Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide reasonable adjustments and failed to find him suitable accommodation which reflected his needs as an Autistic person. He also complained about the Council’s communication over several issues and delay in dealing with his complaint. We found the Council mostly considered making reasonable adjustments to reflect Mr X’s Autism. However, Mr X has not been housed in suitable accommodation, which we found was service failure. We found some fault in communication and there had been delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint. We recommended action be taken and a payment to reflect the accommodation issue.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council:
2. Failed to make reasonable adjustments to ensure the Temporary Accommodation (TA) it provided was suitable for him to occupy, as a person with Autism.
3. Did not properly explain that he would be responsible for bills and council tax at the temporary accommodation it provided.
4. Incorrectly told him that he would be able to retain existing meter credit. Also, that he did not get the benefit of £14 of credit the Council added to the meter because all credit was removed by the utility company after he moved in.
5. Failed to communicate with the Housing Association about him moving into the property which led to the Housing Association arranging the capping of his gas supply, in the belief the TA property was empty.
6. Failed to make reasonable adjustments when dealing with him. e.g. at the handover of keys for the TA and when arranging an inspection of the TA.
7. The delay in dealing with his complaint, particularly because his complaint concerned the suitability of the TA he had been provided with which is causing ongoing issues for him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

8. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
9. 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

10. I considered the information Mr X provided and his complaint to the Council. I asked the Council for information and considered its response to the complaint.
11. Mr X 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

The Equality Act

12. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act. This can only be decided by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights. We can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.
13. Organisations will generally be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected.

Reasonable Adjustments

14. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010. It states broadly:
15. Where the usual provision or services provided by a public body would place a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled, public bodies should take such steps that it is reasonable to have to take, to avoid the disadvantage.
16. Where a physical feature puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled, a public body take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage. For example, removing or altering the feature.
17. Where someone, but for the provision of additional aid, would be put to substantial disadvantage in relation to a matter, public bodies should take such steps that it is reasonable to have to take, to provide the additional aid.

The Council’s Complaints Policy

18. The Council’s complaints policy states that all complaints will be acknowledged within 5 days and all complaints should be responded to within 12 weeks.
19. The Council’s complaints policy has two stages. It aims to complete the first stage within 6 weeks. Complainants will have 20 days to request that their complaint is escalated to Stage Two. The second stage should also be completed within 6 weeks.
20. The policy states that if, after considering the complaint at stage one, the Council considers there are no suitable grounds to warrant escalating the complaint to stage two, it will write and confirm this to the complainant.

Background

21. Mr X has autism and chronic anxiety. He contacted the Council to explain that he was no longer able to live in his property because the noise and disturbance from his neighbours had become unbearable for him. On 7 June 2022 the Council wrote to Mr X to accept a homelessness prevention duty towards Mr X. The letter stated the Council was satisfied that Mr X was threatened with homelessness.
22. Mr X provided a copy of a letter from a mental health nurse dated 23 June 2022. It explained that Mr X was sensitive to noise and found noise from his neighbours overwhelming, causing him to flee the property and feel unable to return.
23. On 16 August a council officer visited Mr X’s flat. The Council agreed Mr X’s flat was unsuitable for him to occupy. This was because noise from the neighbouring properties caused Mr X distress.
24. On 17 August the Council wrote to Mr X stating the council’s duty to prevent homelessness had ended and it accepted a relief duty.
25. Mr X told us that he moved in with a friend initially rather than accepting Temporary Accommodation (TA). However, after a brief period with friends, Mr X asked the Council for TA. He says he asked the Council to find him ‘the best-case scenario’ given his Autism and Anxiety.
26. On 12 October the Council accepted Mr X’s request for TA.

Temporary Accommodation (TA)

27. The Council told us, like many local authorities, it initially relies on hotel-type accommodation when supporting people with homelessness and while finding TA. The Council placed Mr X in a hotel on or around 24 October.
28. The Council stated the hotel it placed Mr X in was in a small, relatively quiet town, the Council had used it regularly and there were no known issues. The Council (with Mr X’s permission) liaised with the hotel and asked the owner to place him in a ‘quieter room’. As the hotel was not fully booked, the owner was able to keep rooms vacant around Mr X to limit the noise. Mr X told us initially he found the hotel accommodation acceptable.
29. However, on 14 November 2022 Mr X asked the Council to find him something more suitable as he was experiencing disruption due to noise. He stated a couple moved in below him, which he found too disruptive. The Council discussed the issue with the hotel owner. However, as the hotel had become busier, it was not possible to improve the situation by moving Mr X to another room.
30. The Council identified a self-contained flat on the first floor of a house. It stated it only had neighbours below. Mr X considered this would not be a suitable reasonable adjustment for his noise sensitivity and opted to remain at the hotel while other options were found. Mr X stated he needed a bungalow or detached property.
31. On 30 November Mr X told us he accepted a flat the Council offered. When he accepted the flat, he asked that the Council made reasonable adjustments about the handover process. He stated ‘I wish for anything that would ordinarily be done in person in these TA unit handovers to be done via email where possible i.e. any paperwork to be completed by myself, but if certain things require an in-person interaction like handing over the keys, then due to my autism, I ask that the encounter be kept as short as possible or that I might be able to collect them from somewhere instead. This is no reflection on staff who may meet me for handover and is nothing personal, just that I can struggle with face-to-face interactions and social anxiety surrounding them, especially with authority figures and therefore I require that this process be mitigated as much as possible." Mr X stated the council did not respond to this.
32. On 8 December, the Council told Mr X the TA flat would be ready the following day. Mr X re-iterated his request for a reasonable adjustment. The Council responded stating “Further to your email below I would advise that you will need to meet a member of staff on site [it named the staff member] to complete the tenancy paperwork. We do not have an electronic signing facility so documents will need to be signed in person. This is a straight-forward process and should take no longer than 30 minutes.”
33. We asked the Council what consideration it gave to making reasonable adjustments for the key handover. The Council repeated what it told Mr X, that sign-up for accommodation did have to be in person. It did not provide any evidence that options for making reasonable adjustments had been considered.
34. The Council stated that it had since explored options in order to reduce or eliminate the need for face-to-face contact when signing up for properties, where required. It stated keys could now be left in a key safe and accessed by a key code that would be provided once paperwork had been completed. Any benefit claims could be done on the telephone or online.

Suitability

35. Mr X complained to the Council in January 2023 about multiple issues with his TA.
36. He complained that the Council had failed to make reasonable adjustments because the flat was unsuitable for his disabilities. In addition, he stated he had not been told he would be responsible for council tax and bills, the Council had wrongly told him he could retain and use credit on the meter and because of ineffective communication by the council his gas supply was shut-off for a night in December. The Council acknowledged the complaints Mr X made about his TA in January and stated a response would be provided by 20 February 2023.
37. In January the Council nominated Mr X for a new-build semi-detached bungalow. Mr X explained that because it had an adjoining neighbour, he did not consider it would be suitable due to the risk of everyday living noise that he would not be able to tolerate. He noted there were other issues, including the cost of the rent. In the correspondence that followed Mr X asked the Council to note that only detached properties were suitable as a result of his vulnerability.
38. On 20 March Mr X contacted housing options, explaining he was not coping with the noise disruption at his TA. He asked to move to alternative TA while the Council reviewed the suitability of the bungalow it had offered him.
39. The Council stated a review of the suitability of the new-build bungalow was carried out. Mr X requested this because the property was not detached. The Council stated the review found in his favour because the Landlord withdrew the offer. They felt the property would fail, given concerns Mr X raised about the specification and Mr X’s view that he must have a detached property.
40. Mr X chased the housing options team several times. In response, the Housing Options team stated that the nomination to the semi-detached bungalow had been declined because of Mr X’s concerns about noise sensitivity. The Council stated there was no evidence Mr X had a medical need for a bungalow. The Council proposed an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment to allow appropriate recommendations to be made for suitable accommodation.
41. The team noted there had been no specific incidents at his TA flat that concerned Mr X, rather it was general everyday noise that was affecting him. They stated they had contacted the manager of Mr X’s current TA and stated adjustments had been made to the best of their ability. The team stated careful consideration was given when allocating this property and it was the most appropriate available property, taking account of Mr X’s sensitivity. The Council stated the property had no neighbours above or below and the neighbours were generally older, so they would hopefully cause less noise than a family.
42. Mr X chased the Council for a response to his complaint on 25 March 2023. The Council acknowledged this and apologised on 27 March.
43. Mr X says he told the housing options team he could not cope and needed further reasonable adjustments to be made. However, the Council stated they had already made a reasonable adjustment for him and the noise he was experiencing was everyday noise.
44. In early April Mr X complained to the Ombudsman. At the same time Mr X wrote to the Council reiterating his concerns about the TA and explaining how the noise from neighbouring properties was affecting him. He stated he was in a mental health crisis and he believed the Council had not fulfilled its obligation to make reasonable adjustments. He agreed to an OT assessment but asked that it be paper based.
45. Mr X observed as part of his complaint to the Ombudsman that the Council had accepted that everyday noise from neighbours at his original property was sufficient to deem he was homeless because his Autism made him sensitive to noise. However, in respect of his TA, it disregarded the impact of the everyday noise.
46. In April the Council upheld Mr X’s complaint about various issues, mainly around communication. I have set out the details of specific issues later in this statement.
47. On 3 May 2023 an OT emailed Mr X paperwork for him to complete to enable an assessment of his circumstances. Mr X returned this on 9 May 2023.
48. On 15 May 2023 the OT visited Mr X’s property. The OT report considered the information provided by Mr X and the visit to the property. The OT found that there were no physical barriers to the property being suitable for Mr X. However, Mr X’s Autism and chronic anxiety meant that he suffered severe stress from sensory issues, especially around sound. The OT found that Mr X needed re-housing. They noted that it was essential to meet Mr X’s long term needs that any property identified for him had minimal surrounding properties, within a quiet neighbourhood with suitable public transport to enable Mr X to access the community. They noted, to further reduce sound from any neighbouring properties, sound-proof boards could be installed to meet the relevant part of building regulations.
49. On 1 June 2023 the Council decided that the decision on Y’s homelessness application was overturned and it found the TA Flat it provided was not suitable because it was a flat within a block. So, it stated it had a duty to provide suitable TA. The Council stated it would keep providing Mr X’s current TA in the meantime but would seek alternative TA for him.
50. Within three weeks of the decision, the Council found a one-bedroom semi‑detached bungalow in a quiet village location. It asked Mr X if he would consider it. Mr X refused the property because it was not detached. The Council told us it continued to seek potentially suitable properties either as TA or which it could nominate Mr X for, as a permanent tenancy without success.
51. The Council stated it had advised Mr X that it would apply sound boarding/insulation to a semi-detached property, either funding this itself or via a Disabled Facilities Grant/other scheme. Unfortunately, Mr X was unwilling to consider a semi-detached property. The Council noted that availability of detached properties within social housing stock is minimal (if available at all).
52. In the meantime, the Council agreed that Mr X can take time away from the TA it is providing to stay at his mother’s property. Underuse of TA is not usually something the Council would agree to.
53. The Council stated Mr X subsequently changed his mind and asked to be considered for the one‑bedroom semi-detached bungalow the council found in June. It arranged for this to be viewed by Mr X in September 2023, with minimal face-to-face interaction.
54. The Council stated it was confident that it has fulfilled its statutory obligations regarding Mr X’s homelessness presentation and due regard was given to the Equalities Act and the Council’s Public Sector Equality Duty when it made decisions in his case.

Other Issues

Communication about Bills and Meter Credit

55. On the day Mr X moved into the property he was told he would be responsible for council tax and bills at the property. Mr X queried this. The Council explained that all tenants at TA properties were required to pay bills. It explained these costs were included at the previous accommodation because it was a hotel which was only for short term, emergency use. It did not comment on why the requirement to pay the bills had not been communicated earlier. Mr X says, had he known, he may have decided to stay at the hotel.
56. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council stated there had been no attempt to mislead him, but it accepted that he should have been given the full facts before he was moved. It apologised that this had not happened.
57. Mr X says the Council told him that he had £87 on the electric meter and £8 on the gas meter. They implied it was his to use. In addition, at the handover Mr X says he was told the Council would add £10 to the gas meter later in the day. He says the Council added £14. However, when Mr X set up his energy account a few days later, the energy supplier told him all the credit on the meters had to go back to the previous tenant.
58. The utility company reset the meters to 50p credit on each. He complained the Council failed to accurately communicate the correct situation and he complained he did not receive the credit the council intended. He also questioned if the use of credit on the meter would represent fraud.
59. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council reassured him that this was not a fraudulent act. The Council says it was not aware that meter credit had to be returned to the previous tenant until the utility company told Mr X. The Council apologised Mr X was misled and for any inconvenience/distress.
60. The Council told us the meter credit of £14 was left by the previous tenant, not added by themselves. The Council apologised for the misunderstanding and stated its staff were now aware of the correct situation so they could give the correct advice about utilities to people accessing temporary accommodation.

Inspection Visit

61. Mr X asked that inspection visits, if any, could be carried out while he was not present, to avoid face-to-face interactions and social anxiety. Mr X says initially this was not agreed. However, the Council did arrange with Mr X that he would not need to be present for these visits and it would provide plenty of notice to allow for him to make arrangements and not be present.

Gas Disconnection

62. After Mr X had moved into the property, he went away for a few days. When he returned on 19 December, he found the gas supply had been turned off and capped. The landlord sent an engineer to the property the following day to restore the supply. Mr X had no heating or hot water overnight.
63. Mr X complained that the Council must have failed to communicate effectively with the landlord to let them know he had moved in. The Council told Mr X that it had no record of giving any incorrect information to the landlord. The Council told us it had checked what happened with the landlord. The Landlord stated it was an error on their records that led to the incorrect belief that the property was empty. Although it was not the fault of the Council, it apologised to Mr X for the issue. It also put steps in place with the landlord to stop the error re-occurring.

Mr X’s Complaint

64. Mr X made a complaint to the Council on 10 January 2023. The Council responded to the complaint on 19 April 2023. This was just over 14 weeks from the date of his complaint. The Council apologised for the delay in responding. It stated this occurred because it had wrongly assumed the issues raised would be considered as part of the review of the suitability of Mr X’s temporary accommodation.
65. The Council set out how Mr X could escalate the complaint if he wished to. Mr X asked the Council to escalate the complaint to Stage Two. The Council told Mr X it would not consider the complaint further as it had substantially upheld the complaint at Stage One. Mr X also approached the Ombudsman. We decided to investigate given the Council had been given the opportunity to consider the complaint and because there had been delay in the consideration of the complaint at Stage One.

Was there fault by the Council

Temporary Accommodation – Reasonable Adjustments

66. The Equality Act places a requirement on public bodies to anticipate and prevent discrimination against people with disabilities, which includes Autism. As a result, the Council must consider what steps it can reasonably take to ensure Mr X is not substantially disadvantaged when compared to someone without Autism.
67. Mr X has sensitivity to noise. The Council accepted that, because of his Autism, the noise at his original flat was such that it made it unreasonable for him to occupy. It accepted a homelessness application in this basis. It went on to provide Mr X with Temporary Accommodation, firstly in a hotel and later in a flat. I have considered whether the Council properly took account of Mr X’s Autism in deciding to provide this accommodation.
68. When placing Mr X in the hotel, the Council specifically discussed Mr X’s situation with the owner and agreed that he would be placed in a quiet room. It also agreed that, as far as possible, rooms would be left empty around him to minimise the impact of noise. When the Council found the TA flat for Mr X to move to, it noted there was only one adjoining neighbour and the block was mainly occupied by elderly people in a quiet area. I found the Council had considered what RAs were possible, and in both cases, it taken steps it considered to be reasonable to avoid, as far as possible, any disadvantage Mr X would have in TA and to take account of his Autism.

Temporary Accommodation - Suitability

69. I recognise that Mr X raised concerns about the suitability of the TA flat in January 2023 and it took some time to arrange and complete an OT assessment of Mr X’s TA flat. On 1 June the Council recognised that the TA flat was unsuitable for Mr X. While I found that the Council had taken what steps it could to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate Mr X’s needs, the law says that accommodation provided to homeless households must be suitable. Despite the Council’s efforts to limit the impact to Mr X, the TA flat Mr X was provided from January 2023 was not suitable. This was accepted by the Council in June 2023 following a review by an OT. So, from January 2023 when Mr X raised his concern, he has been living in unsuitable accommodation. I recognise the difficulty in meeting Mr X’s need for quiet accommodation with minimal neighbours when the availability of temporary accommodation which can meet this need is in very short supply. However, as Mr X has been living in unsuitable accommodation since January 2023, this represents service failure. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control.
70. In reaching the decision above, I have noted that the Council had been making attempts to source more appropriate accommodation in the meantime without success. Soon after Mr X raised concerns in January 2023, the Council offered a semi-detached bungalow which Mr X declined. However, the semi-detached bungalow was also found to be unsuitable for Mr X.
71. I have recommended a remedy for the unsuitable living conditions Mr X was placed in. This is in accordance with the principle of our guidance on remedy, but this recommendation also reflects the difficulty in sourcing the type of accommodation that is needed to suitably house Mr X.

Other Issues

72. There is no evidence that the Council gave any consideration to making the adjustments Mr X requested to minimise face to face contact when initially signing papers/handing over the keys for his TA. The lack of consideration given to this was fault.
73. However, the Council did then make reasonable adjustments to accommodate inspection visits while Mr X was not present and to resolve a repairs issue. It left keys in a key safe for him to collect later. This was positive. In addition, the Council recognised Mr X may benefit from spending some nights away from the TA at his mother’s property. Generally, if a council is providing TA, it would potentially seek to remove it from someone who was underusing it, so this was also an adjustment made to recognise Mr X’s needs.
74. The Council did not make clear before Mr X moved that he would be expected to pay bills at the TA. This was fault. However, as this was a requirement of staying at the TA, the communication issue did not disadvantage Mr X or cause any significant injustice. Mr X was also given incorrect information about retaining the meter credit. Again, while the communication issue was fault, this did not disadvantage Mr X as it was normal practice for utility companies to clear meters to start new accounts afresh. The Council has noted these as learning points to ensure it communicates more clearly about TA in future.
75. I understand the disconnection of gas at Mr X’s TA overnight this was frustrating for Mr X and he was without heating and hot water until the following day. The Council clarified that this was an error by the Landlord of the accommodation. It was not fault by the Council that caused this.
76. There was fault in the timescale taken to respond to Mr X’s complaint. The Council’s policy requires a response within 6 weeks at the first stage of the policy and for the overall response to take no more than 12 weeks. The Council took 14 weeks to respond to the complaint at Stage One.

Back to top

Agreed action

77. Within four weeks of my final decision the Council should:
78. Continue to take steps to find Mr X suitable TA and/or suitable long-term accommodation.
79. Make a payment to reflect that Mr X was placed in unsuitable accommodation for 10 months between January and October 2023. The Council should pay Mr X £750. It should then pay him £75 per month from November 2023 until he is placed in suitable accommodation.
80. The Council should also consider and explore with Mr X whether alternative measures to limit the impact of noise on Mr X at the TA may be possible while it obtains suitable TA or longer-term housing for Mr X. For example, use of insulted wall panels, noise cancelling headphones or other measures.

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

Back to top

Final decision

82. There was fault and service failure. I have now completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman