Summary: Ms X (who complains on behalf of Mr Y) complained the Council failed to carry out a review of the suitability of his temporary accommodation. We found fault by the Council in its handling of Mr Y’s review requests which resulted in him staying in unsuitable temporary accommodation for 10 months. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr Y, the Council agreed to apologise to him and make a payment in recognition of the negative impact of living in unsuitable accommodation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Ms X, complains on behalf of her partner (Mr Y) about the Council’s failure to carry out a review of the suitability of his temporary accommodation. She says its failure to do so meant Mr Y lived in accommodation which did not meet his needs, and this affected his physical and mental health.

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. 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

4. I considered the complaint, and I discussed it with Ms X.
5. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response and the relevant law and guidance.
6. I set out my first thoughts on the complaint in a draft decision statement and invited from comments from Ms X and the Council. I considered the Council’s comments in response.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies

Back to top

What I found

8. Temporary accommodation is accommodation provided to homeless applicants as part of a council’s main homelessness duty.
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. 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)
10. 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)
11. 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

12. Mr Y had an accident in January 2021. He injured his spinal cord which means he is now a permanent wheelchair user.
13. Before his accident Mr Y lived in a privately rented studio flat. The hospital treating him told the Council this accommodation would not meet his needs and it considered he would be homeless once discharged.
14. A case conference held by professionals caring for Mr Y stated it was important that he continue with the standing programme and lower limb stretches to keep muscle length once he left hospital. It also said Mr Y wanted to live locally near his support network.
15. The Council’s Disability Housing Panel considered Mr Y’s case.
16. On 15 April 2021 the hospital discharged Mr Y and he was put in interim accommodation by the Council. This was a ground floor wheelchair accessible hotel room with an adapted shower but no cooking facilities except for a microwave. The hotel was in a neighbouring authority.
17. As assessment of Mr Y’s interim accommodation by the Council’s Disability Housing Panel says it could not meet his needs in the longer term.
18. The Council accepted Mr Y’s homelessness application in June. It put his application in priority band B and said he could bid on properties with a maximum of one bedroom.
19. On 25 August 2021 the hotel moved Mr Y from his interim accommodation to another nearby hotel. Ms X says his new room did not have a shower seat when he was moved. She also says the room was not suitable for his needs because it did not have safe or accessible cooking facilities or space for him to do his rehabilitation exercises.
20. In September 2021 Mr Y learnt he would be remaining at the new hotel. He was unhappy and asked the Council if he could move.
21. The Council said it was unaware he was in different hotel to the one it placed him in after his discharge from hospital. It visited Mr Y’s accommodation and said it was suitable for his needs.
22. Mr Y disagreed and asked the Council to carry out a suitability review. The Council did not act on his request.
23. In November 2021 Mr Y’s representatives wrote to the Council about another matter but raised concerns that he had not received a response to his review request. The Council did not follow up the review request.
24. On 21 November 2021 the Council made Mr Y an offer of accommodation but it was not suitable for his needs.
25. In February 2022 Mr Y’s MP wrote to the Council about his case. In response the Council visited his temporary accommodation and took pictures of the accommodation. It told his MP “there appeared” to be enough space for him to move around and between the bed and cooking facilities. It said Mr Y’s application was in priority band A to reflect his need to move.
26. The Council also recognised it did not act on Mr Y’s review request made in September 2021. It apologised and said it would now carry out a review.
27. On 3 March 2022 the Council told Mr Y it had accepted his suitability review.
28. In April 2022 Ms X made a complaint about the suitability of Mr Y’s accommodation and the Council’s failure to carry out a review. It said it could not consider the suitability of his temporary accommodation as a statutory review was underway. It said it had considered Mr Y for two properties and for one move to alternative temporary accommodation, but it could not adapt the properties to meet his needs.
29. Unhappy Ms X escalated her complaint. The Council said the stage one complaint addressed matters adequately and it would not investigate.
30. In June 2022 Mr Y moved to alternative temporary accommodation sourced by him and Ms X and provided by a charity. The accommodation was further away from his support network.
31. Following Mr Y’s move the Council wrote to him saying it was no longer able to consider his suitability review because he had moved.
32. In late June 2022 the Council nominated Mr Y for a one-bedroom wheelchair accessible flat within its area. He was successful and he moved in the following month.

Finding

33. The Council’s records show it considered the suitability of Mr Y’s interim accommodation before him leaving hospital. The assessment found the accommodation would be suitable for him on a short-term basis. I do not find the Council’s actions amount to fault at this stage.
34. When the Council accepted the main housing duty in June 2021 it told Mr Y in writing and explained his right to request a review of the suitability of his accommodation. Mr Y did not request a review. I consider it was open to Mr Y to do so and so, I do not propose to consider the suitability of this interim accommodation now.
35. The Council did not act on Mr Y’s request for a suitability review in September 2021, following his move in August. It did not follow up on the November 2021 email asking about the review. This is fault.
36. There was further fault when it accepted a suitability review request in March 2022. The Council did not complete the review within the 56-day timescale and it was still pending when Mr Y sourced alternative accommodation from a charity.
37. As Mr Y has moved it is now too late for the Council to review the suitability of the accommodation he occupied from 25 August 2021 to 15 June 2022. On the balance of probabilities, it seems more likely than not the Council would have found the accommodation to be unsuitable. This is because:

• It acknowledged in the assessment completed before Mr Y left hospital that hotel accommodation was only suitable on a short-term basis. At the time of Mr Y’s review request he had been living in hotel accommodation for nearly six months.
• The Council’s consideration of the accommodation in February 2022 identified the room was small and so it seems unlikely Mr Y would have had the space to carry out his rehabilitation exercises.
• The Council’s consideration says it “appears” there is enough space between the bed and kitchen area. However, the photos of the room show little space between the bed and kitchen area.
• The pictures also confirm the hob is located next to the sink and so likely to get wet. The photos show a fridge under the sink thereby preventing Mr Y getting a wheelchair close enough to easily use the sink and hob. It is therefore my view that he had inadequate cooking facilities.
• The Council changed Mr Y’s priority banding from B to A while he was living in the temporary accommodation in recognition of his “overriding and urgent need” for fully wheelchair accessible accommodation. This supports the view that his temporary accommodation was not suitable and negatively impacting his health.

38. The injustice to Mr Y is that he was living in unsuitable accommodation for 10 months. I note the Council’s comments that it has limited stock of suitably adapted properties however it has provided little evidence to demonstrate it was actively looking for alternative accommodation with all but one attempt coming after Ms X’s complaint and its decision to accept a suitability review.
39. I am also concerned the Council was unaware Mr Y had been moved from one hotel to another. While I appreciate this was because it was not notified it should be actively maintaining oversight of its placements and be keeping the suitability of them under review. This clearly did not happen in Mr Y’s case. I understand the Council has written to its accommodation providers reminding them of the need to tell it prior to any changes being made to accommodation. I am pleased it has taken action to prevent this from happening again.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr Y the Council has agreed to:

• apologise to Mr Y in writing and;
• pay Mr Y £200 for each month he spent in unsuitable temporary accommodation from late August 2021 until he moved in June 2022. This is 10 months and £2000.

41. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman