Summary: Miss X complains the Council accommodated her in temporary accommodation which was unsuitable for her medical needs. Miss X also complains about significant delays in processing her homeless application and medical assessment. The Council decided that it should take a homeless application from Miss X but took too long to decide this. The Council provided interim accommodation during this time but there was fault in the way the Council reached its decision about the accommodation. There were also delays in completing a medical assessment. The faults caused Miss X distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, make a financial payment and transfer Miss X to a more suitable temporary home while she continues bidding for more properties.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has accommodated her in temporary accommodation which is unsuitable for her medical needs. Miss X also complains about significant delays in processing her homeless application and medical assessment decision.
2. Miss X says the issues have caused her significant distress and her health has deteriorated.

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 Miss X and discussed the complaint with her. I made enquiries of the Council and reviewed its response. I considered the relevant parts of the Housing Act 1996, the Homelessness reduction Act 2017, the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities and the Allocation of Accommodation: Guidance for Local Authorities in England.
6. I sent Miss X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and invited their comments. I considered all the comments I received before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of the key law and guidance

7. 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.
8. An applicant must be treated as homeless, regardless of the availability and legal rights to occupy accommodation, if it is not reasonable for them to continue to occupy the accommodation. (Housing Act 1996 section 175(3))
9. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to ensure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. I will refer to this as the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
10. Councils must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. I will refer to this as the relief duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
11. 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)
12. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for them. I will refer to this as the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
13. 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)
14. 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

15. Listed below is a chronology which includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
16. In July 2019 Miss X completed an online housing self-assessment form. The Council placed her in emergency interim accommodation, a hostel. Miss X was offered a room that was suitable for a single person, located on the ground floor.
17. On 15 August 2019 Miss X is assessed by a housing caseworker over the telephone.
18. Six months later the Council made a not in priority decision on Miss X’s homelessness application. Miss X requested a statutory review of this decision. At the same time Miss X requested that she remain in her temporary accommodation until the Council had completed a review of its non-priority decision. The Council agreed to this.
19. The statutory review was completed on 17 June 2020 and the not in priority decision was overturned. Miss X’s case was referred back to the casework team to make a decision on the main housing duty.
20. On 8 July 2020 Miss X complained to the Council about her interim temporary accommodation and the handling of her homelessness application. Specifically, Miss X complained about:

• the delay in completing the non-priority review;
• poor communication;
• her medical needs not being considered;
• the interim temporary accommodation and the impact on her health.
• sharing a toilet and kitchen with other people when she was at high risk of getting Covid-19;
• bad odour in the communal corridors; and
• limited space for someone to stay in the room with her to help manage her health.

21. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint on 22 July 2020. The Council accepted there was a delay in actioning Miss X’s request for a review of the non-priority decision. The Council explained that part of the reason for the delay was due to Miss X’s GP not providing information within the timescales required. However, the Council acknowledged that it was responsible for the remainder of the delay.
22. The Council also accepted there was a significant delay in making a decision on whether a main housing duty was owed to Miss X. The Council also acknowledged there had been a lack of communication with Miss X about her case and telephone calls had not been responded to in a timely manner. The Council upheld Miss X’s complaint and apologised for any stress and inconvenience caused.
23. The Council acknowledged that Miss X was not happy with the location of her interim temporary accommodation. The Council said that the service was only able to offer accommodation based on what was available at the time the offer was made.
24. On 14 August 2020 the Council accepted it owed Miss X a main housing duty. Miss X was registered for a mobility category 4 studio. The Council wrote to Miss X on the same day and said it had accepted a duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 to ensure Miss X had somewhere suitable in which to live. The Council said it had met its obligation by providing Miss X with temporary accommodation which it considered suitable. The letter made Miss X aware of her appeal rights and right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation offered.
25. A week later Miss X completes a medical assessment form (MAF). Miss X explained she had multiple health issues and asked the Council to reassess her mobility category and assess her for a one-bedroom property to accommodate a carer to support her during the night. Miss X provided details about her medical conditions, list of medication she was taking and said she needed space to store medical equipment. Miss X resubmitted the form on 26 August 2020 which was forwarded to housing services on 8 September 2020.
26. On 1 October 2020 Miss X makes a stage one complaint about the delay in assessing her medical needs and issues with bidding for accommodation. Miss X also made a stage 2 complaint about the handling of her homelessness application.
27. The Council responded to Miss X’s stage one complaint. The Council said Miss X was in position 148 on the homeless list with 150 homeless points. The Council said the registration date of 14 August 2020 was correct and explained to Miss X the reasons why her bidding position may fluctuate. The Council acknowledged that it had received Miss X’s MAF form, but it had not been referred to a medical advisor. It said the delay was due to a backlog of medical assessments.
28. On 30 October 2020 a referral was made to a medical advisor to complete an assessment. The medical advisor wrote to Miss X’s GP on 11 November 2020 requesting further information.
29. On 2 December 2020 the Council responded to Miss X’s stage two complaint about the handling of her homelessness application. The Council accepted that it should have decided whether a main housing duty was owed to Miss X on 27 December 2019. It agreed to backdate Miss X’s registration and amend the housing register. The Council also accepted there was a delay in reviewing the non-priority decision. With regards to Miss X’s MAF the Council said the medical advisor would make recommendations in due course. The Council apologised for the poor service Miss X received and offered Miss X a payment of £300 to acknowledge the distress and delay caused by the Council’s faults.
30. On the same day Miss X told the Council she was experiencing damp and a leak in her temporary accommodation. This was referred to the housing provider to investigate. The housing provider inspected Miss X’s bedroom and took photographs. The housing provider reported that there were no visible signs of damp or leaks.
31. The Council completed a housing needs assessment with Miss X, and she was assessed as being priority for temporary accommodation in Band 3, which is any location in the Greater London area.
32. The medical advisor contacted Miss X’s GP on 18 December 2020 and 4 January 2021, as no response had been received.
33. In early January 2021 Miss X was offered a one-bedroom temporary accommodation. The Council then withdrew this offer because Miss X had been shortlisted for permanent accommodation. Miss X did not attend the viewing for this property.
34. On 26 January 2021 the medical assessment was concluded and recommended a mobility category 4 but did not recommend that Miss X should be registered for an additional bedroom. Miss X requested a review of this decision. The Council wrote to Miss X and said it had reviewed her medical circumstances and information. The Council acknowledged the medical issues Miss X was facing and that she required care and support with daily living activities. But said Miss X did not have a care package and had not been assessed by social services as requiring 24-hour care. Furthermore, the information did not evidence that Miss X required medical equipment or property adaptations. The decision not to award mobility category 3 was overturned but there was no change to Miss X’s registration for a studio.

Analysis

35. The Council has already accepted fault with regards to delays in completing the non-priority decision review and delay in making a decision on whether a main housing duty was owed to Miss X. The Council has also accepted that there was a lack of communication with Miss X and has acknowledged the poor service she received. The delay and poor service caused Miss X distress, frustration and uncertainty. Because the Council has accepted fault on these elements of Miss X’s complaint it is not necessary for me to investigate them any further. However, I must consider whether the apology and payment of £300 offered by the Council was sufficient to remedy any injustice caused by the faults.
36. Miss X requested a non-priority decision review on 31 December 2019 and it should have been completed within 56 days. The review was completed on 17 June 2020 and this represents a delay of four months. It then took the Council a further eight months to decide that it owed Miss X a main housing duty. The Council backdated Miss X’s registration on the housing register to 27 December 2019, the date it would have been if there had been no undue delays in accepting the housing duty. I am satisfied with the Council’s response here. However, I do not think the offer of £300 goes far enough in recognising the uncertainty and distress caused to Miss X over a significant period, compounded by the poor service she received. I recommend a higher payment of £500.
37. I asked the Council to provide details of properties allocated between December 2019 to May 2021. This is to establish whether Miss X lost the opportunity to successfully bid on a property due to delays by the Council. Based on the evidence available, I am satisfied that Miss X did not lose the opportunity to be housed sooner. This is because of the nine properties let during this period one was a direct offer and all others were offered to applicants that were registered before 27 December 2019. There was one exception, where an applicant who had the housing duty accepted on 31 December 2019 was made an offer on 22 June 2020. The applicant was shortlisted in position 5 and the property was refused by applicants in positions 1 to 4. Miss X would have been shortlisted in position 4 if she was registered to bid. But it is unlikely that this property would have been suitable for Miss X as it was located on the first floor with no lift. The Council let three mobility category 3 studios to applicants on the homeless list. Two were direct offers and one was let to an applicant who was registered on 31 October 2019.

Medical assessment

38. Miss X completed the MAF in mid-august 2020 but the assessment was not concluded until 26 January 2021. A review was completed four months later. The Council has accepted there was a delay in processing Miss X’s MAF. It is noted that some of this delay was due to the Miss X’s GP not providing the information requested. However, there was still a significant delay by the Council, that added to Miss X’s distress and uncertainty. To remedy this, I have already recommended a payment of £500, as explained in paragraph 36.

39. Miss X says the Council failed to properly consider her request for a one-bedroom property to accommodate a carer to support her during the night. The Council considered the information Miss X provided and referred the case to a medical advisor, who requested information from Miss X’s GP. The Council then wrote to Miss X declining her request and explained its reasons for doing so. The Council made Miss X aware of her rights to review the decision. On review, the Council decided Miss X did not meet the criteria for an additional bedroom.
40. I have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided not to award any medical preference to Miss X. I am satisfied that the Council and medical advisor properly considered the evidence Miss X provided when reaching its decision.
41. I also asked the Council to explain the action it was taking to reduce its backlog of medical assessments. The Council confirmed that it currently has no outstanding medical assessments.

Suitability of accommodation

42. Under the housing Act 1996 the Council has a duty to provide suitable temporary accommodation to those it owes a housing duty. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty.
43. Miss X was initially offered interim temporary accommodation in July 2019. The Council says that when applicants are offered interim accommodation their specific circumstances are considered. Miss X was offered a room that was suitable for a single person, located on the ground floor. The Council has no record of the assessment of Miss X’s application and no evidence of how it considered her specific circumstances. This is fault. There is also no further correspondence on Miss X’s file regarding the suitability of the interim temporary accommodation. This is fault. It was for the Council as the housing authority to satisfy itself whether the accommodation was suitable. I find fault with the Council’s decision making process which has caused Miss X uncertainty about whether her individual circumstances were considered when deciding the suitability of the accommodation. We cannot speculate what the outcome would have been if the Council had acted without fault.
44. After the Council made its decision that it owed Miss X a homeless duty, the status changed from interim temporary accommodation to temporary accommodation. There is no evidence the Council considered whether the change in status might affect the accommodation’s suitability. And whether, there was, by then, other options. I say this as it then became likely that Miss X would be in the property for longer. This is fault. However, I cannot say this caused Miss X an injustice because she was informed of her right to appeal the suitability of the temporary accommodation. Miss X did not request a review and I consider it was reasonable for her to do so.
45. In response to my enquires the Council has acknowledged that the temporary accommodation is not ideal. It has offered Miss X a transfer to alternative accommodation but Miss X declined this as she wanted to wait for a permanent offer. Miss X was shortlisted for permanent accommodation earlier this year, but she did not attend the viewing for this property. The Council has told the Ombudsman that it can offer Miss X a transfer to a more suitable temporary home while she continues bidding for more properties. I welcome this proposal by the Council.
46. The Council had a duty to provide suitable accommodation and to keep that under review. However, the responsibility for maintenance and repair of the property rested firstly with the housing provider. When Miss X reported issues with damp and a leak, the Council asked the housing provider to inspect the accommodation. Therefore, I am satisfied the Council took action to investigate the matter when Miss X reported it. The Housing provider reported no visible signs of damp or a leak. Therefore, I cannot say the Council was at fault here. The Council failed to communicate the outcome of the inspection to Miss X. This is fault and added to Miss X’s uncertainty. The Council should apologise to Miss X.

Back to top

Agreed action

47. Within four weeks of my final decision the Council will:
1. formally apologise to Miss X for the faults identified in this statement;
2. pay Miss X £500 to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the delays identified in paragraphs 36 and 38;
3. pay Miss X £150 for the time and trouble pursuing her complaints; and
4. write to Miss X and offer her a transfer to a more suitable temporary home while she continues bidding for more properties

Back to top

Final decision

48. I have found fault by the Council which has caused Miss X a significant injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman