Summary: The Council was at fault because it did not allow the complainant to view potential temporary accommodation properties before accepting them, which contradicts the statutory guidance. This did not cause him an injustice, but the Council has agreed to ensure its policy is correct. There is no evidence of fault in the other aspects of this complaint. We have therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr N.
2. Mr N complains about the Council’s handling of his move between two sets of temporary accommodation. In particular, he says the new property was unsuitable for him and he could not stay there, and he could not contact his housing officer at the time to discuss this. As a result he had to make arrangements to stay with a friend for a period of time, until he was able to return to the original property.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr N’s correspondence with the Council.
5. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr N is autistic and suffers from anxiety and claustrophobia. He is on the Council’s housing register.
7. In 2017 the Council accepted the main housing duty for Mr N, and in 2018 it arranged temporary accommodation for him in a studio flat. I will refer to this as Property 1.
8. In April 2021 the Council accepted Property 1 was unsuitable accommodation for Mr N because he needed a one-bedroom flat. In February 2022, it arranged a move to a one-bedroom flat, which I will call Property 2.
9. Mr N moved to Property 2 on 18 February but immediately decided it was unsuitable. This was because he could not fit all his belongings into it. The Council agreed to place some of his belongings in storage.
10. Mr N’s representative then emailed his housing officer asking for both a suitability review of Property 2, and for permission for Mr N to move back to Property 1. However, the housing officer was on leave by then and did not see the email until his return on 28 February.
11. Mr N submitted a formal stage 1 complaint to the Council on 25 February because the housing officer had not replied.
12. Mr N emailed the housing officer again on 1 March saying he had been staying at a friend’s house, and asking again if he could return to Property 1. The Council agreed to this, cancelled his tenancy at Property 2 and reinstated it at Property 1.
13. The Council responded to Mr N’s complaint on 10 March. It apologised for failing to acknowledge the review request and confirmed it had withdrawn his tenancy at Property 2. The Council also confirmed it had arranged for a removals company to return his belongings from both Property 2 and the storage facility to Property 1 on 16 March, and asked Mr N to ensure he was available.
14. Mr N made a formal stage 2 complaint on 14 March. He reiterated he had been unable to contact the housing officer when he needed to, and explained he had had to stay at a friend’s house while waiting to hear from the Council.
15. He said he could not sleep at either Property 1 or 2 because his belongings were spread between both properties and the storage facility. Mr N also complained there were problems at both properties, with no hot water at Property 1, no electricity or gas supply at Property 2, and no usable washing machine at either.
16. Mr N also complained he had not been given a specific time for when the removals company would attend, which meant he had missed the appointment.
17. Mr N said he had been told there were no other one-bedroom flats available locally, and asked the Council if it could consider two-bedroom flats. He acknowledged this was more than the Council had decided he needed, but said he had been offered this on a previous occasion. He asked for a needs assessment to be carried out so that he was not moved to another unsuitable property.
18. Mr N also criticised the fact he was unable to view proposed temporary accommodation properties before accepting them.
19. On 6 April the Council offered Mr N another temporary accommodation at Property 3. On 8 April, Mr N replied to say he again found it unsuitable because it had low ceilings, he could not fit all his belongings into it, he had to negotiate a flight of stairs to reach the property and it was near a busy main road. Mr N listed excerpts of letters from his doctors and other professionals, supporting his need for his accommodation to have particular characteristics.
20. Later in April the housing officer had an email exchange with Mr N’s representatives, in which the officer confirmed the Council had not discharged its duty to Mr N and continued to look for a one-bedroom property for him.
21. On 12 May the Council responded to Mr N’s stage 2 complaint.
22. The Council apologised Mr N had missed his appointment with the removals company, and also for the fact Mr N had been unable to contact his housing officer while he was on leave and had had to make his own arrangements during this period. However, it explained it was not practical to allow potential residents to view temporary accommodation in advance, because the Council provided this for emergency reasons to prevent homelessness.
23. The Council said it had found nothing wrong with the housing officer’s handling of the case and so did not uphold Mr N’s complaint. It said it would continue to look for a suitable property for Mr N, but explained this would be one-bedroom, not two, unless a statutory review it was undertaking decided otherwise.
24. On 6 June, Mr N referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.
25. On 4 July the Council sent an offer letter to Mr N for yet another property, Property 4. Mr N moved into this property in August.

Back to top

Legislative background

26. If 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. It will generally discharge this duty by arranging temporary accommodation, until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation.
27. 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. Applicants have the right to request a review of the suitability of offered accommodation.

Back to top

Analysis

28. I will first note there was a significant delay between the Council’s decision that Property 1 was not suitable for Mr N, and it arranging for him to move to Property 2. However, this issue was covered in a previous investigation by the Ombudsman and so I will not reconsider it here. My investigation will instead run from when Mr N moved to Property 2.
29. Mr N says Property 2 was not suitable for him because he could not fit in all his belongings. He said the removals company could not fit his bedframe into the bedroom, meaning he only had a mattress to sleep on; and that he could not fit in his own fridge-freezer, wardrobe or chest of drawers because the flat already had these, meaning they had to be placed in storage. However, he was unable to discuss this with his housing officer at the time, meaning he was forced to stay at a friend’s house for a period, before the Council agreed to allow him to return to Property 1.
30. It is not for me to make a finding on whether Property 2 was genuinely unsuitable for Mr N. While I acknowledge his dissatisfaction at being unable to fit all his belongings into the flat, this does not necessarily mean it was unsuitable for him in the formal sense.
31. I also note Mr N says Property 2 had no gas or electricity when he moved in. I asked the Council to comment on this, and it explained the problem was that the boiler was not working, not that there was no gas or electricity; and that the managing agent had attended the following day and fixed this.
32. This said, I do consider Mr N should have been able to contact the Council to discuss his concerns about Property 2 at the time. I understand the case officer was on leave at the time, but given the potential urgency of the matter, it would have better practice for another officer to have been appointed to cover Mr N’s case in his absence. This is reinforced by the fact Mr N’s representative also submitted a formal review request, which was not picked up until the case officer’s return.
33. I am not, however, persuaded this meant Mr N was forced to stay at a friend’s house while he waited for the case officer to return from leave. The fact remains he had the keys to two different properties, including one which had his mattress. While it is possible the Council would have agreed Property 2 was not suitable, had Mr N remained there long enough for it to complete a review, this does not mean he could not reasonably have stayed there briefly. That some of his belongings were in storage does not change this.
34. I also note the Council then arranged for Mr N to return to Property 1, despite the fact it had agreed this was too small for him and therefore unsuitable (and which Mr N says had other problems, including no gas supply and a broken window). However, this was at Mr N’s request, and I do not consider I can criticise the Council for allowing him to return there, despite its unsuitability.
35. Mr N complains that, when the Council arranged for the removals company to return his belongings to Property 1 from Property 2 and the storage facility, it did not give him a precise time for the appointment. He was therefore out at the time the removals company arrived and missed the appointment.
36. I note the Council’s stage 2 response said the appointment was at 10am on 16 March, and that this date was in fact after Mr N raised his complaint about missing the appointment. However, Mr N has separately provided evidence which shows the appointment was actually on 10 March, not 16 March, which indicates the Council’s comment was an error.
37. Mr N has also explained he had contacted the removals company on 9 March, but the company was unable to give him a time for the appointment the following day.
38. I appreciate why this may have contributed to Mr N missing the appointment, and, if this was due to an administrative error by the removals company, this would mean the Council was at fault (as the company was acting on its behalf).
39. Either way though, I am not persuaded this is a point which merits further investigation. It was clearly an inconvenience to Mr N but I do not consider it represents significantly more than that; and given the time has passed since then, it is not something we would realistically recommend a remedy for, even if we were satisfied the Council at fault here.
40. Mr N also complains the Council has refused to arrange a two-bedroom property for him. He acknowledges the Council does not consider he needs two bedrooms, but says he was told there was a limited supply of one-bedroom properties, and that it would be quicker to find a two-bedroom property for him.
41. However, between February and July the Council offered Mr N three different properties. I cannot confirm the exact nature of these properties, although Mr N said one was a studio flat and the other two were one-bedroom properties. This does not indicate the Council has struggled to find one-bedroom properties to offer Mr N.
42. And I would also not expect the Council to offer Mr N a two-bedroom property unless it agreed this was necessary for him. Mr N is a single adult, and it would be normal for councils to house a person in this position in studio or one-bedroom accommodation, unless they had specific health needs which meant they needed more space.
43. I understand, at the point of Mr N’s complaint to us, the Council was reviewing his requirements in this respect, and I do not know what the outcome of this review was. But there is nothing to suggest fault by the Council in its failure to offer a two-bedroom property outside of the review process.
44. However, Mr N has also complained about the Council’s policy of not allowing potential residents to view temporary accommodation properties before accepting them. However the Council has explained this is because such properties are intended for emergencies, to prevent people from becoming homeless.
45. It is important to draw a distinction here between interim accommodation – which is offered to some applicants while their case is being considered, and is intended to avoid an immediate prospect of homelessness – and temporary accommodation, which is offered to people for whom a homelessness duty has already been accepted, and are awaiting permanent accommodation. While people will typically stay in interim accommodation for only a short period, temporary accommodation can be their home for several years.
46. At paragraph 15.46, the Homelessness Code of Guidance says:

“The Secretary of State recommends that applicants are given the chance to view accommodation that is offered on anything other than an interim basis, before being required to decide whether they accept or refuse an offer, and before being required to sign any written agreement relating to the accommodation (e.g. a tenancy agreement).”

47. The Code of Guidance therefore sets out a clear expectation that people should be allowed to view potential temporary accommodation before being required to accept it. Although it is permissible for councils to depart from statutory guidance, they should only do so where they can demonstrate a good reason for it, and there is nothing to suggest the Council had such a reason here. This, therefore, is fault.
48. I am not persuaded this created any significant injustice to Mr N here. Although he would clearly have preferred to view the first two properties in advance, he was still able to decline them once he had seen them, and the Council did not end its duty to him when he did (which it might otherwise have been entitled to).
49. However, I am still concerned the Council is operating a blanket policy not to allow people to view potential temporary accommodation in advance of accepting it, which should not be the case, and I consider it should take steps to address this. I make a recommendation to this effect.
50. To draw this all together, I do not consider there is any significant fault by the Council here. Although it would have better if an officer had been available for Mr N to speak to after his move to Property 2, it was only a few days before the case officer’s return, and I am satisfied Mr N had access to properties where he could have stayed in the meantime.
51. I also do not consider the Council’s failure to immediately acknowledge his review request amounts to significant fault. Notwithstanding the fact the review quickly became irrelevant anyway, the Council would have had eight weeks to complete it, and so it appears very unlikely it would have done so in the short period before the case officer’s return from leave.
52. I do not consider the missed appointment to be a matter worth pursuing now. And it is for the Council to decide whether Mr N needs a two-bedroom property, or that a one-bedroom property is suitable for him.
53. The Council is at fault for not allowing Mr N to view the offered temporary accommodation properties in advance. This did not cause him a significant injustice but the Council should ensure its policy on this follows the statutory guidance.
54. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr N also complained the Council had suspended him from bidding on (permanent) properties on its housing register. He has explained this is because he was in rent arrears, due to the fact he had two simultaneous tenancies for a short period.
55. This was not something Mr N raised in his complaint to the Council and so I cannot consider it as part of my investigation. If Mr N wishes this point to be investigated, he will first need to make a new complaint to the Council, and then to us.

Back to top

Agreed action

56. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• review and amend any internal policy documents it has, which say people should not be allowed to view temporary accommodation properties in advance of accepting them; and
• circulate guidance to all relevant staff to ensure they are aware of the requirements of the Homelessness Code of Practice.

Back to top

Final decision

57. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault which did not cause injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman