Summary: We find the Council failed to send Mr X a homelessness decision letter explaining its reasons to exclude his brother-in-law (Mr Y) from the application. We also find poor communication and unreasonable delay in completing a suitability review of Mr X’s temporary accommodation and treating reported mould growth. The Council should apologise to Mr X and make payments to him for uncertainty and distress caused and for impact on his family while they remained in unsuitable accommodation. It should also provide staff reminders of its statutory duties to provide clear decision letters and meet review deadlines to prevent recurrence.

The complaint

1. Ms Z acts as legal representative for Mr X, who complains the Council:
1. Refused to include his brother-in-law (Mr Y) in his homelessness application and communicate its decision in writing with its reasons, contrary to section 184(3) housing Act 1996, so Mr X was unable to exercise his right to review its decision.
2. Placed Mr X and his family in unsuitable temporary accommodation and delayed responding to his application for a review of the suitability of the accommodation.
3. Delayed treatment of mould growth in Mr X’s temporary accommodation.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. Mr X complained to us in January 2023 about complaint issues going back to October 2020. This is more than 12 months after he was first aware of them. However, I note Ms Z did not let the matter rest on behalf of Mr X and pursued the Council throughout 2021 for an outcome and subsequently complained in early 2022. There is evidence of further delay by the Council in addressing Mr X’s complaint. I have therefore exercised discretion to investigate matters from October 2020 onwards.
5. 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

6. I have considered information provided by Ms X and the Council during our investigation and made further enquiries as necessary.
7. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness applications

8. If a council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless it must make inquiries to satisfy itself what, if any, duty it owes them. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 (1)
9. A homeless application includes the members of the applicant's household. The local authority must treat as part of the household family members who usually live with the applicant. (Housing Act 1996, section 176)
10. It is a question of fact as to who is living with the applicant, and housing authorities are not required to satisfy themselves that it is reasonable for this member of the family to normally reside with them. The phrase ‘as a member of the family’, although not defined for these purposes in legislation, will include those with close blood or marital relationships and, where such a person is an established member of the household, the accommodation must provide for them as well (Homelessness Code of Guidance 6.5 and 6.7)
11. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)
12. Homeless applicants may request a review by the Council within 21 days of the decision on their homelessness application. And if still dissatisfied, can appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Homelessness Code of Guidance section 25)

Relief and main housing duties

13. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the relief duty.
14. The Homelessness Code of Guidance says that where the council is satisfied that the applicant has a priority need and has become homeless unintentionally, the relief duty comes to an end after 56 days.
15. If the applicant’s homelessness has not been successfully relieved by then, the Council will owe them the main housing duty. The Council must ensure suitable accommodation is available for the applicant and their household until that duty is completed. (Housing Act 1996, section 193(2))

Interim and temporary accommodation

16. While a Council is carrying out inquiries in an applicant’s case it must also secure accommodation for the applicant 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)
17. If a council has accepted the main housing duty, the accommodation it provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Suitability of accommodation

18. 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. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation, but councils are encouraged to carry out a non-statutory review in those cases. 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. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202 & 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2 & 19.3)
19. A review about the suitability of accommodation must be completed within eight weeks of the review request. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)

Mould

20. Suitable accommodation should be free from issues of serious disrepair such as damp and mould growth.
21. The Council requires tenants to report damp and mould issues using its online housing repairs web form, by email to a published address or by calling a dedicated line. It says an advisor will then discuss options for further investigation and repair.

What happened

22. Mr X lived with his wife (‘Mrs X’), two young daughters and his brother-in-law (‘Mr Y’) in privately rented accommodation (‘Property A’). The records indicate Mr Y moved in with Mr X following surgery as he could not look after himself.
23. The available evidence says Mrs X emailed the Council and sought homelessness assistance in October 2020. She explained Mr Y was living with them and his background. The Council’s homelessness officer (HO) then called Mr X who also confirmed Mr Y’s situation.
24. The Council said the HO later contacted Mr Y by telephone and explained they would not be including him as a member of Mr X’s household in the homelessness application. The records do not show the Council writing to Mr X or Mr Y to confirm its decision. Mr X was therefore unaware of the Council’s position.
25. In late October the Council accepted a homelessness relief duty and placed Mr X and his family in interim accommodation (‘Property B’). Mr X continued to house Mr Y believing he had been included as a family member.
26. A full copy of Mr X’s housing file is not available to evidence how the Council subsequently assessed Mr X’s case. This would be expected to include copies of Mr X’s housing application, housing needs assessment, his personal housing plan and any related inquiries and interviews used to decide Mr X’s housing needs or further reviews requested.
27. The Council has provided records which say it continued its homelessness assessment between November 2020 and April 2021. This included enquiries with Mr X, Mr Y and third parties to understand the background to Mr X’s homelessness.

2021

28. In May 2021, the Council sent Mr X a homelessness decision letter. It said it accepted Mr X was homeless and in priority need but he had made himself intentionally homeless. The Council said it therefore had no further duty to provide Mr X and his family accommodation. The Council’s letter did not mention Mr Y or explain its reasons for excluding him from the assessment.
29. In late May, Ms Z requested a statutory review of the Council’s decision. The available evidence shows that in late June, the Council advised Mr X it was overturning its earlier May decision. It said it would send Mr X’s file back to the HO for re-assessment and he would remain in Property B until a new decision was issued.
30. The Council has not provided a copy of its subsequent homelessness decision letter. The evidence seen indicates the Council later accepted a full housing duty on 1 July.
31. The available evidence indicates, the Council emailed Mr X with an offer of temporary accommodation (‘Property C’) in mid-July. The email said the Council had already advised Mr X about Mr Y not being part of his homelessness application. The available records do not refer to when or how the Council did this. Mr X and his family then moved into Property C; a two-bedroom flat but continued to accommodate Mr Y.
32. The available evidence indicates Ms Z subsequently emailed the Council each month between July and December 2021, requesting it review the decision to exclude Mr Y as a family member or provide reasons for its refusal.
33. Ms Z also explained that Mr X was being prevented from exercising his statutory review and further appeal rights without the Council’s corrected decision. She also re-iterated that Mr X and his family were now in overcrowded and unsuitable accommodation which was affecting their physical and mental wellbeing. The records do not show any response from the Council to Ms Z’s numerous emails.
34. The available evidence indicates Ms Z applied for a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation (Property C) in July 2021.
35. The records show, Mrs X also emailed the Council in December explaining Property C had widespread mould which was affecting her family’s health. She confirmed they were ventilating the property as much as possible and her daughter’s had developed asthma as the infestation was severe.

2022

36. In January, Mrs X emailed the Council again about the mould. An officer replied and requested photographic evidence. The records show Mrs X then sent the officer ten photographs of the mould infestation. The records do not show any further response from the Council to Mrs X’s email.

Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses

37. In mid-January 2022, Ms Z submitted an online complaint to the Council about its failure to respond to her email issues as set out at paragraphs 32-34 (above).
38. In early February, Mr X’s MP wrote to the Council asking why it had not responded to Ms Z’s emails and addressed the mould problem.
39. In an email to Mr X’s MP dated 16 February, the Council said:
• It believed Mr X’s temporary accommodation was suitable for his family, and it had no record of Mr Y living there. Mr X was therefore potentially in breach of his tenancy agreement, causing the overcrowding by accommodating Mr Y and it would be investigating this further.
• It had no record of the mould growth until the MP’s enquiry. It would inspect the property for mould the following week. And if it found the mould was caused by overcrowding due to Mr Y living with the family, it would also charge Mr X for the treatment.
40. On 5 May, Ms Z requested the Council escalate Mr X’s complaint to stage two. She said:
• The Council had not addressed Mr X’s main complaint issues being its failure to explain its reasons for not including Mr Y in its homelessness assessment and failure to respond to the suitability review in July 2021.
• Ms Z also referred the Council to Mrs X’s repeated contact about the mould in December 2020 and January 2021.
41. In its August 2022 final response, the Council said:
• Its decision to exclude Mr Y as a member of Mr Y’s household was correct. It had based its findings on the evidence gathered during its enquiries and inconsistent accounts provided by Mr X, Mrs X and Mr Y about Mr Y’s situation.
• However, it had failed to send a letter to Mr Y confirming its decision to exclude him from Mr X’s homelessness application.
• It had also failed to explain its reasons for refusing to include Mr Y as a member of the household in its homelessness decision letter in May 2021.
42. On 5 December 2022, the Council wrote to Mr X to confirm the outcome of its review of the suitability of temporary accommodation. It said the Council had:
• Now decided Mr Y was a part of Mr X’s household and would be considered in any further assessment of the family’s housing needs.
• Reviewed its records and decided its offer of Property C was flawed. It had failed to ascertain Mr X’s family composition, discuss his circumstances with him before allocation and its allocation letter had not provided its reasons.
• Decided to re-assess Mr X’s needs and would decide if it should make him a further offer of suitable accommodation.
43. Unhappy with the Council’s continued mismanagement of Mr X’s case, Ms Z approached the Ombudsman in January 2023.

Council’s response to our enquiries

44. In response to our enquiries the Council said it had reviewed Mr X’s case file. It accepted it made errors in its homelessness investigation but did not specify further. It offered to remedy Mr X’s situation by:
• Confirming it had now accepted Mr Y as a member of Mr X’s household.
• Offering to pay Mr X and his family £1500 in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused by its oversight.
• Awarding Mr X and his family Band A on its housing register so they can bid for permanent social housing with the highest priority.
• Helping Mr X’s family with an advance rent payment and deposit should they wish to source private rented accommodation, which is a quicker route into suitable housing.
• Instructing a third-party mould treatment contractor to address the problem as soon as possible. The Council said it had commissioned an external company to ensure a quick turnaround.
45. The Council has also provided evidence to confirm the mould growth was treated in April 2023. Ms Z has also confirmed that Mr X was allocated Band A on the Council’s online system in June 2023, but has been unable to bid for properties due to a technical issue.

Was there fault and did it cause injustice?

i) Mr X says the Council refused to include his brother-in-law (Mr Y) in his homelessness application and communicate its decision in writing with its reasons, contrary to section 184(3) housing Act 1996 so Mr X was unable to exercise his right to review its decision.

46. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the Council should have included Mr Y as a family member in Mr X’s homelessness application. That is a decision for the Council. However, the Ombudsman can look at whether the Council followed the correct steps in its decision making and any relevant law and guidance in the way it reached its decision. The available evidence does not show the Council correctly applied the law as set out at paragraphs 9 and 10 (above) in its decision making. The Council also accepts there were errors in its consideration of Mr X’s case. It has subsequently reviewed its decision and decided to now include Mr Y. I find there was fault in the way the Council initially assessed Mr X’s homelessness application and the steps in its decision making to exclude Mr Y as a family member.
47. The Council also failed to send Mr X a confirmation letter to explain its reasons for excluding Mr Y before providing interim accommodation. This is also fault and inconsistent with law as set out in paragraph 11 (above). This meant Mr X was unaware of the council’s decision and continued to accommodate Mr Y. This also meant Mr X and his family were placed in interim accommodation which was unsuitable for their family’s housing needs. Mr X was also unable to exercise his review rights (paragraph 12) as he was unaware of the Council’s decision.
48. The Council’s May 2021 homelessness decision letter also did not mention Mr Y or its reasons for excluding him from Mr X’s homelessness application. The Council accepts this was an oversight. The evidence indicates, Ms Z therefore pursued the Council between July and December 2020 to address the issue without a response from the Council. The evidence shows the Council eventually overturned its decision about Mr Y’s status in December 2022.
49. The Council’s failure to explain it reasons for excluding Mr Y was inconsistent with the law (paragraph 11) which requires the Council provide full written reasons for its decisions, especially where there is an adverse finding. The Council’s failure to respond to Ms Z’s emails between July and December 2021 was also fault and poor communication. Mr X and his family therefore remained in accommodation which was not suitable for their needs between October 2020 and December 2022. Mr X was also unable to exercise his further review rights including taking the matter to the county court on a point of law within the statutory time (paragraph 12). This caused Mr X and his family avoidable uncertainty and distress and affected their amenity.

ii) Mr X says the Council placed him and his family in unsuitable temporary accommodation and delayed responding to application for a review of the suitability of the accommodation.

50. I have already addressed the Council’s failure to correctly consider Mr X’s homelessness application at paragraphs 46-49 (above). The evidence indicates the Council issued a housing allocation letter to Mr X in July 2021, for Property C. Mr X was within his rights to accept the temporary accommodation which he did.
51. The records indicate Ms Z then submitted a request for a review of the suitability of the accommodation around the same time. The law as set out at paragraph 19 (above) says Mr X’s suitability review should have been completed within eight weeks of the review request, by September 2021.
52. The records show the Council issued a review outcome letter in December 2022. It said the Council now accepted its choice of temporary accommodation (Property C), was unsuitable for Mr X and his family’s needs. The available evidence does not indicate any change in Mr X and his family’s circumstances between July 2021 and December 2022. In my view, if the Council had completed the review within time, it is very likely on a balance of probabilities it would have reached the same conclusion as set out in paragraph 51 (above) much sooner.
53. I find the Council unreasonably delayed completing Mr X’s application for a review of the suitability of his accommodation. This is fault which meant Mr X and his family remained in unsuitable temporary accommodation for longer than necessary, between September 2021 and December 2022. This caused Mr X and his family avoidable distress and affected their physical and mental well-being as the accommodation was overcrowded and unsuitable for their housing needs.

iii) Mr X says the Council delayed treating mould growth reported in his temporary accommodation

54. The evidence shows Mrs X first reported the mould growth to the Council in December 2021, and provided photographic evidence in January 2022. Mr X’s MP also raised the issue in February 2022. The Council’s website mould guidance at paragraph 21 (above), says it will investigate and decide further action once a report is made. The available evidence does not show the Council took reasonable steps to address the problem between January 2022 and April 2023.
55. Based on the evidence seen the Council delayed its inspection and treatment of mould in Mr X’s temporary accommodation. This is fault and inconsistent with its duty to ensure Mr X’s accommodation was suitable (paragraph 20). Mr X and his family therefore suffered distress and uncertainty about when the Council would treat the mould and reported a deterioration in the family’s health during the Council’s delay.

Back to top

Agreed action

56. The Council has made an offer to address its errors in the management of Mr X’s homelessness case (paragraph 44). This is a partial remedy. However, I will make further recommendations to reflect the full extent of the injustice caused to Mr X and his family.
57. Within a month of my final decision the Council should:
1. Write to Mr X and apologise for:
1. Its failure to provide Mr X with a homelessness application decision letter which explained why his brother-in-law (Mr Y) was not included as a member of his household and any consequential delay of Mr X’s statutory review rights and any avoidable uncertainty and distress caused.
2. Its delay in completing a suitability review of Mr X’s temporary accommodation and any avoidable distress, uncertainty and impact on their amenity while they remained in unsuitable temporary accommodation for longer than necessary.
3. Its delay in inspecting and treating mould growth reported in Mr X’s temporary accommodation and any uncertainty, distress and impact on health caused to Mr X and his family.
2. Make a symbolic payment of £500 to Mr X in recognition of the uncertainty, distress and inconvenience caused to him and his family by the faults identified in this statement.
3. Make a payment of £3000 to Mr X in recognition of him and his family remaining in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary due to faults identified in this statement. This amount is based on our guidance on remedies and considers the impact of the continued overcrowding and further delay in treating mould on Mr X’s family, including his young children’s health and development over a prolonged period.
4. Write to Mr X and confirm its offer to award Mr X housing priority Band A, how he may access the bidding system, offer assistance with a suitable rent advance and deposit should Mr X chose to find private rented accommodation and to follow up its earlier mould treatment with Mr X to ensure there are no on-going issues.
5. Provide a reminder to staff who manage homelessness applications of the Council’s statutory duties to provide clear decisions letters and meet statutory review deadliness to prevent recurrence.
58. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

59. I find fault which caused injustice to Mr X. I have made recommendations to address the injustice.
60. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman