Summary: The Council’s failure to complete a statutory review of the suitability of Miss X’s temporary accommodation is fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Miss X £150, and complete the statutory review.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that the Council has failed to provide temporary accommodation which meets the needs of her disabled child.
2. As a result, Miss X says she and her children have been in unsuitable accommodation for over a year.

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 spoke to Miss X about the complaint and considered the information she provided.
6. I considered relevant law and guidance, including the Housing Act 1996, as amended, the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities and relevant case law.
7. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
8. Miss 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

Temporary accommodation

9. Temporary accommodation is accommodation provided to homeless applicants as part of a council’s main homelessness duty.
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)
11. Certain decisions councils make about homelessness carry a statutory right of review. The review decision then carries a right of appeal to court on a point of law. Homeless applicants have a right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, s202)
12. Homeless applicants must request a review within 21 days of the decision. However, applicants can ask a council to reconsider its decision about the suitability of temporary accommodation at any time. This might be necessary, for example, if there is a change in the applicant’s circumstances. This new decision is open to review under s202, with a new 21 day timescale. R(B) v Redbridge LBC [2019] EWHC 250 (Admin)

What happened

13. The Council owes a main housing duty to Miss X.
14. In May 2020, it provided the temporary accommodation where Miss X and her children now reside. This was a move from previous temporary accommodation, which the Council accepted was unsuitable.
15. In January 2020, one of Miss X’s children began the process for diagnosis of a disability. I shall refer to this child as Z.
16. Miss X notified the Council about this change in her circumstances in July 2020. In October 2020, she asked the Council to review the suitability of the accommodation.
17. Miss X told the Council that the temporary accommodation was not suitable for her disabled child. In particular, she said:
• The flight of stairs to access the property was very difficult to navigate with a pushchair while protecting Z, who lacks danger awareness.
• The property is too small to accommodate all of the sensory equipment Z needs
• The property is lacking a bedroom because Z cannot safely share a bedroom with Miss X’s other child.
18. In July 2021, the Council completed what it called an “informal review” of the suitability of the accommodation. It said that the accommodation was suitable because:
• Miss X could share a room with her other child so that Z could have a bedroom
• Z’s sensory equipment was not a medical necessity
• Although Miss X might not be able to use the front door with the push chair, the back door was accessible.
• Z doesn’t have mobility issues and therefore the external stairs do not make the property unsuitable.
19. This reconsideration of the suitability of the accommodation did not include a right of review.

My findings

20. The Council says that because Miss X did not ask for a review within 21 days of being offered the property, it did not have to complete a statutory review.
21. Miss X asked the Council to reconsider its decision that the property was suitable, which it did. When it wrote to Miss X with its new decision, the Council should have told Miss X that she could ask for a review under s202 of the Housing Act within 21 days. Its failure to do so is fault.
22. This denied Miss X her statutory right to a review of the Council’s decision. This is an injustice to Miss X.

Back to top

Agreed action

23. To remedy the injustice to Miss X from the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Miss X
• Conduct a statutory s202 review of the suitability of Miss X’s temporary accommodation
• Pay Miss X £150 in recognition of her avoidable frustration and time and trouble.
24. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
25. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Amend its “informal review” process to reflect that these new decisions about suitability carry a right of review. Update any template letters and provide staff training as necessary.
26. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation. The Council is at fault. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman