Summary: Mr C complains about various issues relating to his temporary accommodation. Mr C says he lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary and did not receive the support he needed which was harmful to his mental and physical health The Ombudsman found fault by the Council but considered the actions it had already taken of an apology and payment were enough with the agreed actions of improvements to its procedures and staff training provided a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains the Council:

• provided initial interim accommodation that was unsuitable as it had steps and no mobile phone reception
• failed to resolve issues of insufficient heating, lack of laundry facilities and fly and rat infestations at his subsequent temporary accommodation
• delayed unreasonably in accepting his need for someone to stay overnight when needed for support
• wrongly warned him about the possible loss of his accommodation if he was away for a period of time
• failed to pursue issues about the behaviour of staff at his subsequent accommodation
• failed to properly respond and take effective action in response to his reports of anti-social and threatening behaviour from his neighbours at his current accommodation
• failed to properly address the distress caused by withdrawing two offers of more permanent accommodation
• has delayed in responding to his contacts and officers have been rude and unprofessional to him in phone calls and emails.

2. Mr C says because of the Council’s fault, he lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary and did not receive the support he needed which was harmful to his mental and physical health.

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. 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)
5. 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

6. I read the papers provided by Mr C and discussed the complaint with him. I have considered some information from the Council and provided a copy of this to Mr C after removing third party details. I have explained my draft decision to Mr C and the Council and provided an opportunity for comment.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and background

7. 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.
8. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018:

• he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5))

9. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
10. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5) 
11. Councils must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
12. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
13. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children
• pregnant women
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age

14. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
15. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household.  This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty.  (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

Key events

16. Mr C visited the Council’s drop in Housing Needs Service on 8 April 2019 for advice as he was coming to the end of his tenancy and wanted help finding new accommodation. Mr C advised he had mental health needs and confirmed he would return the next day to complete a personalised housing plan (PHP).
17. Mr C completed a housing application on 9 April and explained he was threatened with homelessness as his tenancy was due to end in two months and he was not able to work due to ill health and had substantial debts. Mr C stated he had both physical and mental health issues and gave the details of his GP, social worker and psychiatrist. The Council accepted that Mr C was threatened with homelessness and owed him a prevention duty. Mr C was allocated a named Homeless Prevention Officer.
18. The Council completed a PHP on 1 May and identified private rented accommodation as an appropriate option. This document is not signed although there is an exchange of emails with Mr C in which he confirms he is happy with the content. There is no evidence the Council formally notified Mr C that it owed him a prevention duty.
19. The Council also made a referral to direct lets. This document noted Mr C wanted to stay in the local area to access his medical services and he could not manage more than four steps. This document is not dated or signed.
20. Mr C completed a self-assessment medical form dated 1 May and provided medical information. The form stated Mr C used walking sticks and sometimes used a wheelchair outside and his current property had no steps and was on the ground floor. The mobility section of the form records that Mr C could manage up to three steps but this would depend on their depth and other factors.
21. Mr C became homeless on 10 June. The Council wrote to Mr C on 10 June to accept its relief duty and stated it had enclosed a copy of his PHP. The letter provided by the Council to the Ombudsman does not include the PHP. I note the PHP document provided by the Council is dated 19 July and signed on 22 July. This document notes Mr C is residing in emergency accommodation after the end of his tenancy and refers to his physical and mental health needs. In particular, the PHP says Mr C can only manage three steps at most and wanted ground floor accommodation or accommodation with lift access.
22. The Council provided self-contained temporary accommodation at Hotel (A) from 10 June.
23. Mr C contacted the Council on 18 June to say he was struggling to access the room provided due to the stairs and there was no phone signal anywhere in the building and this meant he could not access support for his mental health needs. The Council advised Mr C to provide an update to his medical evidence about his mobility and mental health needs. Mr C contacted the Council on 21 June raising the same issues and asking about having someone to stay overnight when needed.
24. Mr C subsequently provided a letter from his GP dated 25 June which provided further details of his physical and mental health. The GP notes they had not seen Mr C face to face for over a year but had conducted various telephone appointments and made referrals to a pain clinic and musculoskeletal service.
25. The Council considered the available information and decided there was not enough evidence to suggest Mr C had mobility issues which required a move to alternative accommodation and concluded Hotel A was suitable. The Council noted there was no outcome from Mr C’s referral to the pain clinic or other report such an occupational therapist report. The Council advised Mr C of this outcome on 28 June. There is no written response to Mr C’s question about having someone stay overnight.
26. During this period, the Council identified a potential privately rented property but subsequently decided this would not be appropriate on affordability grounds.
27. Mr C complained about his accommodation and the way his case officer had dealt with him at the end of June. Mr C’s community psychiatric nurse (CPN) also contacted the Council. The Council has provided a document which appears to have been originally completed on 10 June and updated on 5 July. This records that Mr C needed a level access property as he could not manage more than one flight of stairs and that he could not be placed in basement accommodation or above the first floor and he must have mobile phone coverage so he could access support services if in need. This document also noted the impact on Mr C’s mental health and the difficulties he would face in shared accommodation.
28. In the light of this additional information, the Council agreed in early July to move Mr C to alternative self-contained temporary accommodation which had mobile phone coverage. The Council also arranged for a Welfare Officer to support Mr C in his temporary accommodation.
29. The Council responded to Mr C’s complaint on 11 July. This confirmed that it considered the temporary accommodation had been suitable based on the information available at the time but following further information and discussions with Mr C’s CPN it accepted an alternative placement should be found. The Council also accepted failings in not providing a signed copy of his PHP and notification letters. The Council agreed to allocate a different case officer.
30. Mr C moved to Hotel (B) on 16 July. The Council has provided a copy of the licence agreement, information provided to tenants and Mr C’s completed checklist signed and dated 16 July. This included the note that visitor rules and times had been explained. The general information document says visitors are allowed with the permission of the hotel manager and visiting professionals were allowed on production of ID. There do not appear to be times prescribed for when visitors are allowed. The document also says tenants must notify the hotel if they are not using the accommodation to avoid it being cancelled.
31. The Council completed a PHP under its relief duty and agreed this with Mr C on 22 July. It was now considered that private rented and/or general needs accommodation may not be the most appropriate option due to Mr C’s issues with rent arrears at his previous tenancy.
32. Mr C contacted the Council on 29 July about no hot water in his sink although there was hot water to his shower. Mr C said he had raised the issue with the hotel but it had not been resolved. The Council referred the matter to its emergency accommodation team and contacted the hotel. The Council says there were no further reports about this issue.
33. The Council provided a detailed response to Mr C on 8 August about various issues he had raised. I do not consider it necessary to repeat the detail here. The Council did not uphold most of the issues Mr C had raised but did accept some administrative errors and offered him £50 for his time and trouble.
34. Mr C contacted the Council about the temperature in his room on 12 August as the radiator was not working and asked for help with cleaning his room on 14 August. The Council responded on 14 August to explain the heating was centrally controlled and was not yet turned on for the hotel and suggested the purchase of a small electric heater with the help of his welfare officer possibly via a local discretionary social fund loan. Mr C did not pursue an application. The Council also confirmed the accommodation provider did not provide cleaning services and he would need to contact adult social care if he required help with this.
35. The hotel contacted the Council on 19 August to say Mr C had received an overnight guest and told the hotel the Council had provided permission. The Council confirmed it had not given permission. The hotel decided to ban Mr C from having any guests. The hotel confirmed on 22 August that Mr C could continue to have visitors between 9am and 9pm.
36. The case officer arranged a meeting on 21 August with Mr C and his CPN to discuss housing options going forward but this meeting did not take place due to ill health.
37. Mr C contacted the Council on 22 and 29 August to say there were times he needed an overnight carer due to his mental health needs and about an issue with the shaver socket in his room. The Council passed the repair issue to the relevant team on 29 August.
38. The Council accepted the main housing duty on 30 August and wrote to Mr C accordingly and set out his review rights. The Council also wrote separately to confirm Mr C could now bid for properties and how to do this.
39. The Council wrote to Mr C on 4 September to confirm it did not consider Mr C needed to be allowed overnight guests and to do so would risk losing his accommodation. The Council advised Mr C to contact his CPN if he needed more support for his mental health.
40. The Council contacted Mr C on 12 September to confirm that following further discussion with his CPN it had now been agreed that he could have a named person stay overnight when necessary and had advised the hotel accordingly.
41. Mr C contacted the Council on 25 September to say he was struggling to access the local launderette and to ask if he could use the hotel laundry. The Council confirmed it would ask the hotel and also suggested Mr C discuss the issue with the adult social care team. The hotel confirmed the laundry was not available to tenants.
42. Mr C was nominated for a property in early October. The Council subsequently obtained further information about the property which identified that although it was ground floor it had at least 20 steps down to it. The Council withdrew the nomination in the light of this information.
43. Mr C reported problems from insects in his room on 30 October. The matter was referred to the hotel who contacted Mr C to resolve the issue that day. The room was sprayed on 31 October. Mr C contacted the Council on 6 November to say he is was still experiencing lots of flies in his room. The matter was referred to the hotel who confirmed it was in contact with a pest control company and the room would need to be sprayed for longer which would require Mr C to stay away overnight. Mr C confirmed he could do so. The hotel subsequently confirmed there was no evidence of an ongoing fly infestation and it did not need to complete a treatment requiring Mr C to say away overnight. Mr C confirmed there was still an issue and a pest control visit was completed on 12 November but the hotel says no evidence of a fly infestation was found. Mr C seeks a copy of the pest control report but this does not appear to have been provided. The hotel advised the Council that staff met with Mr C on 20 November in his room and there was no evidence of a fly infestation.
44. Mr C contacted the Council on 5 December to say he would need to be away from his room to recuperate from surgery for three weeks over the Christmas period. The Council advised Mr C he could only be away for five days. Mr C disputed this and provided information from his GP. The Council confirmed the information did not support his need to be away for three weeks. The information provided to Mr C was incorrect and constitutes fault. However, I note the Council contacted Mr C on 19 December to say it had wrongly told him he could not stay away for three weeks and he could do so. The Council apologised for this fault and agreed to pay Mr C £175 for his time, trouble and distress.
45. Mr C contacted the Council on 28 January 2020 about threats and harassment from occupants of another room at the hotel. The Council contacted the hotel on 29 January and confirmed an incident had taken place. The hotel confirmed it had spoken with the relevant occupants but they disputed Mr C’s version of events. The hotel decided to take no further action. The Council advised Mr C he could report the matter to the police and they would notify the Council if they considered he was at risk.
46. The Council says it received no further reports until 9 March when he reported noise and threats from the same occupants, a bad smell from near his fridge and that he had seen a rat in his room. The Council contacted the hotel who placed rat poison. The hotel inspected Mr C’s room on 13 March and noted the poison had been taken but could not detect a smell. The Council confirmed this with Mr C on 16 March and that it had also raised the issue of anti-social behaviour. The Council noted there were no reports from other residents or staff about anti-social behaviour and explained it may not be able to take any action.

Analysis

47. The Council has accepted there was some fault on its part in not sending a letter to Mr C confirming its acceptance of its prevention duty and not completing his PHP properly. The Council offered Mr C £50 for his time and trouble.
48. The Council also accepted it wrongly told Mr C he could not stay away for three weeks and apologised for this fault and agreed to pay him £175 for his time, trouble and distress. The Council also suggested it would review its procedures and staff training.
49. I consider the Council’s actions above provide a proportionate remedy for Mr C’s injustice relating to these elements subject to the Ombudsman receiving the outcome of the procedure and staff training review.
50. Based on the information provided, I am satisfied the Council responded to Mr C’s various reports about his accommodation and took appropriate action. I have seen no evidence of undue delay or other fault. However, I do consider the Council should improve its system to ensure the outcome of reports are recorded with evidence of action as appropriate.
51. The Council has provided considered responses to Mr C’s requests and complaints and provided cogent reasons why it has not upheld certain aspects of his complaints and could not always meet his expectations. I see no evidence of fault here.

Agreed action

52. In addition to the actions the Council has already taken, it has agreed to:
1. review its procedures and staff training to improve the administration of cases and ensure accurate information is provided about being away from temporary accommodation in future and provide the Ombudsman with the outcome within three months of my final decision; and
2. review the way reports of issues in temporary accommodation such as disrepair, pests or anti-social behaviour are recorded and followed up to ensure both the person affected and Council are notified of the outcome with evidence of action taken as appropriate and provide the Ombudsman with the outcome within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

53. I have completed my investigation as I have found fault by the Council but consider the actions it has already taken with the agreed actions above are enough to provide a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman