Summary: The Council was at fault for not giving Miss X a right to review the suitability of her temporary accommodation. It was also at fault for not properly considering suitability considerations Miss X raised afterwards. It was at fault for delays in the time it took to deal with her complaints, and it has apologised. It was not at fault in how it assessed Miss X for her housing allocation banding and any fault in how it dealt with her homelessness application has not caused a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council had not provided her with suitable housing because it had not properly considered hers and her sons disabilities. Miss X also says the Council had not given her priority on the housing register for the same reasons. Miss X says by not properly considering these needs, the Council has caused unnecessary distress, contributing to her poor health and she believes therefore she has been discriminated against.
2. I will refer to Miss X’s son as Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Miss X and considered the information she provided.
6. I considered the Council’s comments and the information it provided.
7. I considered the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities which sets out how the Council should respond to the Homeless Reduction Act 2017.
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

What should have happened

Homelessness

9. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
10. If councils are satisfied applicants are homeless and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. The relief duty lasts a maximum of 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
11. If, at the end of the relief duty, a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
12. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
13. 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)
14. 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)
15. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. Councils can combine more than one decision notification into a letter. The Code says when doing so, councils should make applicants aware of review rights in respect of each decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.33)
16. 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)
17. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which the Council provides it. This is important because there is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. This then carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.

Housing Allocation

18. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
19. The Council allocations policy places those with highest priority in band A. It also states those who are owed any homeless duty by the Council are placed in band D. The policy states applicants in this category will receive a direct offer of housing which is appropriate to any vulnerability or other support needs.
20. The Council explained during my enquiries, where an applicant is placed on the register under a homeless category, they cannot be given any other award including for any medical needs, as this award can only be applied to those with a permanent home.
21. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

Complaint handling

22. The Council’s complaints procedure has two stages and at stage two, a senior manager will review the complaint. The procedure does not have timescales for when a complaint must be dealt with. It says the Council will respond in full within ten working days, or where further time is needed, it will provide a timescale for when a full reply would be sent. As an Ombudsman service we think 12 weeks is a reasonable time for Councils to try to resolve complaints.

What happened

23. In March 2021, Miss X told the Council she was homeless and later that month the Council wrote to her saying it accepted relief housing duty and would help Miss X secure accommodation.
24. The Council also sent Miss X a personalised housing plan (PHP). The PHP has a note that Miss X had a joint disorder which left her with mobility issues and was living with poor mental health. It also noted Y had an emotional support animal.
25. In April, the Council made Miss X an interim offer of accommodation while it was looking into her case. The letter told Miss X although she had no statutory right of review about suitability of the accommodation, she could let the Council know of any concerns she had about it.
26. Shortly after this and while she was living in the accommodation, Miss X sent numerous messages to the Council saying the accommodation would be ‘unsuitable for too long’. She explained the temporary nature of her status and lack of certainty about how long it would take for her to find a permanent home was causing her and Y distress.
27. At the same time, Miss X applied to the Council’s housing register and told it about her medical conditions.
28. In May, the Council wrote to Miss X and said it had considered her application and awarded her band D on the allocation list (band D being the lowest). The letter says the reason for this banding was because Miss X was threatened with homelessness.
29. The letter also says if Miss X believed her award was incorrect, she could contact the Council, within 21 days, giving her reasons.
30. Immediately after her banding award, Miss X contacted the Council concerning her medical needs and how this may impact on her award. In June she followed this up in writing and queried what medical information the Council were aware of. The Council confirmed the medical reports it had considered and told her because she was homeless, they could only award her band D.
31. In June, 90 days after it told Miss X it had accepted relief duty, the Council ended its relief duty and accepted a main housing duty. The Council’s letter also notified Miss X that the accommodation it had given her as interim accommodation was now temporary accommodation.
32. The letter explained that Miss X could ask for a review of this decision under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996. The letter did not tell Miss X she had a right to review the suitability of the temporary accommodation.
33. In November, during an inspection of Miss X’s home, the property landlord told her she may need to leave her home because the property did not allow animals. Miss X tried to speak to the Council about this, to check if she would need to move again, but was not able to.
34. A week later, the landlord reiterated this was still an issue and Miss X says this caused her distress because she was worried she may need to leave her home.
35. Miss X wrote to the Council in November and made a stage 1 complaint about this and raised other issues relating to suitability of the accommodation.
36. The Council initially replied to Miss X’s complaint in December but did not finalise the complaints process until May 2022. It apologised for the oversight about Y’s support animal and for the delay in dealing with her complaint.
37. I have not seen any evidence the Council considered the suitability of Miss X’s temporary accommodation when she made her initial complaint.
38. The Council made two offers of temporary accommodation to Miss X in May and July, both of which were withdrawn after consideration by Miss X and the Council. The Council withdrew the offer it made in July as unsuitable, because animals were not allowed in the property. The Council apologised to Miss X for the repeated oversight about Y’s emotional support animal and said it put a note on her case file.
39. In its response to my enquiries, the Council said it believed the temporary accommodation was suitable for Miss X and gave reasons why it thought this.
40. The Council made Miss X an offer of a permanent home during the investigation

My findings

Homelessness

41. When the Council became aware of Miss X’s circumstances, it accepted the relief duty within days. During this time, it completed a PHP which outlined Miss X and Y’s specific medical considerations. I find no fault in how it met its duty here.
42. While the Council was enquiring into the main housing duty, it gave Miss X interim accommodation. There is no statutory right of review of suitability of interim accommodation, but the Council should ensure it is suitable. The evidence shows the Council advised Miss X to let it know about any concerns she had.
43. Miss X raised several concerns about the property while it was classed as interim accommodation. There is no evidence the Council took these as a request to consider the suitability. I find no fault in this because the messages Miss X sent also said the accommodation would only be unsuitable if she were accommodated there for a long period of time.
44. When the Council decided to accept the main housing duty and told Miss X, it did so outside the statutory period, and this is fault. I do not consider this fault caused Miss X any significant injustice because she had already been provided with interim accommodation. There is no evidence that Miss X missed out on any direct housing offers during this period.
45. When the Council told Miss X it had accepted the main duty, the Council also told Miss X in the same letter, her interim accommodation was now her temporary accommodation. Miss X had a statutory right to request a review of the main duty decision and the suitability of the temporary accommodation.
46. However, the letter said that Miss X had a statutory right to review the ‘decision’. The ‘decision’ was to accept the main housing duty. The letter did not explain that Miss X also had a right to review the suitability of her temporary accommodation. This was fault, therefore, Miss X may not have been aware she was able to ask for a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation. This is an injustice to Miss X.
47. This fault likely contributed to the uncertainty Miss X experienced in her later contact with the Council over the suitability of her accommodation, specifically about Y’s emotional support animal.
48. The Council should keep suitability of temporary accommodation under review. It ought to have considered whether to treat Miss X’s complaints about the accommodation as a review request. Failure to do so was fault.

Housing Allocation

49. Miss X complained the housing allocation banding did not properly consider her and Y’s needs. The Council noted Miss X and Y’s medical history and what Miss X said their needs were. It also identified the type of properties that would be more suitable for Miss X and Y.
50. The Council’s policy says it awards homeless people band D and explains that applicants do not need to bid on properties and are given a direct offer based on date order. There is no fault in how the Council decided Miss X’s priority band.
51. There is no evidence the Council carried out a review of the housing band award after Miss X contacted it. However, any fault did not cause Miss X an injustice because its policy did not allow for any other award to be given because she was homeless.
52. The Council explained in response to my enquiries, that homeless applicants cannot be considered for anything other than band D award. This is because applications are assessed based on the applicants permanent and settled home. This would exclude Miss X from any other considerations that may have resulted in a higher band, for example, pressing medical needs.
53. This is not fault, but the Council may wish to consider whether this could be made clearer in its housing allocations policy or in the information it gives applicants.

Complaint handling

54. Miss X initially told the Council about her concerns about Y’s emotional support animal in November and when she was unable to have her concerns resolved with housing staff, she made a complaint. The Council responded to this complaint in December and Miss X then raised her complaint to the second stage.
55. Miss X then chased the Council on numerous occasions but did not get a final response until May. This was very late and is fault.
56. The Council have apologised for the delay in responding and it should now make a financial remedy as well.
57. It is likely that this fault added to the perception Miss X had, that the Council were not properly considering their needs.

Back to top

Agreed action

58. The Council should within 6 weeks of the date of my final decision:

• Make a payment of £100 to Miss X for the avoidable distress it caused her in not giving her a review right on the suitability of her temporary accommodation.

• Make a payment of £100 to Miss X to recognise the time and trouble and avoidable distress she experienced during the complaints procedure.

• Make a payment of £75 to Y to recognise the avoidable distress and uncertainty he experienced.

• Ensure applicants are aware of their review rights in respect of each decision when combining decisions about homelessness into one letter. Amend any template letters as needed.

Final decision

59. There was some fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman