Summary: Mr X says the Council took too long to accept a main housing duty towards him, leaving him in unsuitable accommodation for 10 months. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mr X he recommended the Council review its procedures, offers its staff refresher training, writes a letter of apology to Mr X and pays him £3800. The Council agreed.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, says the Council delayed accepting a main housing duty towards him for 10 months, leaving him in unsuitable temporary accommodation. As a result, his physical and mental health deteriorated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
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. As part of my investigation I considered the complaint and discussed it with Mr X. I also considered the relevant legislation and documents provided by the Council. I have given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislative background and case law

6. Under the Housing Act 1996 and Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) a council should decide homelessness applications within 56 days which is when its relief duty ends. The Code allows a further 15 working days where a council needs to make ‘significant further investigations.
7. 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)
8. In R v Newham LBC ex parte Ojuri [No 3] (1999) 31 HLR 631, QBD, the courts held that interim accommodation must be suitable for the applicant’s individual needs.
9. In Codona v Mid-Bedfordshire DC [2005] HLR 1, the courts held the amount of time a person is in interim accommodation is a relevant factor. Therefore, accommodation might be suitable for a short period of time but not a longer period.
10. There are no review or appeal rights for an applicant to challenge the suitability of interim accommodation. If the Council accepts a housing duty to the applicant then he or she will have appeal or review rights to challenge the suitability of any accommodation offered to fulfil that duty. This applies to both temporary and permanent accommodation.

Key events

11. Mr X is diagnosed with degenerative disc disease, severe sciatica and depression for which he receives medication. Prior to October 2018 he lived with his partner.
12. In October 2018 Mr X made a homelessness application to the Council as he had been told to leave the home he shared with his partner. His application form said that he is disabled and receives Personal Independence Payments (PIP). The form also explained he requires aids (and space to use them) to mobilise and that he has phobias and anxiety which make it difficult for him to live with others.
13. The Council concluded Mr X was homeless, eligible for assistance and that it had reason to believe he was in priority need. For this reason, it offered interim accommodation while it carried out further enquiries to determine if it owed him a housing duty.
14. Mr X and his housing officer completed a Homelessness Medical Assessment form in early October. This identified that Mr X:

• uses a walking stick;
• can only manage two stairs;
• struggles to stand for long periods of time;
• can only walk 10 yards; and
• had adaptations in his previous home to help him use the toilet, shower and bed.

15. Mr X moved into his interim accommodation in early October 2018. The accommodation was a room in a B&B with a shared kitchen and bathroom. To access his room Mr X needed to negotiate six steps (four outside and two inside). His room did not have adaptations to suit his needs; nor did the bathroom or kitchen, which were located some distance from his room.
16. Mr X supplied a letter from his GP dated 19 October 2018 explaining the impacts of his current accommodation and how it was unsuitable for his needs.
17. The Council sought the advice of an independent medical officer (IMO) to help it decide if Mr X was in priority need. The IMO said Mr X did not meet the threshold for priority need in a letter dated 16 November 2018.
18. The Council should have decided Mr X’s application by 28 November 2018 when the Relief Duty ended but did not do so.
19. No decision had been made by 19 December 2018 when the additional 15 working days allowed by the Guidance had expired.
20. Between December 2018 and March 2019 Mr X sent the Council correspondence explaining the impact of the interim accommodation on his health. This included letters from his GP. The correspondence explained that his mobility was being negatively impacted and some days he was bed bound. His declining mobility made it difficult for him to use the bathroom facilities, he was washing less and on some occasions was incontinent. It also said Mr X was being bullied by other residents who deliberately walked into him and stole his walking stick. For these reasons Mr X had become depressed and was receiving medication for this.
21. Correspondence from Mr X’s housing officer to him in March 2019 says that she was minded to find him in priority need.
22. However, Mr X received no substantive response from the Council or a decision on his homelessness application and so sought the assistance of a housing charity. The charity complained to the Council on 29 April 2019 that it had taken too long to deal with his case and not kept him informed.
23. The Council replied on 30 May 2019. It apologised for the delay which it attributed to restructuring, understaffing and implementing changes required by new legislation. It also said that Mr X’s housing officer had requested another assessment from its IMO as the initial report was unfavourable.
24. The charity escalated Mr X’s complaint in July 2019 as a decision on his application had still not been made.
25. On 29 July 2019 the Council sent Mr X a letter telling him it accepted a full housing duty towards him. The letter said he could submit a suitability review of his accommodation within the next 21 days.
26. The Council responded to Mr X’s escalated complaint in August 2019. It said it did not consider Mr X had been caused any injustice because of the delay in determining his application because it had provided him with accommodation it considered suitable throughout this period.
27. Mr X appointed a solicitor who submitted a review of the suitability of his accommodation. The review included details of an occupational therapy assessment carried out in early July 2019 which stated the accommodation needed to be adapted to meet Mr X’s needs and that his current room was too small to accommodate the required changes.
28. On 30 September 2019 Mr X’s solicitor submitted a report from Mr X’s social worker to support his review. This highlighted the following:

• Mr X was finding himself increasingly bed-bound because he did not have a bed raiser or bed lever. This had impacted on his ability to mobilise and to reach the toilet quickly enough on some occasions. His room was too small for the necessary adaptations to be made.
• Bathing and toileting facilities were unsuitable as there were no grab rails, perch stools or raised toilet seat. Mr X had trouble standing long enough to shower and so his personal hygiene was suffering.
• Mr X’s psychological state had deteriorated and his emotional state was also in decline. He was at risk of social isolation and becoming ‘deconditioned’ as he was rarely cooking for himself, finding it too difficult to carry food back to his room.
• Mr X was being bullied by other residents and had his walking stick stolen.
• For the above reasons Mr X had increased his medication for both physical and emotional distress.

The social worker recommended he be offered alternative accommodation.

29. The Council asked its IMO to consider the information supplied with Mr X’s review request. The adviser supported a move to more suitable accommodation that could provide Mr X with his own toilet and suitable washing facilities.
30. Mr X was told his review was successful on 17 October 2019 and that he would move shortly. He is now in alternative accommodation.

Analysis

The Council took too long to determine if it owed Mr X a main housing duty

31. The Council should have decided whether it owed Mr X the main housing duty by late November 2018 but it did not do so until late July 2019.
32. The documents provided by the Council provide no evidence it sought information from Mr X’s GP or arranged for its staff to visit him to help assess his vulnerability. They suggest it only sought advice from its IMO. The Council should not rely solely on the advice of its IMO when determining such a matter, it should consider such advice alongside other evidence, such as medical reports or assessments.
33. The IMO said it did not consider Mr X to be in priority need in a letter dated 16 November 2018. I note Mr X’s housing officer said on 7 March 2019 she was minded to find him in priority need. The Council’s response to Mr X’s first stage complaint, sent in late May 2019, said that it was seeking a further assessment from the IMO. I am concerned that there appears to be a significant delay before the Council sought another assessment, despite the concerns raised about the initial assessment.
34. Furthermore, housing officers do not have to accept the view of the IMO. A decision on whether an applicant is in priority need is a decision for the housing officer to make. If officers feel there are valid reasons to depart from the IMO’s recommendation, they can do so. Mr X’s case officer did not need a further assessment from the IMO to decide in March 2019 that he was in priority need. If she had done so, some of the delay I have identified could have been avoided.
35. I note the Council says the delay in progressing Mr X’s case was down to legislative changes, restructuring and staff shortages. I appreciate that staff shortages might not be foreseen. However, the Council would have been aware for some time of the restructuring and the implementation of new legislation. While I understand that the Council’s limited resources can impact on its ability to manage change, I do not consider the reasons it put forward satisfactorily explain the delays I have found.

Mr X’s interim accommodation was unsuitable

36. Mr X ‘s Homelessness Medical Assessment detailed his requirements. Despite this, his interim accommodation could only be accessed by negotiating six stairs, had a shared bathroom and kitchen more than 10 yards from his room and had none of the adaptations he required. On this basis I cannot see that officers had regard to Mr X’s individual needs.
37. I am aware officers did not expect Mr X to be interim accommodation for 10 months and may have concluded it was suitable for a short time while it made enquiries. However Mr X repeatedly told the Council about the problems he was facing and the impact these were having on his physical and mental health. He provided GP letters and reports supporting his view. Despite this I have seen no evidence the Council reviewed the suitability of the interim accommodation. I consider that both Mr X’s stated concerns and the delay in determining his homelessness application should have prompted a review.
38. Furthermore there can be no doubt that Mr X’s interim accommodation was unsuitable for his needs as concluded in the review he requested once his homelessness application had been decided. The report from Mr X’s social worker lays bare the impact on him of living in unsuitable accommodation for so long.

Agreed action

39. I have found fault by the Council that led to:

• Mr X living in unsuitable interim accommodation for 12 months. This caused a significant deterioration in Mr X’s physical and mental health, as detailed in his social worker’s report, and required additional medication.
• Distress caused by living in accommodation where he felt intimidated and bullied by other residents.
• Significant stress and uncertainty while the Council decided if Mr X was in priority need.
• Unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing the Council for a decision, chasing updates, supplying supporting information and seeking the assistance of charities and a solicitor.

40. To address the injustice caused to Mr X I recommended the Council

• Makes changes (or advises us of any changes it has already made) to its procedures to ensure delays such as those found here do not occur in future;

• Offers its staff refresher training so staff can properly consider if interim accommodation is suitable for the individual applicant’s needs and feel confident and supported to make decisions on priority need where this disagrees with the advice of its independent medical adviser;
• Provides a written apology to Mr X; and
• Pays Mr X £3600 to recognise the time he spent living in unsuitable accommodation and the impact this had on his physical and mental health. It should also pay him £200 in recognition of the unnecessary time and trouble and stress caused to him by the delay in deciding his homelessness application. This makes a total payment of £3800.

The Council agreed.

41. The Council should provide the apology and payment to Mr X within six weeks of my decision. It should complete the review of its procedures and refresher training within 12 weeks of my decision.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have ended my investigation of this complaint as the Council has agreed to my recommendations which address the injustice caused to Mr X because of the fault I found.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman