Summary: Miss B complained the Council did not properly address her concerns about the suitability of her temporary accommodation. We find there was a delay in the Council providing Miss B with suitable alternative temporary accommodation. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss B complained the Council did not properly address her concerns about the suitability of her temporary accommodation. She says she provided the Council with significant medical information highlighting a change in her circumstances, but it failed to take her concerns seriously.
2. Miss B says the Council’s actions have caused her and her family a great deal of pain, stress, and misery.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), 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 considered information Miss B submitted with her complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it provided in response.
7. Miss B 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

Temporary accommodation

8. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities sets out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
9. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need it has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
10. 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 Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

Lettings policy

11. The Council’s lettings policy sets out its procedures for allocating homes within the social sector.
12. The policy says the Council will exclude someone from the housing register if they owe more than the equivalent of four weeks rent, council tax or amenity/service charge payments unless they have reached an agreement to clear the arrears and can demonstrate they have consistently kept to the agreement for a minimum period of six months.
13. If an individual or their household have been assessed as homeless, they may qualify for an insecurity priority award. There are two levels of insecurity priority within the policy:

• “A” insecurity priority will attract 999 points and an applicant will be placed in the homeless band.
• “B” social priority which will attract 10 points and an applicant will be placed in the general band.

Discretionary Housing Payments

14. Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) are payments councils can give to people who they decide need extra help to meet housing costs. Only claimants receiving housing benefit, universal credit or local housing allowance are eligible for DHPs. Awarding a DHP is discretionary, as is the amount and period of payment.

What happened

15. Miss B and her two adult children are homeless. The Council accepted it had a main housing duty towards them in May 2017. They have been living in temporary accommodation since.
16. Miss B wrote to the Council in December 2019 and asked it to review the suitability of the temporary accommodation she was living in. She said, among other things, the accommodation was too small, the living conditions were atrocious and that her children’s mental health, special educational needs and medical needs had not been considered.
17. The Council considered information Miss B had provided, including her medical evidence. It wrote to her on 2 March 2020 and said the accommodation was not unsuitable. It said:

• The size of the accommodation significantly exceeded the minimum requirements.
• It did not accept Miss B’s daughter had to wear dirty clothes because there was no washing machine in the accommodation. Miss B had the option of using commercial laundry facilities in the neighbourhood.
• There was no evidence to suggest the accommodation aggravated Miss B’s daughter’s eczema.
• There was no evidence that Miss B’s daughter could only manage 10 steps without being in severe pain or severely out of breath.
• It did not accept the living conditions were atrocious or that there were any outstanding disrepair issues.
• It does not provide internet access in any of its temporary accommodation. However, there was the option of using an internet dongle. This is a small USB device that allows someone to access the internet.
• It was satisfied Miss B had enough income to meet both her reasonable essential expenses and her contribution to the rent.

18. The Council also explained to Miss B that if she remained dissatisfied, she had the right to appeal to the County Court.
19. The Council’s medical team emailed Miss B on 24 April. It said the accommodation was unsuitable on medical grounds. It said that she needed to be housed in self-contained accommodation.
20. Miss B sent this information to the officer that completed her review. The officer responded and said the Council’s position remained the same. She said Miss B was already living in self-contained accommodation.
21. Miss B emailed the Council on 13 August and said she had an urgent change in her circumstances. She said:

• Her daughter had been diagnosed with eczema, which required a strict daily treatment plan.
• Her daughter would need chemotherapy treatment and therefore she was at a higher risk of infection.
• The stress caused by poor living conditions would only aggravate her daughter’s condition.
• The one-bedroom property she was living in was too small for three adults. Her daughter needed her own room because of her health conditions.
• Her daughter had also been diagnosed with a toxic skin infection that attacks the white blood cells. The infection is made worse by living in crowded conditions.
• She needed it to move her to different temporary accommodation urgently.

22. The Council responded to Miss B on 24 August. It said it had considered majority of her issues in the suitability review from March and its decision remained the same. It also said there was no evidence her children’s health conditions were linked to her living conditions as she was living in fully self-contained accommodation. It also explained she could not move to permanent accommodation if she made a successful social housing bid unless she cleared the outstanding rent arrears on her account.
23. Miss B wrote to the Council on 8 October and said her daughter’s health had dramatically changed from March 2020 and therefore her email from August was not related to the original review. She attached medical evidence for it to consider. She also said she was in rent arrears because she had to pay for extra living facilities and unreasonable internet access.
24. An occupational therapist assessed Miss B’s living conditions on 23 October. She completed her report on 29 October and said that Miss B’s daughter needed access to a washing machine. She also required a property with an existing wet floor shower or where adaptation was possible. She also said Miss B’s daughter would benefit from living in a property with limited stairs or lift access. The accommodation that Miss B was living in had lift access, but it was regularly out of order.
25. Miss B says she sent the Council a copy of the occupational therapist’s report when she received it. The Council do not have a record of this as it was the victim of a cyber attack and therefore lost access to some of its systems.
26. The Council responded to Miss B’s complaint on 18 January 2021. It said:

• It assessed information Miss B provided and it was determined to be information already considered as part of the suitability review from March 2020.
• It did not consider the occupational therapist’s report when it reviewed Miss B’s file in August 2020 as the assessment was carried out in October 2020.
• It was sorry that it did not receive the occupational therapist’s report, and this was due to the cyber-attack.
• It accepted that Miss B needed access to a washing machine but because of a shortage of temporary accommodation and due to COVID-19, there were limited options. It said a washing machine could be added to the existing accommodation. It also said it could move Miss B to another hostel with laundry facilities, it could move her to a different area or she could move into privately rented accommodation.
• Miss B would have to wait a further 10 years for a two-bedroom property in its area and it would not consider her for rehousing in permanent accommodation until she cleared her rent arrears.
• It was sorry for the delay in responding to her complaint.

27. Miss B responded to the Council and said she was happy to move to temporary accommodation in a different area. She also said she wanted to know whether it had added her daughter’s medical history to her file and what the situation was with her rent arrears.
28. The Council emailed Miss B and said it had reviewed her medical information. It repeated the resolutions it had proposed in its complaint response. Miss B replied and said moving to a different area was reasonable, and it was important her daughter had her own room and access to a wet room.
29. The Council wrote to Miss B and offered her a privately rented property. It said if she refused the offer, its housing duty would end, and it would stop providing her with accommodation. Miss B responded and asked why the Council was not fulfilling its offer and offering her temporary accommodation in another area. The Council responded and said it did not know when temporary accommodation in other area would become available. The privately rented accommodation was available and would meet her daughter’s needs.
30. Miss B’s financial situation changed shortly after the Council’s offer of privately rented accommodation. The Council wrote to Miss B on 28 January and said because of her financial situation it could no longer offer her any affordable properties.
31. The Council contacted Miss B and said it would not supply a washing machine. Miss B emailed the Council on 22 February and asked why she was not being allowed to have a washing machine when that was agreed as resolution to her complaint. The Council responded and said it did not agree that it would supply a washing machine. Miss B said it was disappointing it had not adhered to the resolutions from its complaint response.
32. The Council contacted Miss B on 5 March and offered her temporary accommodation. It was a self-contained three-bedroom hostel unit with a wet room and its own kitchen. There were laundry facilities in the hostel, but they were temporarily closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Miss B refused the accommodation as she said it did not meet her daughter’s medical needs because she had to share laundry facilities.
33. Miss B contacted the Council on 8 March and said she was disappointed her medical information was not on her file.
34. The Council eventually agreed to install the washing machine. It did so on 12 March.
35. The Council contacted Miss B on 27 April and offered her temporary accommodation with more space. It also said she had a right to request a review of the suitability of the offer within 21 days. Miss B emailed the Council on 30 April and said would accept the offer because she felt she had no choice to refuse.
36. Miss B and her children moved to the new temporary accommodation at the beginning of May.

Back to top

Analysis

37. The Ombudsman would normally expect someone to use their appeal rights and appeal to the County Court when a council has completed a suitability review. In Miss B’s case, her complaint is about how the Council handled new information that she provided it with that was not related to the suitability review from March 2020. Therefore, I am satisfied it is appropriate for me to consider Miss B’s complaint.
38. I have not seen any evidence that Miss B contacted the Council in mid-March 2020 and told it about a change in her circumstances. The first time Miss B alerted the Council to a change in her circumstances was on 13 August 2020. When the Council responded to Miss B, it said it had already considered the information as part of its review in March 2020. However, Miss B had provided the Council with new information about her daughter’s recent diagnoses that the Council was not previously aware of. Even if the Council considered this new information did not change its view, it should have explained this in its response. I therefore consider the Council was at fault when it initially responded to Miss B’s email about a change in her circumstances. This caused Miss B frustration and she was put to time and trouble in pursuing her complaint.
39. The occupational therapist recommended in her report on 29 October 2020 that Miss B needed access to a washing machine, and she also required a property with a wet room and lift access. The Council accepted this when it wrote to Miss B in response to her complaint on 18 January 2021. I therefore consider the Council considered the temporary accommodation was unsuitable from 29 October 2020. The Council had a legal duty from that date to secure alternative accommodation for Miss B and her family.
40. The Council offered several resolutions to resolve Miss B’s complaint. Miss B chose the Council’s offer of moving to temporary accommodation in another area. Despite Miss B choosing this, the Council offered her privately rented accommodation.
41. The Council says it was within its rights to make alternative offers of housing in the private sector. It also says Miss B’s request of wanting to be moved to alternative temporary accommodation outside of the area was unrealistic. While I note the Council’s comments, I consider it caused some confusion when it pursued an option that Miss B had not chosen without an adequate explanation. I also consider the Council was at fault for providing Miss B with a resolution to resolve matters which it now says was unrealistic. However, I cannot say with any certainty that if the Council had pursued Miss B’s choice when she asked, that it would have offered her suitable temporary accommodation any sooner. This is because the Council made it clear there was limited temporary accommodation in other areas.
42. The Council offered Miss B alternative temporary accommodation on 5 March 2021. Miss B declined it because she did not want to share laundry facilities. I consider the accommodation was suitable and it met the occupational therapist’s requirements because it had a wet room and laundry facilities. Although the laundry facilities were closed, this was only temporary because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The occupational therapist did not say that Miss B needed her own washing machine. Instead, she said Miss B needed access to a washing machine. Miss B would have had that once the laundry facilities reopened.
43. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies recommends a payment of £150 to £350 per month spent in unsuitable accommodation. I consider Miss B was in unsuitable accommodation from 29 October 2020 (when the occupational therapist’s report was issued) to 5 March 2021. I will not remedy after 5 March 2021 as Miss B chose not to move to alternative suitable temporary accommodation. I recommend a payment of £150 per month, a total of £600.
44. Miss B has been put to time and trouble because of the Council’s faults, and it has been a frustrating experience. I recommend it pays her a further £150 for this injustice.
45. I note there was a further issue of the occupational therapist’s report not being on Miss B’s housing file. The Council has explained it should have advised Miss B to submit a further health questionnaire to reflect the additional medical concerns in October 2020. It overlooked this and it was not until March 2021 that Miss B submitted a health questionnaire with the occupational therapist’s report. The Council has confirmed Miss B’s medical information is now up to date. The delay in updating Miss B’s medical information has not had an impact on Miss B’s attempts to secure social housing as the Council does not award medical priority for homeless cases.
46. Miss B says she wants the Council to write to her with a direct offer of social housing. The Council has explained to Miss B that because of her rent arrears, if an offer becomes available and her rent arrears are still not cleared, it will not consider her for social housing. This is in line with its lettings policy. I understand that Miss B has applied for a DHP and has made a housing benefit claim which the Council has confirmed it will assess.

Back to top

Agreed action

47. To remedy the injustice caused by fault, by 19 October 2021 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Miss B.
• Pay Miss B £600 which reflects the time she was living in unsuitable accommodation.
• Pay Miss B a further £150 for her time and trouble and the frustration she has suffered.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I have found fault by the Council, which caused Miss B an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman