Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to act when it became aware his temporary accommodation was unsuitable due to an inadequate water supply. He said this caused him an injustice as his medical condition meant the lack of water supply caused him severe difficulties. He was also upset at the way the Council interacted with him and considered his treatment might have been motivated by racism. The Council was at fault for failing to respond appropriately to the information Mr X provided about how water flow issues in his accommodation were impacting upon his condition. We have made recommendations to acknowledge the distress this caused. We have not found evidence of racist or other improper motivation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council:

• was aware that the water supply to his temporary accommodation was not sufficient before placing him and his wife in that accommodation;
• failed to properly acknowledge his complaint, claiming that he was the only person that had complained;
• left him to manage in unsuitable accommodation while knowing he had a debilitating medical condition; and
• was racist in its actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
3. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
5. 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

6. I spoke with Mr X and made enquiries of the Council.
7. I researched the relevant law.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law

9. Councils must arrange accommodation as soon as they have reason to believe that an applicant may be eligible, homeless and in priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
10. When a council is under a duty to provide accommodation, that accommodation must be suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206)
11. 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)
12. The Code says that housing authorities will need to consider carefully the suitability of accommodation for households with particular medical and/or physical needs.
13. Physical access to and around the home, space, bathroom and kitchen facilities, access to a garden and modifications to assist people with sensory loss as well as mobility needs are all factors which might need to be taken into account. ((Homelessness Code of Guidance for Councils 2006, section 17.5)
14. Housing authorities should be alert to circumstance in which the suitability of accommodation will require more regular review because the applicant’s needs are likely to change. This would include, for example, regularly reviewing the suitability of accommodation provided to applicants who are terminally ill and in need of palliative care. ((Homelessness Code of Guidance for Councils 2006, section 17.10)
15. 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. ((Homelessness Code of Guidance for Councils 2006, section 17.8)
16. An applicant must request a review before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which they are notified of the housing authority’s decision. The housing authority may specify, in writing, a longer period during which a review may be requested. ((Homelessness Code of Guidance for Councils 2006, section 19.4))
17. Once a Council has provided accommodation having reason to believe an applicant is eligible, homeless and priority need, it will then apply four tests to decide what duty, if any, it owes to that homeless applicant. It will make enquiries to find out if the applicant is:
18. • eligible for assistance;

• homeless or threatened with homelessness;

• in priority need (e.g. is vulnerable, has dependent children etc); and

• not intentionally homeless.

19. 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)

Background

20. In August 2020, Mr X informed the Council that he was at risk of becoming homeless. Initially both Mr X and the Council were under the impression that Mr X was suffering from a very grave condition. However, it later became clear he had been misdiagnosed.
21. A housing advisor contacted him the next day and Mr X was placed in temporary accommodation in early September 2020 while it was being decided if he had a priority need for accommodation or not.
22. The accommodation was in a newly-built flat, which I will call Flat P.
23. Mr X signed a temporary tenancy agreement with the Council on 12 October 2020. It provided him with the opportunity to seek a review of the suitability of his accommodation at any time before 2 November 2020.
24. Mr X did not seek to review the suitability of his accommodation within that period.

Water issues at Flat P

25. Around this time, Mr X began complaining about the water pressure in his flat.
26. The records show that the Council had been informed about reports from different tenants about low water pressure in the flats in August 2020.
27. The Council had liaised with the company who managed the flats and was informed that this was an issue related to water restrictors that had been placed in the flat in compliance with building regulations. Further it was told that it was easily addressed. The Council was given some instructions to explain how to work around the issue.
28. The records show that in early October 2020 the Council was on notice that the issue with water pressure in the flats was not just specific to Mr X’s flat. A visit to the flats from an operative noted that, “there was such a poor water flow rate that the boiler did not recognise the hot tap was on.”
29. The Council acted immediately on this information, contacting the management company (“the Contractor”) for the flat. It reported that a visit had concluded that there were no issues regarding hot water from the boiler but did say that more than one tenant had complained about the water pressure. The Contractor said it had explained to the tenants that it was because of the flow restrictors which were installed because of building regulations. The contractor considered that no further action was required.
30. The Council says it continued to liaise with the Contractor.
31. Mr X complained about the lack of water supply on 4 November 2020. He said he had been told that there was a problem with the water flow due to inadequate water flow restrictors, which lacked the capacity to generate the required flow. On the same day an officer replied. There were other issues with a power cut that were addressed as well. But, on the issue of water restriction, the officer said that none of the other tenants had complained. She hoped, she said, that his problems were due to the power cut.
32. On 13 November 2020 records provided to me by Mr X show that a water company visited Mr X’s flat to test the water pressure. The operative is reported as saying:

“Customer lives in flat. All other properties have no issues with their water pressure. Mains fed tap runs very slowly and completely stops when another appliance is used. Internal stopcock is fully open. Customer advises a restrictor has been installed in the new build..”

33. On 25 November 2020 Mr X wrote to the Council’s Chief Executive to complain about how the issue with water restriction affected him. He complained that he was living in unsanitary conditions. He explained how his condition was directly affected and made more difficult to manage by not having access to an adequate water supply. He said, among other things, that because of his condition he had an “…urgent and desperate ongoing need to have regular access to a constant flow of water supply.” He said this was to afford him basic human dignity.
34. On 25 November 2020 the Council told the Contractor that there was still an issue with lack of water pressure in the flats. It asked the Contractor to check it was at the right level. The checks showed that the readings were “…well below what is allowed.”
35. The Council say that the flat was always supplied with water. It says that the flow restrictors were on the sink tap and basin only and did not impede Mr X’s ability to bathe or wash clothes or bedding.
36. On a visit on 18 December 2020, it was confirmed again that there was, “…very little flow”. However, the technician was unable to remove the water restrictor to Mr X’s flat as it was found that the restrictor was installed to the whole building and not one individual flat. Water would need to be isolated to the whole building.
37. There was then some difficulty arranging an appointment for the sub-contractor to visit. Mr X required notice because of his condition.
38. On 1 February 2021, the Council’s Chief Executive responded to Mr X’s complaint about the water issue. He also dismissed Mr X’s complaint that he considered officers had behaved in a racist way towards him.
39. On the issue of water restrictors, he said that the Council’s property services team were trying to address the issues and had made multiple attempts to resolve the issue. He said the Contractor had increased the flow to the block but accepted that Mr X said this had not resolved the problem.
40. He said the only solution was to remove the flow restrictors in Mr X’s flat.
41. He said it had been difficult to arrange for technicians to attend at Mr X’s flat and that Mr X’s unwillingness to discuss appropriate access had impeded the Council’s ability to resolve the issue. However, he hoped the now scheduled visit would sort the problem out.
42. In enquiries to the Council I noted that at this stage three visits had been arranged to Mr X’s flat to resolve the situation. On the first visit Mr X had asked for more than one hour’s notice. On the second and third visits Mr X did allow engineers to enter his flat.
43. I asked the Council how this was perceived as showing an unwillingness to discuss appropriate access.
44. It did not respond directly to that question. However, it did say that there were delays in achieving the desired level of water for Mr X.
45. A visit was scheduled for 8 February 2021. However, the Contractor did not turn up. Mr X complained that he had waited in all day.
46. On 12 February 2021 an inspection was arranged to check all the flats for defects. It was reported that, “…low water flow is being experienced by other residents but they have not highlighted this.”8
47. The Council tried to arrange another appointment with Mr X to remove his water restrictor. However, Mr X did not accept another appointment because of his health problems.
48. On 18 February 2021 records provided to the Ombudsman by Mr X show that the Council responded to Mr X saying that it was appreciated that it was not a good time to visit but the “…major fault” needed to be fixed. It said that other flats also had the same fault.
49. On 2 March 2021 the Council reported that all water restrictors were removed from the flats. Mr X says there was some improvement but water flow was still inadequate.
50. He repeated that he considered his ill-treatment by the Council to be racially motivated.
51. On 12 March 2021, the Council decided Mr X did not have a priority need for temporary accommodation. This decision was later reversed after Mr X sought a review and provided more information from his GP.
52. The doctor’s letter, dated March 2021 and sent to the Council to support Mr X’s review of its decision that he was not in priority need said that the issues with water supply in Mr X’s accommodation, for someone with Mr X’s needs, was a “…real problem.”
53. Following production of an occupational therapist’s report, the Council decided that the accommodation at Flat P was unsuitable for Mr X.
54. The occupational report had revealed among other things, that Mr X:

• had experienced blows to his dignity and mental wellbeing caused by his situation;
• was dependent on a wheeled walker and 2 walking sticks indoors;
• had fallen on the communal stairs and reduced the range of movement in his shoulder;
• relied on his partner, Miss X, to support him with daily activities but she worked full time and he was left alone for up to 13 hours a day; and
• was at a high risk of falls on the stairs even with support

55. The therapist concluded by stating that Flat P did not meet Mr X’s needs.
56. A new ground floor flat was identified for Mr X. This offer was later withdrawn as Mr X’s occupational therapist did not consider the flat was suitable for him. Mr X was offered another flat in July 2021. He raised issues about this flat and the offer was withdrawn. A further flat was offered to Mr X in September 2021. The Council viewed that this had been a suitable offer of accommodation and as Mr X had refused it, it said it was minded to discharge the Council’s main housing duty towards him. Mr X was given an opportunity to provide further information.

Analysis

57. The records show that the Council was aware there were problems with the water supply in Mr X’s temporary accommodation before placing him there. However, it also understood that it had been or could be easily resolved. The records show that its understanding was that the water flow had been restricted in accordance with building regulations but that there was a way to work around this issue. Therefore, I do not find the Council was at fault for placing Mr X in the accommodation.
58. However, I do find the Council at fault for failing to handle Mr X’s complaint properly and failing to acknowledge that he was not the only person who complained about the water issue in the flats. The records show he was not the only person who complained. Mr X was also told that he presented as being unwilling to allow access to Flat P. At the time only three visits had been arranged and it was only on one occasion that Mr X had said he was not available.
59. Mr X felt that he was not being taken seriously. He considered his treatment by the Council was poor. He felt it must be racially motivated. I have not found any evidence that the Council’s poor response was racially motivated but it was at fault. It damaged Mr X’s confidence in the Council’s approach to his case. The Council should apologise.
60. I have considered whether the Council should have done more to help Mr X given his debilitating condition and the Council’s knowledge that Mr X was in accommodation that he said exacerbated his problems because of the low water flow. I consider that it should have. I will set out why below.
61. Mr X had up until 2 November 2020 to ask for a review of the suitability of his accommodation. He did not do so. However, he reported the water flow problems after that date, on 4 November and on 25 November 2020. The Council’s duty to provide suitable accommodation is a continuing obligation. As set out in my paragraphs 14-15 above, if there is a change of circumstances the Council must reconsider whether the accommodation remains suitable. I have not seen any evidence that it did this.
62. The Council says Mr X always had water but there were delays achieving the water level Mr X desired. I am surprised by the Council’s approach to this issue. While the building contractor considered the matter closed, following further investigation the Council’s own technician said the water level was ‘well below’ what was allowed. On the first visit to the flat in October 2020, a Council officer reported that “…there was such poor water flow that the boiler did not recognise that the hot tap was on.” When the water company visited he reported (to Mr X) that there were no issues with other properties. But the records show that other residents had complained about issues.
63. It is difficult to ascertain with certainty how difficult the water pressure made things for Mr X, whether it was so poor that I can safely say it made his accommodation unsuitable. I note the doctor’s report said that issues with water supply would have been a ‘real problem’ for Mr X.
64. The water company reported that the mains fed tap ran very slowly and completely stopped when another appliance was used. This certainly indicated that there was a problem. The Council says that despite requesting the water company’s report Mr X did not provide it. But in any case, when Council technicians visited the property later that month it was identified that the flow was well below the allowed level. The Council ultimately removed the water restrictors.
65. The Council says it removed the water restrictors because it is acknowledged that the level of flow could have been frustrating. It says however, that Mr X always had water. It does not accept that the low flow rate constituted an unsanitary environment.
66. But even if the Council did not consider that the water flow was a problem for Mr X, it made no attempt to investigate further what Mr X was saying about his condition and about how he said the low level water flow impacted on his circumstances. It failed to act on its duty to ensure that the property continued to be suitable after being told of a change in circumstances. This is fault causing injustice. The occupational therapist who reviewed Mr X’s situation said that he experienced blows to his dignity and mental wellbeing caused by his situation.
67. The Council says that Mr X withheld the opportunity for the Council to understand his medical condition and subsequent housing needs until 25 March 2021, when it received a letter from his GP. However, Mr X informed it, in detail, of his condition and how the water situation was affecting him on 25 November 2020. His claims were supported by a letter sent from his doctor on 30 November 2020. The Council’s failure to assess if his accommodation remained suitable for him after November 2020 is fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

68. Within a month of this decision, the Council should:

• Apologise to Mr X for the fault identified in this decision.
• Offer Mr X a payment of £500 to acknowledge the distress caused to Mr X when the Council failed to address his concerns about how the low water flow in his flat affected him personally given his ill health.

69. Within three months of this decision, the Council should:

• Provide training to staff to ensure that the continuing obligation to keep suitability of accommodation under review when a change of circumstances is reported, is understood and acted upon.

70. It should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has actioned all of the above.

Back to top

Final decision

71. I have found the Council at fault and made recommendations to acknowledge the injustice caused. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman