Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to provide her with suitable accommodation when she made a homelessness application. She says her well-being suffered because she spent too long in unsuitable accommodation. The Ombudsman has found the Council took too long to rehouse her once it had decided her flat was unsuitable. To remedy the injustice caused to Miss X, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to her.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s failure to provide her with suitable, temporary accommodation once she became homeless. She also complains about the Council’s failure to properly consider her mental health.
2. She says this has caused significant distress and has affected the well-being of both herself and her new baby.

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. As part of my investigation I have:

• considered the complaint and documents provided by Miss X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• considered the relevant law, statutory guidance, and Council policies; and
• sent my draft decision to both parties and invited comments on it. I have taken comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

6. 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.
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. This becomes known as temporary accommodation once the council accepts a full housing duty.

Suitability of interim accommodation

8. When a council is under a duty to provide accommodation that accommodation must be suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206)
9. The Code says “consideration of whether accommodation is suitable will require an assessment of all aspects of the accommodation in the light of the relevant needs, requirements and circumstances of the homeless person and his or her family”. (Homelessness Code of Guidance for Councils 2006, section 17.4)
10. As the duty to provide suitable accommodation is a continuing obligation, councils must keep the issue of suitability of accommodation under review. If there is a change of circumstances the council must reconsider whether the accommodation remains suitable.
11. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days about the suitability of temporary accommodation.

What happened

12. In July 2019, Miss X made a homelessness application to the Council because she could no longer stay where she was. The Council completed a Personal Housing Plan because she was threatened with homelessness.
13. In September 2019, she was provided with interim accommodation in a top floor flat. Soon after moving in, Miss X raised concerned about its suitability. Miss X was seven months pregnant and the stairs were particularly steep and had already fallen, risking both herself and her unborn child. The Council said she could request for a review of the suitability of her accommodation once the Council had decided her homelessness application.
14. Miss X’s baby was born in October 2019.
15. The Council accepted it owed Miss X the main homelessness duty in November 2019.
16. Miss X continued to struggle with access to the flat, made worse by having a new baby born via Caesarean Section and buggy to take up and down the stairs. She complained to the Council about this. The Council treated her complaint as a request for a suitability review, but Miss X asked her complaint to be taken to the next stage.
17. She received a response to her complaint in January 2020. This said an officer would come and inspect the flat.
18. Upon inspecting the flat, this officer determined the flat was unsuitable and the Council would move her “as soon as is practical”.
19. Miss X was told that in any event she would be rehoused once her child was six months old.
20. In March 2020, because she had not been moved, Miss X complained to the Ombudsman. She says she should have been given priority because the accommodation was affecting her mental health and this had been ignored by the Council. Her GP wrote to the Council confirming Miss X was suffering with depression and supported her request to move to more suitable accommodation.
21. The records show Miss X was provided with alternative temporary accommodation in October 2020. When asked by the Ombudsman why it had taken nine months for this to happen, the Council said this was due to a shortage of supply of suitable accommodation and many other similar cases with greater priority need than Miss X. In April 2020, the Council told Miss X it was only providing an emergency housing due to Covid-19. It repeated this explanation in May 2020.

Analysis

22. Miss X complains that the property was unsuitable from the start. The Council decided it was suitable because it had taken into consideration its location, Miss X’s pregnancy and her personal circumstances. I do not find the Council to be at fault here. It quickly provided Miss X with somewhere to live when she became homeless and had regard to her individual circumstances. I appreciate the flat was not ideal, but this must be viewed in the context of the local housing situation. The Council then properly explained she was unable to request a review until the decision about her homelessness had been made.
23. The homelessness decision was made in November 2019 and Miss X promptly exercised her right to request a suitability review. This review was carried out within the timeframe set out in the legislation and the decision followed soon afterwards.
24. I am satisfied the Council dealt with Miss X’s homelessness application without any fault. She was provided with interim accommodation while the Council considered her application and accepted a duty to accommodate in a timely manner.
25. In January 2020, the Council accepted the flat was unsuitable. It agreed to move her and said this would take place “as soon as is practical”. Miss X did not move until October 2020, nine months later.
26. In reaching my decision about whether this delay was fault, I have noted the Council’s comments about the lack of suitable accommodation in the area and the number of other families also in a similar position to Miss X that also needed to be rehoused. I have also taken account of the additional pressures caused by Covid-19 during the time Miss X was waiting to be moved. This has been reflected in the recommended remedy below.
27. Under the Housing Act 1996 the Council has a duty to provide suitable temporary accommodation to those it owes a housing duty. The law does not allow the Council to leave people in unsuitable housing because it cannot find anything suitable. The Council should have enough suitable housing.
28. Because of this duty, I find the delay was too long and was fault. During this time, the records show Miss X was not kept properly informed about what was happening. While Miss X was told there may be some delay because of the Covid-19 situation, I have not seen evidence that she was told when the temporary restrictions on transfers had been lifted. Nor have I seen any evidence of what action the Council was taking to find suitable accommodation during the nine months.
29. Miss X has also complained about the Council’s failure to have regard to her mental health when considering her homelessness application and suitability of accommodation. From the case records I have seen, I am satisfied the Council did take this into consideration when it was raised by Miss X, which was after her initial application and the birth of her baby. The Council had regard to information provided by her health visitor and GP about her mental health when conducting its housing needs assessment. This is what the Council was obliged to do and so I find there was no fault here. I am satisfied the delay in finding alternative accommodation was due of the shortage of housing supply rather than because the Council disregarded her personal circumstances.

Agreed action

30. To remedy the injustice caused to Miss X, the Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks from the date of my final decision:
1. Apologise in writing to Miss X; and
2. Pay Miss X £900 to recognise she was in unsuitable accommodation for nine months longer than she should have been. In deciding on this amount, I have had regard to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies and the following factors:

• Miss X’s flat, while unsuitable for her, was of a reasonable standard (in the context of temporary accommodation in the Council area).
• She was offered hotel accommodation as an alternative.
• The Council informed Miss X that it was unable to move her for at least three of the nine months because of Covid-19.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have found the Council was at fault because it took too long to provide Miss X with suitable accommodation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman