Summary: Mr X complained the Council has delayed in deciding his homelessness application and housed himself and his family in unsuitable accommodation. This denied him the right to appeal the accommodation’s suitability and prevented him from joining the housing register. The Council’s delays in issuing a decision on Mr X’s homeless application and its failure to properly consider the suitability of the interim accommodation it provided is fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X complained the Council has housed himself and his family in unsuitable accommodation and has delayed in deciding his homelessness application. This has denied him the right to appeal the accommodation’s suitability and prevented him from joining the housing register.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Mr X;
• 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

Homelessness legislation and statutory guidance

5. 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.
6. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make enquiries to establish if the council has a duty to assist them.
7. If a council is satisfied someone is homeless and eligible for assistance it must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for them. This is known as the council’s relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
8. 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 them. I will refer to this as the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
9. 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. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

What happened here

10. Mr X presented as homeless in September 2022. The Council accepted a relief duty on 6 October 22 and sent Mr X a Personal Housing Plan (PHP). The assessment notes the family require a two-bedroom property that is affordable and suitable, near to school, work and friends. The Council told Mr X it would make a decision on his case after 56 days, that is 1 December 2022. It explained that if it accepted a full housing duty he would then be able to start bidding for social housing.
11. The Council provided Mr X and his family with interim accommodation at Property 1 on 13 October 2022. The Council describes Property 1 as a one-bedroom ground floor unit.
12. In January 2023 Mr X informed the Council of the birth of his second child and asked the Council to update his application.
13. The Council’s records show the housing officer completed their enquiries and referred the case to a manager in February 2023, with a recommendation to accept the main housing duty. This was not actioned at that time.
14. On 5 May 2023 Mr X complained that the Council had not made a decision on his case or about the suitability of the interim accommodation. The Council responded on 6 June 2023 and partially upheld his complaint. It noted Property 1 was a one- bedroom flat rather than a studio flat as Mr X had complained and that it was considered suitable for his family as they were not statutorily overcrowded.
15. The Council also noted Mr X was at the relief duty stage and the Council was required to take reasonable steps to help him secure accommodation. The Council assured Mr X a decision on his homeless application would be made following an assessment by the case officer. He would then be placed in an appropriate band and be able to bid for properties under the choice-based lettings.
16. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and asked for his complaint to be reviewed at the next stage of the complaint process. He complained the Council had not responded to his concerns about the delay in making a decision. Mr X asserted the failure to make a decision meant he had no right to request a review of the suitability of the interim accommodation, which was fault, causing him an injustice.
17. In addition, Mr X challenged the Council’s definition of Property 1 as a studio flat. He said it was a room without a window and invited the Council to visit and view it. Mr X said the Council had a duty to provide suitable accommodation and asserted Property 1 was not suitable accommodation. He asked the Council to confirm what it had done to find suitable accommodation.
18. The Council responded the following month and reiterated Property 1 was suitable accommodation as it met the minimum standard in terms of its size and the family was not statutorily overcrowded. It said that in addition to the one bedroom, the living room could be used as additional sleeping accommodation.
19. As Mr X remained dissatisfied he has asked the Ombudsman to investigate his concerns. Since Mr X complained to the Ombudsman, the Council has served Notice of an Emergency Prohibition Order in relation to Property 1. The emergency order took effect on 29 September 2023 and prohibited the use of Property 1 as residential accommodation.
20. In response to my enquiries the Council acknowledges there was a delay in issuing a decision on Mr X’s homeless application. Its records show the case officer completed their enquiries and sent the case to their manager to accept the main housing duty in February 2023. The case was not progressed as the manager went on unexpected long-term leave. Although the Council then referred Mr X’s case to another team manager in July 2023, it was not authorised until 5 October 2023. The Council says this was due to a lack of familiarity with its new system and a backlog of cases to authorise.
21. The Council’s letter to Mr X confirming the Council’s decision is dated 11 October 2023, but the email sending it is dated 10 November 2023. The Council says it has backdated Mr X’s housing application to 24 February 2023 as this is the date it should have been authorised.
22. In relation to the suitability of Property 1, the Council says it relied on the managing agents description of the property as a one-bedroom flat. It acknowledges the Council’s responses to Mr X’s complaints do not address the lack of a window/ natural light in the bedroom. The Council has confirmed there are no records on file to show how it determined the property was suitable.
23. The Council has confirmed the managing agents notified it of the emergency prohibition order on 2 October 2023. There is no evidence the Council took any action. The Council says it will now contact Mr X to address this with an offer of suitable alternative temporary accommodation.
24. In response to the draft decision the Council has confirmed Mr X moved to alternative temporary accommodation in early February 2024.

Analysis

25. It is clear from the documentation and the Council accepts there were delays in issuing a decision on Mr X’s homelessness application. The Council accepted it owed Mr X and his family a relief duty in October 2022. This duty should have come to an end 56 days later, in December 2022, but the Council did not complete its enquiries until February 2023. The Council has not offered any explanation for the delay in completing these enquiries and deciding it owed the full housing duty.
26. There was then a further eight-month delay as although an officer recommended accepting a full housing duty in February 2023, this was not authorised until October 2023. It was then a further month before the Council informed Mr X of this decision.
27. Delays of this nature are clearly unacceptable and amount to fault. The Council should have made a decision on Mr X’s homeless application much sooner.
28. Having accepted a relief duty and agreed to provide interim accommodation the Council had a duty to ensure the accommodation it provided was suitable.
29. In deciding whether accommodation is suitable the Council must have regard to the following factors:
• the space and arrangement of the accommodation
• the state of repair and condition of the accommodation – as a minimum, we would expect it to be free of Category 1 hazards.
• the location – including ease of access to established employment, schools and specialist health care
• the specific needs of the applicant and any household members due to a medical condition or disability
30. This duty applies to interim and temporary accommodation, even there is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.
31. The Council provided interim accommodation at Property 1 and determined it was suitable based on the managing agents’ description of the property as a one-bedroom flat. There is no evidence the Council had viewed the property or requested photographs / a floor plan of the property before offering it to Mr X. Its responses to Mr X’s complaint suggest it was only concerned that Mr X was not statutorily overcrowded. It does not address Mr X’s concerns about the lack of windows and natural light. The failure to properly consider the suitability of Property 1 is fault.
32. It is also worrying that the Council then allowed Mr X and his family to remain at Property 1, following the service of an emergency prohibition notice, prohibiting its use as residential accommodation. The notice says there is no remedial action that can be taken to resolve the hazard. It was clearly not appropriate for Mr X and his family to remain in the property.
33. Councils have a continuing obligation to keep the suitability of accommodation under review and to respond to relevant changes in circumstances which may affect the suitability. The Council’s failure to review the suitability of Property 1 when presented with evidence of Category 1 hazards is fault.
34. These fault have caused Mr X and his family an injustice. Until the Council accepted a full housing duty, Mr X did not have a statutory right of review of the suitability of the interim accommodation. The Council has now offered Mr X alternative temporary accommodation and this is to be welcomed. However, I consider it more likely than not that had the Council properly considered the suitability of Property 1 at the outset and then again when it was made aware of the Category 1 hazards, it would have determined the property was not suitable accommodation for Mr X and his young family.
35. The Council’s failings mean that Mr X and his family have lived in unsuitable accommodation for over a year with no right of review.
36. The Ombudsman has published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice as a result of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the Council had not occurred.
37. Where a complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation during what would inevitably have been a stressful period in life we may recommend the Council makes a symbolic payment to acknowledge their distress, hardship and inconvenience. We usually recommend a payment of between £150 and £350 per month.
38. In determining an appropriate level we will take account of factors such as:
• The size of the accommodation – are there enough rooms for the household?;
• The condition and state of repair of the accommodation
• Are toileting and bathing facilities private or shared;
• The age of the household members; and
• Any disabilities or vulnerabilities of the household members

In the circumstances I consider a payment of £250 per month for the period October 2022 to January 2024 is appropriate.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. The Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Mr X for the delays in making a decision on his housing application and for the failure to properly consider the suitability of the interim accommodation it provided. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• pay Mr X £4,000 in recognition of the distress and difficulties he experienced while in unsuitable accommodation between October 2022 and January 2024;
• pay Mr X an additional £200 to recognise the distress and uncertainty he has experienced, and the time and trouble he has been put to as a result of the Council’s failings.
• provide training/ reminders officers to relevant staff of the importance of making suitably prompt enquiries and meeting statutory deadlines;
• provide training/ reminders to relevant staff of the need to properly document decisions regarding the suitability of accommodation and to keep the suitability of accommodation under review.
40. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

41. The Council’s delays in issuing a decision on Mr X’s homeless application and its failure to properly consider the suitability of the interim accommodation it provided is fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman