Summary: Ms X complained the Council accommodated her in temporary accommodation unsuitable for her medical needs, failed to provide permanent accommodation, delayed carrying out repairs and failed to take her concerns about a fake Electrical Installation Condition Report seriously. The Council’s failure to provide alternative suitable accommodation for 11 months is fault. There is also fault in relation to delays with repairs and delay in dealing with her concerns about the Electrical Installation Condition Report. A suitable remedy for these faults has been agreed.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council:

accommodated her in temporary accommodation which is unsuitable for her medical needs for two years;

has not provided her with permanent accommodation yet even though she has been in band 1 for over two and a half years. Ms X believes the Council has offered properties that would be suitable for her to other people on the housing register;

delayed carrying out repairs it agreed to when we issued a previous decision;

did not take PA’s concerns seriously about a contractor being unqualified and faking an Electrical Installation Condition Report.

2. Ms X says that living in unsuitable accommodation has caused upset and distress.

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 the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

6. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. Generally, the 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)
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. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)

What happened

9. Ms X is disabled. The Council accepted it owed her the main homelessness duty and provided temporary accommodation. Ms X is complaining about the Council’s actions in respect of this temporary accommodation and its housing duties. I will respond to each of her four complaint headings in turn below.

Accommodated Ms X in temporary accommodation which was unsuitable for her medical needs for two years

10. Ms X moved into property A on 13 June 2018. She did not request a review of the suitability of that accommodation. Ms X provided new medical evidence and in October 2019, the Council determined the property was not suitable for her needs. It accepted it would move her to suitable accommodation.
11. Ms X did not move into suitable alternative accommodation until September 2020. I have considered the actions of the Council in the period from October 2019 to September 2020.
12. The information provided by the Council indicates it made four offers of alternative accommodation in that period. It also considered another property but no formal offer was made. The Council withdrew the first three offers of alternative accommodation for a variety of reasons.
13. Ms X queried an offer made in December 2019 because there was no level access shower. As a result, the medical team recommended that a level access shower should be provided in respect of future offers of housing.
14. The Council offered another property in February 2020 which had a level access shower. Ms X also raised the fact this property was too far from the bus stop and too far away from her support network and family. The Council withdrew this offer as it accepted it was beneficial to Ms X to be near her support network and maintain links to her GP.
15. In August 2020, the council carried out a feasibility study on an available empty property to see if it could be adapted to meet Ms X’s needs. The adaptations team found the property was not suitable for adaptation and so was not offered to Ms X.
16. A further offer was made later in August. Ms X queried the offer because it was on a regeneration estate and the continuous building works would have an adverse effect on her health. The Council accepted this reason and withdrew the offer.
17. Ms X accepted a further offer made in September 2020 and has since moved into the property.
18. The Council accepted Ms X was in unsuitable accommodation in October 2019 but did not provide a suitable alternative until September 2020, some 11 months later. While I acknowledge the Council made efforts to find suitable, alternative accommodation, its legal duty was to provide suitable accommodation not just try to provide it. The failure to provide suitable alternative accommodation for 11 months is service failure and therefore I find fault.

Failed to provide Ms X with permanent accommodation even though she has been in Band 1 for over two and a half years. Ms X believes the Council has offered properties that would be suitable for her to other people on the housing register

19. The Council moved Ms X into Band 1 following receipt of the new medical evidence in October 2019. Her application was given the effective date of 2 January 2018. Ms X has therefore been in band 1 for just over a year.
20. Information provided by the Council states that only 10 properties that would be suitable for Ms X have been available and offered between December 2016 and June 2020. The Council says that all properties have been offered in accordance with the allocation rules set out in its Allocations Policy.
21. As explained above, the Council has made Ms X offers in respect of four properties since October 2019. The offer accepted by Ms X is with a registered provider and is an offer of permanent accommodation with a long term tenancy. The offer and acceptance of this property in September 2020 meant the Council’s legal duties under the homelessness act were discharged.
22. Based on the information provided, I take the view Ms X was in Band 1 from October 2019 although her effective date for re-housing was set at January 2018. Ms X was in unsuitable accommodation for 11 months and I have dealt with that issue above. There is a shortage of available properties with only 10 offered in a four-and-a-half-year period. Ms X is now in permanent accommodation and while I appreciate it was distressing for her while she waited to be re-housed, the shortage of suitable properties means applicants can wait for some time to be housed and this is not fault.
23. I have not seen any information which indicates other applicants were allocated properties in breach of the allocations policy. Available properties may have met Ms X’s needs, but she would not be offered one until she was the applicant in the highest band with the earliest effective date. I am not persuaded the time Ms X has been waiting for a permanent property is because of any fault by the Council.

Delayed carrying out repairs it agreed to when we issued a decision on a previous complaint

24. The Ombudsman made a decision on a previous complaint made by Ms X on 29 October 2019. That decision required the Council to ensure that necessary repairs are carried out in a timely manner. In that complaint it was noted the Council had failed to provide a shower screen at the property.
25. The Council accepts it did not take action regarding the shower screen. Ms X continued to raise this but it was not until May 2020 in response to a formal complaint that the Council accepted the fault and apologised. The Council arranged for the landlord to complete this action along with other repairs Ms X had reported.
26. The chronology of actions indicates there was some delay before the repairs were eventually completed by 28 June 2020. The suggestion is that there were concerns about Ms X’s behaviour which made the contractor uncomfortable. The Council offered to attend with the contractor to alleviate any concerns.
27. The only repair requiring attention in the previous Ombudsman decision was the installation of a shower screen. It was noted in that decision that any injustice was limited as the damp caused was damaging the landlord’s own property.
28. The information provided suggests there were other repairs raised by Ms X since the issuing of our previous decision. This complaint is not concerned with those issues. However, there was delay providing the shower screen and this is fault.

Did not take Ms X’s concerns seriously about a contractor being unqualified and faking an Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR)

29. The issue of the EICR was considered in Ms X’s previous complaint. At that time we took the view there was no evidence the electrician was unqualified.
30. Information now provided by the Council shows that the EICR completed in 2017 was invalid. It says this is not because the electrician who carried out the inspection was unqualified but because the certificate was signed off by the wrong person. The EICR should be signed by the company’s registered Qualified Surveyor and it was not.
31. The Council says it has been in contact with the landlord and the company who completed the electrical inspection in 2017. It says this is a complicated issue but that it has now handed back the property to the landlord because of the problems with the electrical certificate. The Council completed its own inspection and found some issues but says no danger was posed to Ms X.
32. I cannot take a view on whether any danger was posed to Ms X. However, it seems to me that she was correct when she raised concerns about the validity of the EICR. The Council did not carry out its own inspection until August 2020, the month before Ms X moved out. I am satisfied that anyone would have concerns if there were questions about the validity of an electrical supply at the property they were living in. I am further satisfied that this concern and worry was amplified because of Ms X’s medical conditions.
33. There is nothing to suggest the Council acted on this issue until August 2020 or that prior to this time, provided any explanation to Ms X that may have helped to alleviate some of the stress experienced. I consider this to be fault.

Agreed action

34. To remedy the injustice caused to Ms X as a result of the faults identified above the Council should, within one month of my final decision, take the following action:

Apologise to Ms X;

Pay Ms X £2,200 to recognise the distress caused as a result of her being housed in unsuitable accommodation for 11 months longer than she should have been; and

Pay Ms X £150 to recognise her time and trouble in making these complaints in particular in respect of the delay in completing repairs.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman