Summary: There was delay in offering Mr X suitable interim housing after he turned down offers from the Council. The fault did not cause the injustice claimed by Mr X (homelessness), as it was Mr X’s decision to refuse the initial offer of interim accommodation. There was also delay making the decision on whether he was owed the main housing duty, which the Council has already remedied when it considered Mr X’s official complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall all Mr X, complains that he was initially offered unsuitable interim accommodation and there were then delays offering him a suitable placement.
2. Mr X also complains the Council gave him misleading information on his housing register application and the Council delayed making a decision on the main housing duty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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

5. I read the papers put in by Mr X.
6. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
7. Mr X and the organisation 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

8. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must tell the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
9. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
10. 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 (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Interim accommodation

11. The Council offered Mr X interim accommodation on 12 January 2022. Mr X refused this offer.
12. The Council made Mr X another offer of accommodation on 23 February. Mr X told the managing agents that he did not want this offer the same day and the agents told the Council by telephone.
13. Mr X then telephoned the Council to accept the offer of housing on 26 February, after he had had legal advice. The Council gave Mr X the managing agents telephone number and on 4 March it became clear the accommodation was no longer available.
14. The Council said that it made a third offer of interim accommodation on 30 March 2022 after Mr X provided new medical information. Mr X moved into this property.
15. Mr X says the first offer of accommodation was unsuitable due to his mobility problems. The Council has said that according to Mr X’s medical information form he could manage the one flight of stairs and 35-40 minutes travel by public transport to his doctors. There does not seem to be anything on Council’s file that would have suggested this accommodation was not suitable, so there is not enough evidence to say the Council was at fault making this offer.
16. Mr X also refused the second offer of accommodation but then changed his mind a few days later. So, there is not enough evidence to say the Council was at fault in making this offer of accommodation either.
17. Mr X accepted a third offer of accommodation, 13 weeks after the Council first agreed to provide him with interim accommodation. The Council has said that it did not need to make further offers of accommodation after Mr X refused the first offer.
18. My view is when the Council decided to make further offers of accommodation, it should have done so without delay. However, I do not consider this caused injustice to Mr X. This is because it was Mr X’s decision to refuse the first and second offers of accommodation so I do not propose a remedy for this.

Main Housing Duty

19. The Council has said there were delays in making the decision on the main housing duty for Mr X. The Council told Mr X on 25 July 2022 that it accepted the main housing duty towards him, a delay of 14 weeks. This is fault.

Housing Register

20. Mr X applied to the Council’s housing register on 17 January 2022. The Council rejected his application and said he had a right to a review of the decision.
21. The Council did not carry out the review, as in April 2022, Mr X had moved to interim accommodation and so the Council said it could not review the impact of the accommodation on Mr X's health. In its written response the Council also said that as Mr X had an open homeless application, his housing register application would remain closed.
22. The Council’s allocations policy (2020) says in section 8.1.3 that ‘applicants which are owed the prevention or relief homeless duty will not generally be considered for inclusion on the housing register until a decision has been made as to what duty to provide accommodation is owed to them’.
23. I do not consider the Council was at fault on this point. Mr X had moved at the time the review was considered (April 2022) so there was no reason for the Council to complete it as even if it was upheld, the situation had changed and the assessment would need to start again at the new property. As well as this, the Council’s policy was that applicants would not go on to the Council’s housing register until a decision was made on the main housing duty. Once the Council accepted the main housing duty towards Mr X, he was then placed on the housing register with the additional points awarded due to his homeless application. So, I can find no fault by the Council on this point, it is clear the situation was complex at this point and the standard letter giving advice on reviews was not wrong, just out of date once he had moved.

Conclusion

24. There was fault by the Council, as there was a delay in making a decision on the main housing duty. The Council has already offered Mr X a payment of £150 in June 2022. This consists of £50 (£10 per week for delay in processing Mr X’s homeless application) and £100 for any stress and inconvenience caused. I consider the remedy already offered by the Council is satisfactory. As Mr X was in suitable interim accommodation from the end of March onwards, I do not intend to propose any further remedy for the delay in making a decision on the main housing duty in addition to the £150 payment.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is upheld but I consider the remedy already offered by the Council when it considered this complaint, remedied the injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman