Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to award her the correct housing priority and placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation. There was no evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed Miss X’s housing priority. The Council failed to consider whether Miss X was requesting a statutory review of the property’s suitability. However, it considered the issues she raised about the property’s suitability through its complaint procedure so this did not cause Miss X a significant injustice. It has agreed to issue a reminder to staff to prevent a recurrence of the fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council has failed to award her the correct housing priority and has placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation. Miss X says this has impacted her mental health and her child’s safety and development as they can easily get out of the property and the lack of local transport limits the opportunities to access the community safely.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 have considered the information provide by Miss X and I discussed the complaint with her on the telephone. I have considered the council’s response to my enquiries.
5. I gave Miss X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant Law and guidance

Homelessness

6. 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.
7. Where the council has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible and in priority need, it has an immediate duty to ensure suitable accommodation is available for them, whilst it makes enquiries about what other duties it may owe them. This is known as interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
8. If the council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to ensure that suitable accommodation is available to them. This is called the main housing duty and this accommodation is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193). The applicant may request a review of the suitability of the accommodation within 21 days.
9. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a council provides it. This is important because 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. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.

Housing allocations

10. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  Many councils maintain a housing register which records those waiting for housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
11. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
12. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

The Council’s allocations policy

13. The Council places applicants into one of five bands with band 1 being the highest. Applicants with a significant medical/welfare priority are placed in band 3. Those with severe medical/welfare issues are placed in band 2 and those with urgent medical needs in band 1. Homeless applicants who are owed a full homelessness duty are also placed in band 3.
14. The policy defines the different categories of medical/welfare need:
• An urgent need is one where the medical condition could be deemed to be life threatening if suitable alternative accommodation is not secured.
• A severe need is where the applicant has a serious/chronic condition that is not immediately life threatening but is likely to result in a severe impairment without a move to more appropriate accommodation.
• A significant need is a stable or persistent medical health problem that could be more effectively managed in more appropriate accommodation.

What happened

15. Miss X lives with her young child. In May 2023 Miss X received a notice to quit from the property where she was living. Miss X was registered on the Council’s housing allocations scheme with significant medical/welfare priority. The Council’s letter, dated April 2023, stated this was because Miss X’s housing situation was causing her anxiety combined with her other symptoms.
16. In June 2023 the Council provided Miss X with interim accommodation in a caravan park whilst it assessed her homelessness application.
17. Miss X emailed the Council and asked that her priority banding be reviewed as she considered her accommodation unsuitable. She had concerns about the caravan’s lock. She said her child could open it and leave the caravan. She also said the shower and bathroom sink were broken and the cooker did not work correctly. She asked for a higher priority. Miss X sent another email the following week that her child had opened the door whilst she was in the bathroom and had then fallen down the steps and hurt themself.
18. Miss X provided further information as to why she considered the property unsuitable and why she considered she should have higher priority. She did not consider it safe as her child could twist the lock and get out. There were no suitable buses to access shops and local facilities. She wanted alternative accommodation and higher priority.
19. Miss X submitted a formal complaint to the Council. She asked to be moved or to be able to place a child lock on the caravan door. She said she had to barricade her child’s door when she went to sleep to ensure they were safe.
20. In early July 2023 the Council accepted it owed Miss X the main homelessness duty. It decided the interim accommodation she was living in remained suitable. The Council says the caravan is two bedroomed and on a bus route to access services and facilities although it accepts the bus service is limited. It says the property is affordable and under the market rent for a two bedroom property.
21. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint in late July 2023. It said she already had significant medical priority and it did not consider the property was unsuitable. It advised it did not have permission to alter the locks which allowed occupants to leave quickly in an emergency. It said its Housing Options Team were working with Miss X to try and source alternative accommodation.
22. In early August 2023 the Council moved Miss X to an alternative caravan on the same site.
23. Miss X remained unhappy and asked to go to stage two as she believed she should have higher priority and she considered the property was unsafe due to the lock. The Council says Miss X also raised issues around the property’s location as she needed to attend college four days a week. The Council’s leaving care team agreed to fund taxis to transport her to college from September 2023.
24. The Council responded at stage two of its complaints’ procedure in late August 2023. It did not uphold her complaint. It said Miss X’s application was awarded significant medical and welfare priority. It said to receive band one priority she would need to evidence that the failure to rehouse her could have life threatening consequences and the evidence did not meet that criterion. It said the owners of the caravan advised the door met the regulations as it was a fire door which should not be made more secure. It suggested she use a stair gate as an additional security measure. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman.
25. In October 2023 Miss X provided further information to the Council regarding her medical conditions. The Council wrote to Miss X later that month. It advised it had considered the information but was unable to increase her banding. It said the evidence did not indicate the health and well-being of her household would rapidly decline without a move to alternative accommodation. It advised her of her right of review of the decision. Miss X asked the Council to review its decision and place her in band two.
26. In response to our enquiries the Council explained how it had considered the information Miss X provided. It said the evidence did not support a severe medical need.

Findings

Suitability of temporary accommodation

27. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether anyone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
28. Miss X raised concerns about the interim accommodation the Council provided. The Council considered the issues she raised about the safety of the property and responded through its complaints process. It also moved Miss X to an alternative caravan in August 2023. It was not at fault.
29. The Council accepted it owed Miss X the main housing duty in July 2023. At that point Miss X’s interim accommodation became temporary accommodation and so Miss X had a statutory right to request a review of its suitability. Miss X continued to raise concerns about the safety of the lock and about the property’s location. The Council responded to Miss X’s concerns at stage two of its complaints procedure. It failed to consider whether Miss X was requesting a statutory review of the property’ suitability. This was fault. However, the Council considered the issues Miss X raised and explained why it remained of the view the property was suitable. Its leaving care team also arranged taxi transport to assist Miss X to attend college. So there is no evidence this fault caused Miss X a significant injustice.

Housing priority

30. The Council considered the information provided by Miss X about her medical conditions and mental health and awarded her significant medical priority. It has set out why it considered Miss X does not meet the severe or urgent need criteria. The Council has assessed Miss X’s housing application in line with its published allocations scheme and there is no fault in the way it has done this so I cannot question its decision.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. Within two months of the final decision the Council has agreed to remind relevant officers of the need to consider whether a complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation should be treated as a request for a statutory review.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation. There was evidence of fault, but it did not cause a significant injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to prevent recurrence of the fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman