Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her request for a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation. The Council took too long to complete the review and delayed in responding to her complaint. This caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a financial payment for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation in March 2019 and has failed to move her to suitable accommodation, despite saying it would.
2. Ms X says this caused her uncertainty and distress and she spent a considerable amount of time chasing the Council for a response.

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 have considered the information provided by Ms X. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
6. I provided the Council and Ms X with a copy of the draft decision and invited their comments. I considered all the comments I received before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

7. Section 184 of the Housing Act 1996 requires a council to take a homelessness application and make enquiries if it has “reason to believe” someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness. The threshold for taking an application is low. ‘Reason to believe’ and ‘may be’ are lower tests than being satisfied someone actually is homeless or threatened with homelessness.
8. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless then it owes them the main housing duty. Generally, the Council carries out this duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
9. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation it arranges for homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies equally to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206)
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. Council must complete a suitability review of temporary accommodation within eight weeks of receiving the review request. This period can be extended but only with the applicants written agreement. If the applicant wishes to challenge the review decision, or if a council takes more than eight weeks to complete the review, they may appeal on a point of law to the County Court (Housing Act 1996, sections 202 and 204)

The Law and the Council’s allocations policy

12. The Council is under a legal duty to have a scheme for allocating accommodation. The Council has the right to set its own housing policies and decide all aspects of the allocations process.
13. The law says the Council must give people with a high housing need “reasonable preference” through its allocations scheme. This includes people at risk of homelessness and those who need to move for medical or welfare reasons.
14. The Council decides reasonable preference by placing applicants in a certain priority band depending on their circumstances. The Council has four priority bands, with the first band being high and the fourth band being low.
15. The size of the accommodation the Council can allocate an applicant is dependent on the size and makeup of the applicant’s household. The Council uses the Bedroom Standard as defined in the Housing Act to calculate this. An applicant can gain priority because of overcrowding.
16. The Council determines the priority of each person by what priority band an applicant is placed in and how long they have been on the housing register. Applicants have a right to ask for a review of this decision.
17. The Council’s allocation scheme notes its legal duty to give reasonable preference to people who need to move for medical reasons or due to a disability and those living in unsatisfactory housing conditions or overcrowded accommodation.
18. In addition to this the Council will also award a non-statutory reasonable preference to persons in employment provided that the main applicant and/or partner:

• Are in temporary or permanent employment and/or
• In full-time employment and/or
• Working 16 hours or more per week and/or
• Are self employed 16 hours or more per week.

Background

19. The chronology includes key events to provide context and does not cover everything that happened.
20. In April 2017, Ms X and her child became homeless. The Council placed them in interim accommodation under section 188(1) of the Housing Act 1996. In June 2017, the Council decided it owed them a housing duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996. It placed Ms X and her child in temporary accommodation.
21. Ms X’s second child was born in October 2018. In March 2019, the Council offered her a two-bedroom property which Ms X declined. Two days later Ms X accepted a self-contained one-bedroom property, on the basis that she wished to stay in the borough. The Council was satisfied that the accommodation was suitable for Ms X and her family.
22. Ms X has been assessed for a two-bedroom property and since July 2020 has two reasonable preferences on medical grounds and for overcrowding.

Suitability review

23. On 24 September 2019 Ms X requested a suitability review of her accommodation. She said that the toilet had leaked several times and caused damage to the property and the property was too small for her and her two young children. Ms X also said that she suffered with depression. On 30 October Ms X told the Council that the fireplace in the living room was dangerous as her son kept climbing on it. To overcome the issue of overcrowding, the Council asked Ms X if she had considered using the living room as a bedroom and letting her sons sleep in the bedroom. Ms X said that she shared a bed with her sons and did not want to purchase another bed.
24. The Council wrote to Ms X on the 27 November 2019 with its provisional decision. It said that:

a) the toilet was repaired on the same day it was reported, on 23 September 2019 and no further problems had been reported since then. Therefore, the accommodation was not considered unsuitable

b) Section 325 of the Housing Act 1985 states that there is overcrowding when there are so many people in a property that any two or more of these people who are ten years old or over and of the opposite sex have to sleep in the same room (other than people living together as partners). Living rooms are considered as bedrooms and kitchens can be considered as bedrooms if they are big enough for a bed. The space standard and provides a calculation according to the floor space of the rooms and the number of people occupying them. The Council explained that because Ms X’s sons could share a bedroom and Ms X could use the living room as a sleeping space, it was satisfied that there was no overcrowding

c) the presence of a fireplace in the living room did not render the accommodation unsuitable. It said it was Ms X’s responsibility as a parent to monitor and manage her children’s activities

d) it had considered the Equality Act 2010 and determined that neither Ms X nor her children had a disability

e) Ms X should forward any information that she felt the Council had not considered and requested an extension to the timescales for the completion of the review to 13 December 2019.

25. Ms X appealed the Council’s review. She said that the cause of the toilet leak was repaired on 4 December 2019 to a minimum standard and the potential of another leak or flooding meant that the property was unsuitable. She said that the carpet had lifted following the leak and presented a health and safety risk to her children, as did the fireplace. Ms X also said that she had been diagnosed with depression and anxiety and questioned the Council’s decision that that it was ‘satisfied’ that she did not have disability. Ms X said the Council had not carried out the review in accordance with legislation and its policy.
26. The Council wrote to Ms X on 12 December 2019 requesting further information and an extension of the review deadline to 20 December 2019. Ms X responded on the 16 December 2019. She confirmed that the toilet leak had affected the living room and that the fireplace had sharp corners and its location and size was a risk to her young children. Ms X told the Council that her anxiety had increased since living at the property, causing low moods and depression. Ms X agreed to the extended deadline for the review.
27. On 14 January 2020 Ms X contacted the Council for an update. An officer responded the next day and apologised for the delay. Two weeks later Ms X chased the Council again for an update as she had heard nothing further about the suitability review. The Council said it had arranged for an officer to visit the accommodation. On 6 February Ms X contacted the Council again and stated that she had been waiting for a decision since last December.
28. The Council visited Ms X’s property on 6 February 2020 and the review was completed on 16 February. The Council said that on paper, the accommodation was still considered suitable to meet Ms X’s needs. However, based on new information provided by Ms X in December and the outcome of its visit, the Council exercised discretion and decided that Ms X would benefit from a two-bedroom property.
29. The Council wrote to Ms X on 21 February with its decision that her present accommodation was unsuitable. It said alternative temporary accommodation would be offered but due to the shortage of suitable properties it could be an excess of 12 weeks before she was moved. However, this coincided with the national lockdown due to COVID and the Council did not identify a suitable property until July 2020.
30. On 29 July 2020, the Council offered Ms X a two-bedroom flat which she declined on the basis that the carpets were ‘filthy’. The Council confirmed that the carpets would be cleaned, but Ms X still refused. The next day Ms X was offered a two-bedroom house which she accepted but then refused as she did not want a garden. The Council explained to Ms X that her bidding history showed she had placed several bids on properties during 2019 and 2020 that all had gardens. Ms X accepted the property.

Analysis

31. The suitability review was completed 13 weeks over deadline. The Council accepts there was a delay in making the review decision and that more attention should have been paid to the deadline. Because of the fault Ms X and her children lived in unsuitable accommodation for much longer than they should have. I acknowledge the Council’s comments that it does not believe Ms X would have been rehoused any sooner, with further delays caused by national lockdown. However, I find the delay in completing the suitability review caused Ms X avoidable uncertainty and distress. Ms X also had to continuously pursue the Council for an update on her review.

Housing register

32. Ms X says that the Council has failed to consider her disability in determining her position on the housing register and has failed to update her application with a preference to reflect that she is working.
33. The Council says that in 2017 Ms X provided copies of letters from her hospital consultant, but no medical diagnosis had been made at this point.
34. On 9 June 2020 the Council told Ms X “If you believe that the medical information is pertinent to your case, then you are advised to also submit this in support of your choice lettings application. You would also need to provide evidence of your that you have a disability”. In July 2020 Ms X provided details of her mental health for the suitability review of her temporary accommodation. The Council awarded Ms X a preference on medical grounds from this date.
35. In October 2019 Ms X informed the Council that she had been working since December 2018 and provided copies of payslips for September 2019 and October 2019. The Council did not award a working preference because Ms X’s hours were not the required minimum of 16 hours per week.
36. In May 2020 Ms X sent the Council copies of payslips for September and October 2019 and asked the Council to backdate the working preference on her application. The Council asked Ms X to provide copies of three recent payslips and her contract of employment. Ms X has not provided the Council with this information.

Analysis

37. Ms X did not provide information about her mental health and disability on her housing application. I do not find the Council at fault for not updating her application until it received this information in July 2020.
38. I am satisfied that the Council acted without fault when it considered Ms X’s request for working preference and decided that she did not meet the criteria as set out in its policy.

Complaint handling

39. Ms X complained to the Council on 18 October 2019 and a final response was issued on 9 June 2020. This is a significant delay. The Council says that it did not find fault with the way the repairs had been managed but accepted that the delay in responding to the complaint caused Ms X uncertainty about what more, if anything, could be done with respect to the carpet and items damaged by the flood.
40. The Council also failed to respond to Ms X’s complaint about her housing register application. The Council told the Ombudsman that Ms X’s appeal made no reference to the complaint about her housing register issues. However, I find that Ms X told the Council in November that her working preferences had not been updated and that the Council had failed to take into account her medical information and disability. Failure to include and respond to these issues was fault. The Council did address both points in its stage two complaint response, however this was not completed until June 2020.

Analysis

41. The Council has offered to make Ms X a payment of £150 to reflect the distress caused by the delay in concluding her suitability review and responding to the complaint. I welcome the proposal, but I do not consider the Council has fully acknowledged the injustice caused to Ms X.
42. The time and trouble, that Ms X was put to, coupled with the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused by the delays was a significant injustice to her.

Agreed action

43. To remedy the injustice caused to Ms X, within four weeks of my final decision the Council will:
1. Apologise to Ms X for the faults identified;
2. Pay Ms X £300 for the distress and uncertainty caused by the delay in completing the suitability review and responding to her complaint;
3. Pay Ms X £150 for her time and trouble in pursuing the Council since September 2019 over this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have found fault by the Council causing an injustice to Ms X. the Council has agreed to my recommendations and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman