Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it handled a review into the suitability of accommodation it offered Ms X. As a result, Ms X cannot be sure the property she is living in is suitable for her household. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to carry out an new review into the suitability of Ms X’s accommodation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the way the Council handled the review which considered the suitability of accommodation offered to her household. Ms X said the Council did not consider medical evidence she provided and therefore could not be sure the property was suitable.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We cannot question whether an organisation’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)
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 an organisation’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. As part of this investigation, I considered the information provided by Ms X and the Council.
7. Ms X had the right to take court action to challenge the Council’s decision that the property it offered her was suitable. However, given she does not have the financial resources to challenge the decision through the courts, it is not reasonable to expect her to do so. In addition, Ms X has tried to seek advice and assistance with this matter by contacting a housing advice charity for assistance. For these reasons, I have investigated her complaint that the Council did not conduct the review properly.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

8. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. Generally the Council carries out the duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
9. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
10. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted. Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

What happened

11. Ms lives with her son, Y. Y suffers with several conditions including Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), Dyspraxia, Executive function problems, Separation anxiety, Social Phobia and Claustrophobia.
12. Ms X and Y applied to the Council as homeless some years ago. The Council decided it owed Ms X the main homelessness duty and placed them into a two bedroom property which was temporary accommodation. This property had private garden access and a garage.
13. In June 2021, the Council offered Ms X a two bedroom property as permanent accommodation. This property was smaller in size than the current temporary accommodation Ms X and Y occupied. It also had a shared outside space.
14. Ms X accepted the offer of accommodation but requested a review of its suitability with the assistance of a representative. Ms X said the property was unsuitable as it does not have private garden access and is smaller in space than her temporary accommodation. Ms X said these factors would affect Y’s ability to manage his medical conditions which he is already struggling with in their current temporary accommodation.
15. Ms X provided the Council with medical evidence concerning Y. This included supporting letters from Y’s Consultant Psychologist who expressed concerns about Y managing his health if he lived in a property which was smaller than the current temporary accommodation. Ms X also provided a letter from Y’s Clinical Psychologist who said Y needs more space than his current temporary accommodation and less shared communal areas.
16. In July 2021, Ms X submitted a further letter in support of her review which discussed the difficulties Y was having with the current accommodation.
17. The Council wrote to Ms X in August 2021 and requested extra time to complete the review.
18. On 10 September 2021, the Council provided Ms X with its review decision. The Council decided the property it offered Ms X was suitable. The review officer considered whether the property was overcrowded for Ms X and Y. They also said the medical evidence did not confirm the property was unsuitable because it lacks space. The review officer mentioned an OT report and Paediatrician report from 2018. The review officer decided the property was suitable.
19. Ms X’s representative made a complaint on her behalf on 17 September 2021. Ms X’s representative said the Council did not properly consider the medical advice about Y.
20. On 6 October 2021, the Council provided its stage one response. The Council said the review officer adopted a holistic view and all medical information was considered but it was not feasible to specifically comment on each piece of medical evidence.
21. On 1 November 2021, Ms X’s representative asked the Council to consider the complaint at stage two. They said:
• It was reasonable for Ms X to say the property was unsuitable due to lack of garden and space based on Y’s medical needs.
• Two medical letters were not mentioned in the body of the review decision which both discussed Y’s medical conditions and housing.
• The review officer should have explained why they did not mention these medical letters but instead referenced a Paediatrician’s report from 2018 before Y was diagnosed with ASD.
• There was a lack of understanding of Y’s medical needs as the review officer said Y could access nearby parks, but the medical evidence said he needs less shared spaces which impact his OCD and Claustrophobia.
22. Ms X’s representative also provided the Council with medical evidence from Y’s Care Co-ordinator, dated October 2021. This mentioned difficulties Y was experiencing with the new property.
23. On 31 January 2022, the Council provided Ms X with its final response. The Council said it gave Ms X sufficient time to put in any representations in support of her review. The Council also said the review officer listed the items of evidence he considered which included the medical letters Ms X’s representative mentioned. The Council said it was satisfied the review officer considered all the information provided.

Analysis

24. When considering complaints, we may not act like an appeal body. We cannot question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Council’s officers. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made. This means we cannot decide whether the offer of accommodation made by the Council to Ms X was suitable, but can look at whether there was any fault in how the Council decided the property was suitable.
25. The Council was at fault for the way it decided Ms X’s review. In her request for a review Ms X argued that the property was unsuitable due to Y’s medical needs. She said the lack of private garden space and size of the property caused her to believe it was not suitable for Y and these issues affected his medical conditions.
26. In the review decision the Council has not specifically addressed this point. The Council only looked at whether the property was overcrowded according to the statutory tests. Ms X was not saying the property was overcrowded but that the size of the property and lack of outside space exacerbated Y’s medical conditions.
27. Ms X also said the Council did not properly consider the medical evidence she supplied. Ms X provided two medical letters from Y’s Consultant Psychiatrist and Clinical Psychologist. One letter mentioned concerns about Y moving to a property which was smaller than the temporary accommodation and the other stated Y needed more space and less communal facilities than in the temporary accommodation. As the Council offered Ms X a property which was smaller in size than her temporary accommodation and without private garden access, I would have expected the decision letter to have discussed these points. The fact that the Council stated Y could use public parks suggests the Council has not considered this evidence.
28. I acknowledge the Council stated a list of documents it considered as part of the review and these letters were included. But given these letters discussed the issues Ms X raised in her review request, the Council should have discussed why it considered the property suitable in light of this medical evidence. The medical evidence the Council did mention in the decision was over three years old and made no mention of Y’s housing needs.
29. As I have found fault I need to consider whether this caused Ms X injustice. The obvious injustice is Ms X cannot be sure the Council has properly considered the reasons for her review and evidence she submitted in support of her review. This has created uncertainty about the decision the Council made.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. Within two months of my final decision, the Council agreed to carry out the following and provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has done so:
• Carry out a new suitability review of Ms X’s property.

Since moving into the property Ms X has sent the Council further medical evidence from October 2021 about how Y is coping in the property. The Council should consider this as part of the review. If the Council does come to the same decision as before, it should ensure it has explained properly why it has come to this decision, especially if there is medical evidence which gives a differing opinion.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation and found the Council was at fault for the way it handled Ms X’s review. The Council has agreed to carry out a new suitability review to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman