Summary: The Council is at fault for failing to provide suitable accommodation to a homeless family. It also denied the homeless applicant the right of appeal against the suitability of the accommodation it did provide. The Council caused severe injustice as the applicant’s husband is a wheelchair user and could not access the bathroom in the temporary accommodation, leaving him distressed and his wife having to deal with his hygiene needs. The Council will apologise and make a payment to the applicant.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council placed her in temporary accommodation that it assessed as not suitable for her husband’s (Mr Y’s) needs. She says while she was in the accommodation social care did not provide the care, aids and adaptations it said her husband needed.

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 investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), 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 considered the complaint made by Mrs X and discussed it with her. I asked the Council for information and considered what it provided.
6. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft version of my decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s accommodation duties

7. 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)
8. 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)
9. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons.  All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)
10. If a council agrees an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance and has a priority need, it must secure accommodation. If an applicant turns down an offer of suitable accommodation, a council no longer owes the accommodation duty.
11. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. There is also a right to request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided once the Council has accepted the main homelessness duty. An applicant does not have a statutory right to ask for a review of the suitability of accommodation a council provides under the interim duty. A council should carry out a review within 8 weeks of getting the review request. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
12. Applicants can ask a council for accommodation while waiting for a review decision. A council has a power, but not a duty, to provide this. (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5))
13. The Council has a duty to meet the needs of children in need. It can do this by providing or paying for accommodation for the family. (Children Act 1989 section 17)
14. There is no right of appeal about accommodation provided by the Council under its Children Act duty. The Children Act does not say the accommodation provided under section 17 must be suitable. The suitability requirements under the Housing Act do not apply. Public law does require the Council to act reasonably.

Background

15. Mrs X and Mr Y have 2 young children. Mr Y uses a wheelchair. In January 2018 the Council accepted a homeless application from Mrs X and found it had a homelessness duty. In April 2018 the Council assessed Mr Y’s medical housing needs. It said he had essential needs for a ground floor property or a property with a lift and a level access shower. The Council put the family on a list for applicants with severe mobility problems.
16. Mrs X has a separate complaint about the accommodation the Council provided for her family from May 2018 to February 2019.
17. In October 2018 the Council offered Mrs X a property. Mrs X did not consider the property suitable. She asked the Council to reconsider. The Council did not change its mind, as it considered the property it had offered suitable.
18. On 20 February 2019 the Council told Mrs X it no longer had a duty to accommodate her. Mrs X and her family had to leave the temporary accommodation.
19. Mrs X appealed against the Council’s decision it had discharged its duty with an offer of suitable accommodation. As Mrs X used her right of appeal the Ombudsman cannot investigate a complaint about that decision.
20. Mrs X and Mr Y tried to make a new homeless application. The Council refused to accept a new application as it said there was no change in their circumstances.
21. Mr Y has made a separate complaint about what happened between February and August 2019.

What happened

22. In August 2019 Social Care provided accommodation for Mrs X and her family under its Children Act 1989 section 17 duty. Mrs X says Mr Y could not access the bathroom in the property. She also says the shower was dangerous.
23. As Mr Y could not access the bathroom he used a commode which Mrs X emptied. Mrs X took Mr Y to a leisure centre for a shower. Mrs X suffers from back pain.
24. Social Care then began an assessment of Mr Y’s needs and Mrs X’s needs as his carer. The Council completed the assessment in late October 2019.
25. Mr Y’s assessment recognised the difficulties Mr Y had accessing the bathroom and negotiating the steps outside the property. The Assessor said Mr Y would benefit from appropriate equipment and adaptations. The Assessor made a referral to the neuro-rehabilitation team for a full assessment of what equipment and adaptations Mr Y needed. The Assessor also made a referral to wheelchair services to assess Mr Y for a powered wheelchair.
26. On both Mr Y’s and Mrs X’s completed assessments they said Social care could not share the assessments with any other Council Departments. Mrs X says Social Care should have known this did not include Housing.
27. The Assessor noted Mrs X had a court case pending against Housing that could resolve their housing situation.
28. On 4 November 2019 the Council accepted at court it still owed Mrs X the main housing duty and withdrew its decision of February 2019. Later that month Housing took over the responsibility for Mrs X’s accommodation.
29. The wheelchair service did not assess Mr Y. It said it could not do this until Mr Y had a permanent address.
30. The neuro-rehabilitation team contacted Mrs X. On 6 November 2019 it wrote to Mrs X saying it could not accept the referral. The letters says Mr Y’s concerns are managing the external stairs and access to the bathroom. It says it could not identify any additional temporary equipment that would help and it could not carry out adaptations on a temporary address.
31. On 22 December 2019 Mrs X emailed the Council about the shower in the accommodation. She said it was defective and dangerous. She said she had told the landlord and the Council this many times. She said the electrics in the shower had blown that day with a large bang and now the shower did not work. She sent pictures of scorching from the wiring leading to the shower.
32. In January Mrs X told the Council the toilet was blocked. She asked the Council to move her family elsewhere while it sorted out the bathroom.
33. The Council says the landlord replaced the shower on 22 January 2020.
34. In On 15 January 2020 The Council signed a non-secure tenancy agreement with Mrs X for the property she was living in. It also gave Mrs X a section 188 notice saying this was interim accommodation while the Council considered what housing duty it had to Mrs X.
35. On 16 March 2020 the Council sent a s184 notice to Mrs X accepting a homelessness duty for her. The letter gave Mrs X’s review rights, including that she could ask for a review of the suitability of her accommodation. Mrs X says she did not get this letter.
36. On 15 April 2010 the Council moved Mrs X to a temporary property suitable for Mr Y’s needs.

Findings

37. From August to November 2019 the Council provided accommodation to Mrs X under its section 17 Children Act power. This does not carry with it a duty for suitable accommodation. However, it should be accommodation that is reasonably suitable for the children. The accommodation was suitable for the children. I do not find the Council at fault between August and November.
38. This changed on 4 November 2019 when the Council withdrew its decision it had discharged its homelessness duty by offering suitable accommodation. Although the accommodation was the same, the Council now had a duty under homeless legislation to ensure the accommodation was suitable for the whole family. I have seen no evidence the Council considered if the accommodation was suitable for Mr Y. This is fault.
39. Adult Social Care had assessed the accommodation was not suitable for Mr Y. Although Social Care followed Mrs X and Mr Y’s instruction not to share the assessment with other departments of the Council. Housing had its own assessment, the medical assessment it carried out in April 2018.
40. The accommodation was not suitable for Mr Y. Because it was temporary accommodation the wheelchair service and neuro-rehabilitation service would not assess Mr Y for aids and adaptations and a powered wheelchair. Therefore, there was no way of dealing with Mr Y’s needs in the accommodation.
41. The Council is at fault as it denied Mrs X a right of appeal about the suitability of the accommodation. On 4 November 2019 the Council withdrew its decision it had discharged its duty by offering suitable accommodation. It accepted at court that it still owed Mrs X the full homelessness duty. This means the original 2018 decision was still valid. The Council did not have to make a new decision. The accommodation now became temporary accommodation provided under housing legislation. The Council should have written to Mrs X to tell her this and her review rights.
42. Instead the Council waited until January 2020 and then told Mrs X it had not yet made a decision and the accommodation was interim accommodation, which has no review rights.
43. It was not until 16 March 2020 that the Council accepted the full duty to Mrs X and said she could ask for a review of the suitability of the accommodation.
44. I have no reason to doubt Mrs X’s claim she did not get this decision letter, so did not make a review request. However, as the Council moved the family to suitable accommodation 4 weeks later, the Council would not have had the opportunity to deal with a review request by the time it moved the family.
45. Mrs X had concerns about the safety of the shower. The family then did not have a working shower for a month.
46. The Council caused injustice to Mrs X and Mr Y. Mr Y had the indignity of using a commode. Mrs X had to deal with Mr Y’s hygiene by cleaning his commode and taking Mr Y to a leisure centre for a shower. Mrs X suffers from back pain and the extra care she provided to her husband had an impact on this. Added to this Mrs X had concerns that the shower was dangerous and might injure her or her children and then had no shower.
47. We publish guidance on remedies. Where a homeless complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation, we usually recommend a remedy between £150 and £350 a month. We may recommend more where the injustice is exceptional or particularly severe. We look at the impact on the complainant and members of his or her household. In this case the failure to provide suitable accommodation had a severe impact on both Mrs X and Mr Y. Therefore, I recommend the Council pays Mrs X £500 a month for 4 November 2019 to 15 April 2020.

Agreed action

48. To put matters right for Mrs X within one month of my final decision the Council will:

• Apologise to Mrs X and Mr Y
• Pay Mrs X £2,750 for the Council’s failure to provide suitable temporary accommodation to a family it had a homeless duty for.

Back to top

Final decision

49. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice. The Council will provide a suitable remedy for this. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman