27. Mr B contacted the case officer on 5 December 2019 saying the medical information he had submitted had been disregarded. He followed this up with an email which was treated as a new complaint.
28. On 30 December 2019 Mr B’s case was considered by the housing needs management review panel. It decided Mr B’s child’s situation, together with other ‘special needs’ in the household justified an exceptional intervention. It decided to move the family to Band 2 and increase their bedroom need from 3 to 4 enabling them to bid for four bedroomed properties on the Council’s home search system. The case officer notified Mr B of this decision the same day.
29. On 17 January 2020 the Council responded to Mr B’s complaint about the consideration of his medical information. It explained all relevant information had been forwarded to its medical adviser for consideration but, in any event, the matter had been resolved following the review panel’s decision. Mr B accepted this.
30. On 20 January 2020 the Council wrote to Mr B confirming it would make him a direct offer of permanent accommodation once a suitable property became available. It also advised him to continue bidding regularly until an offer was made.
31. On 18 February 2020 the Council offered Mr B a property and a viewing was arranged for a week later. Unfortunately, the viewing could not proceed because the property was infested with bedbugs and required pest control treatment. The viewing was later re-scheduled and the family accepted the property.

Analysis

Delay in reaching a decision on Mr B’s homelessness application

32. Mr B approached the Council for assistance with housing in July 2017. The relevant legislation at the time was the Homelessness Act 2002. The Council was required to decide whether Mr B was eligible for assistance and, if so, what duty, if any, was owed to him. It should have issued a decision within three months yet no decision was made for nearly two years despite Mr B and Ms C chasing the Council periodically. This was fault and caused Mr B and Ms C avoidable uncertainty about whether the Council owed them a long-term housing duty. The Council accepts this and has apologised and offered to pay Mr B £475.
33. I do not consider the payment offered by the Council to be sufficient to remedy the injustice suffered by Mr B and his family. They suffered uncertainty and anxiety over a lengthy period and were also put to time and trouble in repeatedly chasing the Council for a decision. In addition, the delay in issuing a decision on Mr B’s homelessness application meant he was unable to bid for suitable properties until August 2019 when he should have been able to do so from 1 October 2017.
34. In November 2018 a suitable property was offered to a band 3 applicant with a registration date later than Mr B’s and, in July 2019, suitable properties were offered to two applicants in the same band as Mr B with a later registration date. So, if Mr B had bid for those properties, he would have been successful. It is not possible to say whether Mr B would have bid for any of those properties so I cannot say he definitely missed out on suitable accommodation. However, Mr B will never know whether that might have been the case. This causes him further injustice.

Placement outside the borough

35. The Council must “so far as is reasonably practicable” secure accommodation in its own area. It is common for many councils, especially London boroughs, to make out of area placements because they find it difficult to procure affordable interim accommodation in their own areas. But we still expect the Council to make reasonable efforts to keep the applicant as close to its area as possible. It must also show it has considered the specific needs of the applicant and his household before making a placement. We expect to see evidence that it has completed a suitability assessment.
36. The Council says there are more than 11,000 applicants seeking accommodation and it has nowhere near enough properties to meet this need. The most sought-after type of accommodation is large properties suitable for larger families and this type of property is in the shortest supply. Consequently, the Council has had to source accommodation via private landlords and has no option but to place applicants in emergency accommodation outside the borough.
37. The Council has provided the booking sheet for the temporary accommodation provided to Mr B. This does not demonstrate that it considered the specific needs of Mr B and his family before making the placement. The document states that Ms C has bipolar but does not consider her specific needs. It does not consider the location of the accommodation in relation to the children’s schools or the family’s support networks. The Council’s medical adviser considered location in terms of access to medical care and stated it was not medically essential for the family to be housed within the borough because support services could be accessed in all areas and transfer of care within the NHS is an everyday process.
38. The Council says that, at the time, stand-alone suitability reviews were not carried out. However, the Housing Act 1996 requires local authorities to ensure that accommodation is suitable for the applicant and all members of their household. The Ombudsman would therefore expect the Council to complete a detailed suitability assessment of all the factors put forward by the family, not just medical matters. The Council’s failure to do so leaves Mr B with uncertainty about whether he would have been provided with alternative accommodation if the Council had completed a detailed suitability assessment.
39. In its response to my enquiries, the Council refers to “decisions” by its medical adviser. The evidence shows the Council accepted the adviser’s decisions and applied them. That was fault: the Council should complete its own suitability assessment and not simply rely on the medical adviser’s decision. The advisor’s role is to give advice and it is then for the Council to decide what impact, if any, this should have on the suitability of the accommodation offered and on priority for housing. It is the Council’s responsibility to decide this. It can have regard to health professionals’ views but cannot pass on responsibility for its housing decisions to them.
40. The Ombudsman has previously found fault with the Council in this regard. In April 2019, the Council agreed to review its processes and ensure that all relevant staff were clear about the wholly advisory role of the medical adviser and that the responsibility for decision-making on priority for housing rests with the Council in accordance with its allocations scheme. It is therefore disappointing that the Council is still accepting medical advisers’ decisions rather than making decisions itself.

Agreed action

41. In addition to the £475 already paid by the Council, it has agreed that, within one month of this decision, it will:
• send a formal apology to Mr B and Ms C for the faults identified above;
• pay Mr B a further £200 in recognition of the anxiety and uncertainty caused by the delay in reaching a decision on his homelessness application and the time and trouble he and Ms C were put to in chasing the Council;
• pay Mr B £200 in recognition of the missed opportunity to bid for a more suitable property in November 2018 and July 2019;
• pay Mr B £200 in recognition of the failure to properly consider the suitability of the temporary accommodation provided for his family and the uncertainty of not knowing whether, if it had done so, alternative accommodation may have been provided; and
• issue a reminder to staff that the role of the medical adviser is only advisory and that the responsibility for decision-making on priority for housing/suitability rests with the Council in accordance with its allocations scheme.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I find the Council delayed significantly in reaching a decision on Mr B’s homelessness application.
43. I find the Council failed to properly consider the family’s circumstances when placing them in interim accommodation out of the borough.
44. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman