Summary: Mr D complained the Council failed to give him proper information when it advised him to split his housing application into two applications. He also says the Council has failed to take appropriate action to resolve the noise nuisance and disrepair issues in his current temporary accommodation. We find the Council was at fault for failing to make appropriate referrals when Mr D raised concerns about the suitability of his temporary accommodation. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Mr D complained the Council failed to give him proper information when it advised him to split his housing application into two applications. He also says the Council has failed to take appropriate action to resolve the noise nuisance and disrepair issues in his current temporary accommodation.
2. Mr D says his position on the housing register got worse because of the Council’s faults. He also says he is living in accommodation that is unsuitable for his needs.

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)
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 considered information from Mr D. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
6. Mr D 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

Homelessness

7. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
8. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally 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 housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary 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 their household. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

10. 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))
11. Under the Council’s housing allocations scheme (2017), it prioritises housing applications using a points-based system. It contacts applicants when it is in a position to make an offer of accommodation.
12. Depending on the number of points awarded, the Council places the applicant into one of four bands. Band A is the highest band through to Band D, which is the lowest.
13. Band B applicants are those with 150 to 299 points, and “all other cases needing adapted housing due to physical disability”.

What happened

14. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
15. Mr D is homeless. The Council accepted it had a main housing duty towards him in 2018. He lives in temporary accommodation with several other family members. The Council placed him in Band B on the housing register and said he qualified for a six-bedroom property.
16. Mr D has been raising noise nuisance issues where he lives for several years. The Council visited the property and decided the issues were due to noise transfer from household size, and not anti-social behaviour.
17. Mr D’s family contacted their local MP and raised concerns about how long they had been living in temporary accommodation. The Council responded and said the family could consider some of the adult family members making a separate application. It said this would reduce the bedroom need and it could have some significance in the waiting time for rehousing.
18. Mr D contacted the Council in October 2021 to report flooding. The Council visited the property and noted the flooding was coming from a leak from the property above. It noted the issue had been contained.
19. Mr D’s son, Mr E, contacted his MP and said his sister had moved out. The MP raised this issue with the Council. The Council responded and said Mr D would need to update his housing application.
20. Mr E contacted the Council and asked what Mr D’s position on the housing register was now that his sister had moved out. He also said the Council had failed to visit the property after the flood in October. The Council responded and said Mr D qualified for a four-bedroom property and he was 76th in the queue. It said it could ask a senior officer to inspect the property for repairs.
21. Mr E responded and asked why their position had changed from sixth to 76th. He also said he contacted the repair team, but no one turned up. The Council responded and said it would investigate why the position had changed. It also said it had contacted the temporary accommodation team to resolve the disrepair issue.
22. The Council emailed Mr E at the beginning of January and asked for further information and pictures about the flooding in the property.
23. Mr E complained to the Council about how it was handling Mr D’s housing situation. He said it failed to take action to deal with the noise nuisance issues from the neighbours, and Mr D’s position on the housing register had got worse. He said the Council was unfairly discriminating against him and his family.
24. The Council responded to the complaint and said officers visited the property but did not find any evidence of excessive noise nuisance. It said the noise they experienced was normal household noise. It said after Mr D’s daughter moved out, it reassessed the housing application and noted Mr D required a four-bedroom property. It said four-bedroom properties are in scarce resource and there are a greater number of households that require a four-bedroom property. This is why Mr D’s position in the queue changed. Finally, it said there was no evidence they had been discriminated against.
25. Mr E sent a further email to the Council and said a lot of damage had been caused to the property from the flood. The Council responded and said it thought the issue had been resolved. It told him to contact it if the leak was ongoing.
26. Mr E contacted the Council a couple of months later and said he was unhappy it provided him with misleading advice on splitting the housing application. The Council responded and said it suggested splitting the application as a practical solution. It said it had not provided misleading information, but it accepted it could have provided further information about the impact of splitting the application.
27. Mr E emailed the Council and said Mr D had recently had two falls and the property was unsafe for him. He sent further emails and asked it to remove the bathtub and install a shower. He also repeated the disrepair issues in the property from the flood.
28. The Council responded and said it needed a recommendation from a professional, such as an occupational therapist, before it could make any adaptations to the property. It said he would need to report any other repairs to the correct department. It provided him with the link to the website.
29. Mr E referred his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. He said he was unhappy it had failed to install a shower.
30. The Council issued its final response to the complaint. It said it was appropriate for the officer to ask for a recommendation from a healthcare professional before it could explore his request for adaptations to the property.

Back to top

Analysis

31. The Council accepted it could have provided Mr D and his family more information about the impact of splitting his housing application. This is fault. It told Mr D that splitting his housing application could have some significance in the waiting time for rehousing. However, it did provide any further detail or clarification, which it should have done. This would have enabled Mr D and his family to make a fully informed decision.
32. However, on balance, I do not consider this fault has caused Mr D an injustice in relation to how long he has been waiting to be rehoused. When the Council responded to my enquiries, it explained the average wait time for an applicant who requires a four-bedroom property is 57 months. The average wait time for an applicant who requires a six-bedroom property is 100 months. The Council has backdated Mr D’s application to when he first joined the housing register. Therefore, even though his position in the queue has changed, the average wait time for him to be rehoused has significantly improved.
33. With regards to the flooding in the property, the Council did attend in October 2021. The case note of the visit shows the issue was contained. I note Mr E continued to raise this issue throughout 2022. The Council did try and get further information from Mr E. It also told him to raise this issue with the correct department, but I cannot see he followed through with its advice.
34. The Council has fully considered the noise nuisance issues and decided they do not constitute anti-social behaviour. The professional judgement of officers is the noise is due to household movement and it is not significant for it to take any further action. I appreciate Mr D strongly disagrees with this, but I find no fault in the Council’s decision making.
35. Councils must keep the suitability of temporary accommodation under review. If there is a change of circumstances councils must reconsider whether the accommodation remains suitable. Mr D has raised concerns the property is no longer suitable for him. Specifically, he says he has fallen, and he needs a shower rather than a bath. The Council told Mr D to get a referral from his GP or a recommendation from an occupational therapist before it would explore the issues further. However, as it is the Council’s responsibility to ensure homeless households are provided with suitable temporary accommodation, it should have made a referral for an occupational therapist to assess Mr D’s living situation. Its failure to do so is fault. I do not consider it is reasonable for the Council to have put all the responsibility on Mr D to get the medical information. The Council’s faults have caused Mr D some uncertainty about whether his living situation would have been any different if it had acted sooner.

Back to top

Agreed action

36. To address the injustice caused by fault, by 14 July 2023 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr D.
• Pay Mr D £150 for his uncertainty.
• Make a referral for a medical professional to assess the suitability of Mr D’s temporary accommodation. If the outcome of the assessment is the accommodation is not suitable, the Council should review Mr D’s housing situation in full and make its own assessment on whether it needs to rehouse Mr D or make the appropriate adaptations.

37. By 11 August 2023 the Council will:

• Issue written reminders to relevant staff to ensure they make referrals, where appropriate, to medical professionals when a homeless applicant raises concerns about the suitability of their temporary accommodation on medical grounds.

38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

39. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr D an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman