Summary: Mr D complains the Council failed to provide him with suitable temporary accommodation and did not have due regard to its public sector equality duty. Mr D says because the accommodation was unsuitable, he found it difficult to leave his property. The Ombudsman has not found fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr D complains the Council failed to provide him with suitable interim temporary accommodation and did not have due regard to the public sector equality duty.
2. Mr D says because the accommodation was unsuitable, he found it difficult to leave his property.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated whether the Council provided Mr D with suitable interim temporary accommodation and fulfilled its public sector equality duty in relation to this matter.
4. I have not investigated whether the Council responded to a pest infestation in Mr D’s temporary accommodation because he has taken court action against the Council about this matter.
5. I have not investigated whether the Council gave Mr D the correct housing priority. This is being considered as a separate complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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)
7. 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)
8. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
9. 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

10. I considered:
• Mr D’s complaint and the information he provided;
• documents supplied by the Council;
• relevant legislation and guidelines; and
• the Council’s policies and procedures.
11. Mr D and the Council commented on a draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

12. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. Generally, a council carries out the duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
13. 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)
14. The public sector equality duty is a duty on public authorities to consider how their policies or decisions affect people who are protected under the Equality Act 2010. This includes people with a disability. Councils must have due regard to the need to:
• eliminate unlawful discrimination;
• advance the equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and
• foster or encourage good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

What happened

Background

15. Mr D previously complained to the Ombudsman. This investigation found that when Mr D approached the Council after his landlord threatened him with eviction, it failed to respond to his initial correspondence and sent him to another council rather than offer support under its Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 relief duty. Mr D’s landlord evicted him and he was street homeless for over a week before the Council offered him emergency accommodation.

This complaint

16. Mr D has poor mobility and uses a walking stick.
17. In September 2018, Mr D told the Council his landlord had evicted him from his property, was homeless and suffered with health problems. The Council provided Mr D with emergency accommodation pending a placement appointment and further assessment.
18. Three days later, Mr D attended an appointment with the Council. After discussing his case, the Council offered him interim temporary accommodation while it assessed its housing duties. The property was a private rented one-bedroom flat, flat A, in a different borough, Council E. The Council sent Mr D a letter saying that it believed the property was suitable for his housing needs. The letter explained it may take account of the interim nature of the placement when assessing suitability. The letter advised him, however, that if he considered the offer unsuitable, he could ask for an internal review. It advised that he had to do this within 21 days of his viewing, explained how to make the request and who to send it to.
19. The Council supported Mr D to make a homelessness application and he submitted a medical assessment form. The medical assessment found he was not in priority need. In October and November 2018, the Council asked Mr D to provide medical information.
20. Mr D says he wrote to Council E about potential hazards in his temporary accommodation and asked it to carry out a risk assessment. Council E completed occupational therapy and care needs assessments between September 2018 and January 2019. The occupational therapist noted that Mr D found walking up and down the stairs to his flat painful on his joints uses the stair rails and his walking stick. Mr D reported he was able to access the local areas and regularly attended physiotherapy appointments. The occupational therapy assessment said the following equipment would help Mr D:
• Bed leaver
• Sofa raiser
• Grab rails next to the toilet and above the bath
• Bath step
21. The care needs assessment recorded that Council E had given Mr D a perching stool and a bed leaver. Council E decided Mr D was not eligible for Council funded care services.
22. Mr D says Council E told him that his landlord refused to allow grab rails to be fitted in his flat.
23. In February 2019, Mr D asked the Council why it refused to allow adjustments to be made to his accommodation. Council E contacted the Council asking for permission to install grab rails in flat A. The Council spoke to Mr D’s landlord who gave permission for the equipment to be installed. The Council relayed this information to Council E. This issue was resolve within three days of Mr D raising the issue with the Council.
24. Mr D says he asked the Council to review the suitability of flat A in May 2019 because there were 30 steep steps to his front door, and this made it difficult for him to leave the property. In June 2019, he asked the Council for a new medical assessment and submitted evidence.
25. In July 2019, the Council offered Mr D a ground floor studio flat on medical grounds, flat B. Mr D emailed the Council to complain he had been offered flat B at short notice. The manager of the team told the officer working with Mr D that he could have time to move but the Council needed him to confirm whether he wanted flat B. When Mr D phoned the Council to talk about its offer, the officer told him about another property, flat C. Mr D chose to move to flat C because it was closer to the hospital he attended than flat B. The Council arranged for Mr D to attend an appointment that day to sign to accept flat C.
26. In August 2019, Mr D complained to the Council that it had not fulfilled its public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. He stated that the Council had failed to remove or minimise disadvantages he suffered due to his protected characteristic (disability). Mr D’s examples included:
• Despite repeatedly telling the Council flat A was unsuitable, he had to wait six months for equipment to be provided and the landlord for flat A had at first refused for grab rails to be installed.
• When he attended the housing appointment in July 2019, the Council forced him to accept flat C because it told him if he did not, he would become intentionally homeless because he had left flat A. Mr D complained he had to accept flat C when his belongings were still in flat A.
• The Council did not respond to his emails in July or August 2019 asking why he was moved from flat A to flat C at short notice.
27. The Council responded in September 2019; the Council did not send the Ombudsman a copy of this letter. Mr D was unhappy with its response and asked the Council for a final review.
28. The Council sent Mr D its final complaint response in October 2019:
• It advised Mr D that he had a right to ask for a review of his accommodation if he thought flat A was unsuitable for him.
• It was not aware of Council E’s occupational therapy assessment before February 2019. When the Council was told Council E needed consent from Mr D’s landlord to install grab rails, the Council sought his landlord’s agreement.
• It cancelled the booking for flat A the day Mr D accepted flat C, but he was told he could have more time to move his belongings.
29. The Council found no evidence that its officers had not adhered to the relevant policies or discriminated against Mr D. The Council signposted Mr D to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

30. The Council was aware of Mr D’s health problems when it offered him interim temporary accommodation in flat A. The Council considered flat A suitable for Mr D’s needs, this was the Council’s professional judgement and a decision it was entitled to make. The Council told Mr D if he did not think the property was suitable, he could ask for an internal review and advised him how to do this. Mr D asked for a review in May 2019 and supplied the Council with medical evidence in June 2019. In July 2019, the Council offered Mr D two ground floor flats on medical grounds.
31. There was no delay in the Council arranging for grab rails to be installed in flat A. When Mr D and Council E contacted the Council to get Mr D’s landlord’s agreement, the Council resolved the matter within three days.
32. I have not seen any evidence to suggest the Council forced Mr D to move at short notice from flat A to flat C, or to contradict the Council’s complaint response that Mr D could have more time to move his belongings.
33. The Council took account of its duties under the Equality Act 2010. It considered Mr D’s needs and acted to meet these needs. In September 2018, the Council offered Mr D flat A it believed was suitable for his needs. It promptly sought agreement from his landlord in February 2019 for grab rails to be installed to improve his safety and mobility. Following Mr D’s May 2019 request for a suitability review and his submission of medical evidence in June 2019, the Council offered him two ground floor properties on medical grounds. These actions show the Council took account of, and responded to, Mr D’s health needs when providing him with accommodation.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr D’s complaint.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

35. I have not investigated whether the Council responded to a pest infestation in Mr D’s temporary accommodation because this matter was considered through the court process.
36. I have not investigated whether the Council gave Mr D the correct housing priority. This is a separate complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman