Summary: Miss D complained about how the Council dealt with concerns she raised about her temporary accommodation. She says the Council delayed dealing with her complaints of disrepair and it took several months to find alternative temporary accommodation. We find the Council was at fault as it delayed inspecting the disrepair issues, failed to follow up with the managing agent and delayed finding suitable alternative temporary accommodation for Miss D and her family. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Miss D complained about how the Council dealt with concerns she raised about her temporary accommodation. She says the Council delayed dealing with her complaints of disrepair and it took several months to find alternative temporary accommodation after she reported her cancer diagnosis.
2. She also complained the Council delayed awarding her paid work points and it refused to award her health and independence points after previously saying it would. Finally, she complained about how the Council handled the move to her new temporary accommodation.
3. Miss D says the Council’s actions have left her feeling stressed, upset, and anxious.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated Miss D’s concerns from September 2019 onwards. I have not investigated her concerns before September 2019 for the reasons explained at the end of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. 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

8. I considered information Miss D submitted with her complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
9. Miss D 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

10. 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.
11. 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)
12. 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)
13. 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.

The Council’s housing allocation scheme

14. The Council runs a choice based letting scheme. This means households may bid for properties they feel are suitable for their needs. The Council will offer the property to the bidder with the highest priority points first.
15. The scheme sets out the rules under which social housing is allocated. It also sets out how the Council awards points to households.
16. The Council will award additional priority whether the applicant, their partner or a member of their household is in paid work averaging 16 hours or more per week and has been in work for at least six months continuously.
17. The Council may award supporting health and independence priority to households where a disability or long-term health condition has a substantial impact on the independence of the applicant or a member of their eligible household. The Council will consider whether such people are unable to access essential facilities and whether a move to a more suitable property would enable independence or access to essential facilities within their home.
18. The Council does not award priority simply because the applicant or a member of their household has ill-health. Many applicants have serious medical conditions, but not all of these can be substantiality improved by moving to another property. Generally, the Council does not award points for common medical problems which rarely have a sufficiently large impact on independence to warrant priority.

What happened

19. Miss D and her family are homeless. The Council accepted a main housing duty towards them in 2006. They have been living in temporary accommodation since.
20. Miss D contacted the Council in September 2019 and reported several disrepair issues with the property. She said she had been raising the issues for many years. She asked the Council to inspect the property. The Council responded and said it would raise the issue with the managing agent (Agency A) and arrange for an environmental health officer (EHO) to inspect the property in a couple of weeks.
21. Miss D asked for the Council to inspect the property sooner. The Council responded and said it depended on the availability of the EHO.
22. Agency A said an engineer would attend the property to assess the roof. The Council updated Miss D.
23. Miss D emailed the Council the following week and said no one had assessed the roof. She also asked for an update on when the inspection would take place. The Council emailed Agency A for an update. Agency A said someone would look at the roof the following day.
24. The Council updated Miss D. Miss D responded and asked why it had not arranged an inspection yet. She said the roof was only part of the problem.
25. Miss D updated the Council on 9 October and said a surveyor had assessed the roof and told her she needed to move because the property was unsafe. She asked for an inspection. The Council said it would contact Agency A to get confirmation. It also said if it needed to move her, it would start the process of finding her alternative accommodation. If it did not need to move her, it would arrange for an EHO to visit.
26. The Council emailed Agency A with the information Miss D provided. Agency A responded and said the landlord was arranging for the works to be completed. It said it had requested a works schedule, and it would update the Council when it knew more.
27. Miss D complained to the Council on 11 November about the disrepair in the property and its failure to resolve the issues.
28. The Council emailed Miss D on 29 November to arrange for an EHO to inspect the property. The EHO inspected the property on 3 December.
29. The EHO emailed the Council on 8 December and explained there were multiple hazards and disrepair issues in the property.
30. The Council provided Agency A with a copy of the inspection report on 9 December. Agency A replied and confirmed it had told the landlord about the repairs. The landlord had arranged for the roof to be fixed and was investigating the other issues. It told the Council it would come back to it with a works schedule.
31. The Council responded to Miss D’s complaint on 12 December. It explained it had sent the inspection report to Agency A and its property manager would provide an update once it knew more. It also said if the repair issues could not be easily resolved, it would have to move her and her family.
32. Agency A emailed the Council on 14 January 2020 and confirmed the builder would erect scaffolding on the roof on 4 February. It also said Miss D had confirmed she would be able to provide access to inspect the internal works after 22 January. It would then arrange for a builder to attend to further investigate.
33. Agency A emailed the landlord on several occasions to chase for an update on whether she had authorised the internal works to start. The landlord did not respond.
34. Agency A eventually spoke to the landlord a few weeks later on 24 February. Agency A updated the Council and confirmed the roof works had started, but completion was dependent on the weather. It also said the internal works had been passed to the contractor and they would start when Miss D was available.
35. Agency A provided the Council with a further update on 10 March. It said the roof work repairs were ongoing. In relation to the internal repairs, it had been booked with Miss D for 18 March.
36. Agency A says Miss D did not provide access to the property to allow for the builder to carry out the internal works. The landlord also updated Agency A and confirmed the repairs to the roof had been put on hold because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
37. The builder contacted Agency A in June and said Miss D had gone on holiday, but she would be back in two weeks. He sent a further update on 6 July and said he had tried to call Miss D and she had not responded.
38. Miss D’s support worker emailed the Council on 26 August. She said Miss D had been diagnosed with cancer in June and therefore she could not have major works happening in the property.
39. The Council completed a suitability assessment the following day. It accepted that if Miss D remained in the property she would be at risk of infection because of the damp and mould.
40. The Council found an alternative property on 3 September. Miss D declined the Council’s offer because the property was on the twelfth floor. The Council reviewed the offer and agreed the property was unsuitable.
41. Miss D emailed the Council on 10 September and asked it to add worker points to her account as her partner is self-employed. She also asked for it to add health and independence points to her account because of her and her son’s health conditions. The Council responded and said she needed to speak to the homeless department for a health assessment. It also said it had forwarded the information regarding the worker points to the relevant team.
42. The Council emailed Miss D on the same day and asked her to send through three years of self-assessment forms. Miss D responded and asked why it had asked for three years. The Council responded and told Miss D to send what she had.
43. Miss D sent a further email later that day and asked what she needed to do about the health and independence points. She said the homeless department had asked her to contact the temporary accommodation team. The Council did not respond.
44. Miss D emailed the Council on 22 January 2021 and asked why it had not added the worker and health and independence points her account. The officer provided her with the email address of the relevant team.
45. Miss D sent a chaser email on 1 February. The Council responded and said it had not assessed the property as unsuitable for her on medical grounds, and so she was not eligible for health and independence points. Miss D said there was damp and mould in the property. The Council said it would look at the matter again.
46. The Council offered Miss D an alternative property on 10 February. It assigned a housing officer (Officer A) to her file. Miss D accepted the Council’s offer on 12 February. She asked for two weeks to move because of her cancer treatment.
47. Officer A agreed to extend the move to 22 February. The usual timeframe for moving to alternative temporary accommodation is two to three days.
48. Officer A emailed the managing agent at the new property and asked it to release the keys to Miss D on 19 February.
49. Officer A became unwell on 16 February and did not return to work until 20 February. Therefore, she could not release the keys to Miss D. Miss D says she communicated with the managing agent to get the keys.
50. Miss D complained to the Council on 3 March about the delay in dealing with the property disrepair issues. She also said it had failed to add health and independence points to her account, she was given short notice to move to her new property and Officer A had not provided her with any information on how to collect the keys to move to the new property.
51. The Council responded and said the property was deemed unsuitable based on disrepair and not on medical grounds. Therefore, it did not award heath and independence points. It asked Miss D for proof of her partner’s self-employment. It also explained Officer A agreed to extend the move in date. However, Officer A suddenly became ill which meant Miss D could not collect the keys from her. It apologised for the inconvenience and stress it caused.
52. Miss D escalated her complaint to the Council’s stage two procedure on 9 April. She said the Council had not explained what her position was regarding the health and independence points. She also said the Council should have provided her with more support because of her personal circumstances. Finally, she said the Council should have provided her with a different officer when Officer A became unwell.
53. The Council contacted Miss D and asked for proof that her partner is self-employed. Miss D provided this, and the Council added worker points to her account on 16 April.
54. The Council issued its final response to Miss D’s complaint. It reiterated the property was deemed unsuitable based on the outstanding repair issues rather than her medical conditions. It also repeated its apologies for the challenges she faced when she moved. Finally, it said for it to offer her a permanent home, she needed to bid on its choice based lettings system. Those with the greatest number of points and earliest priority date are successful if two or more bids are placed on the same property. It said it could not allocate properties to households out of turn.
55. Miss D remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

56. The Council delayed arranging for an EHO to inspect Miss D’s property. This is fault. Miss D explained in her emails from September and October 2020 the issue was not only with the roof, and there were other internal issues. The Council said it wanted to wait for Agency A to provide an update before deciding on the next steps. Given the seriousness of the issues Miss D had reported, and the length of time she said they had been going on for, I would have expected the Council to have chased Agency A for update after some time had passed and it had not heard anything. It did not do this. The Council clearly did not need to wait for Agency A’s update before inspecting the property. This is because it arranged an inspection once Miss D complained, and at that time it had heard nothing further from Agency A.
57. The Council also did not take any action from January 2020 onwards to resolve the property disrepair issues. Although Agency A provided it with a few updates, the Council did nothing to chase matters up. The Council also failed to update Miss D as it said it would in its response to her complaint. This is fault. The Council should have taken proactive steps to ensure it was resolving the property disrepair issues.
58. The Council’s faults have caused Miss D distress. As the landlord had delayed responding to Agency A for several weeks, the Council could have considered whether it needed to take any other steps to move matters forward. Having said that, Agency A’s records also show that Miss D did not provide access to the property and so the internal building work could not start. The repairs were then delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, there were other factors outside of the Council’s control that contributed to the delays in the work being completed.
59. The Council asked Miss D on 10 September 2020 to provide evidence of her partner’s self-employment. Miss D did not do this, and so the Council could not add the worker points to her account. Miss D provided the Council with the requested information on 26 March 2021. The Council then added the points to her account on 16 April 2021.
60. There is no evidence the Council said it would add health and independence points to Miss D’s account. The Council assessed Miss D and decided the property was unsuitable because of the repair issues, and she would be at risk of infection if she remained in the property. The Council did not tell Miss D the property was unsuitable on medical grounds, and therefore it is unlikely it would have agreed to awarding her health and independence points. The Council’s allocation scheme is clear it does not award health and independence points simply because someone is unwell. Even if the Council had added health and independence points to Miss D’s account, it would have removed them when she moved to the new property.
61. While I have found the Council was not at fault regarding the issue of health and independence points, it was at fault for not replying to Miss D’s email of 10 September 2020. She asked for further information about what she needed to do about the health and independence points. It failed to respond. The Council missed a chance to provide a clear explanation to Miss D.
62. Miss D says the Council handled the move to her new property badly. The Council did allow flexibility and extended the date for when Miss D moved into the property. However, when Officer A became unwell, the Council should have allocated a different officer to deal with the case. It failed to do so, which is fault. This meant Miss D dealt with the managing agent, rather than the Council. When the Council responded to Miss D's complaint, it apologised to her for the inconvenience and stress it caused. This is a suitable remedy for Miss D’s injustice.
63. The Council agreed on 27 August 2020 the property was no longer suitable for Miss D. However, it did not find a suitable property for her to move to until 10 February 2021. This delay is fault, which has caused Miss D a significant injustice. She had to live in an unsuitable property at a difficult time in her life.
64. The Council says the COVID-19 pandemic led to a shortage of properties and that is why there was a delay in finding Miss D alternative accommodation. While I note the Council’s comments and the difficulties it faced, it has a legal duty to provide suitable accommodation to homeless applicants. It therefore needs to remedy the time Miss D was living in unsuitable accommodation.
65. Miss D says she wants to move to a permanent property. The Council has explained to her that it runs a choice based letting system, and so it cannot allocate properties out of turn. Miss D will need to continue to bid on properties to better secure her chance of moving to a permanent property.

Back to top

Agreed action

66. To address the injustice caused by fault, by 24 March 2022 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Miss D.
• Pay Miss D £1100 (£200 per month) to reflect the time she was living in unsuitable accommodation.
• Pay Miss D £250 in recognition of her time and trouble and the distress she has suffered.

Back to top

Final decision

67. There was fault by the Council, which caused Miss D an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

68. The Ombudsman cannot investigate late complaints unless there are good reasons to do so. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done.
69. Miss D says the issues have been ongoing since 2017, but she did not refer her complaint to us until June 2021. I have decided to exercise discretion to investigate Miss D’s complaint from September 2019 because she was diagnosed with cancer in June 2020 which delayed her referral to the Ombudsman. However, I am satisfied Miss D had sufficient opportunities to bring any issues before September 2019 to the Ombudsman much sooner and therefore I will not exercise discretion to investigate those earlier issues.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman