Summary: Mr W complained the Council has delayed its review of its decision he was not in priority need of housing. When its review was completed, it agreed he had priority. We found the Council has caused a delay and is therefore at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr W complains the Council did not review its decision about his need for temporary accommodation in a reasonable timeframe. He says he therefore had to pay to stay in hotels for over three months. Mr W seeks reimbursement of this cost from the Council.

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. 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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr W and the Council, the law and relevant guidance.
5. Mr W and the Council have had the opportunity to provide their comments on the draft decision, before this final decision was made.

Back to top

Law and Guidance

6. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household.
7. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of a number of decisions a Council may make including a decision that the applicant is not in priority need of housing.
8. Councils must complete reviews of a decision that an applicant is not in priority need within eight weeks of the date of the review request. This period can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. Mr W’s complaint relates to a decision that he was not in priority need of accommodation, which was made in February 2021.
10. I have investigated Mr W’s complaint about the Council's handling of his request for a review of its homelessness decision from October 2022.
11. I have not investigated matters relating to the Council's homelessness decision for Mr W in early 2021. This is because this matter is late and I have seen no reason why Mr W could not have complained to us within 12 months of the decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

12. Mr W sent an email to the Council in October 2022 to say the Council had not dealt with his request for a review of its February 2021 decision that he was not in priority need. This email confirmed the Council had provided accommodation on a discretionary basis during this period.
13. The Council acknowledged the review request of October 2022, in November 2022.
14. Mr W left the accommodation provided by the Council in late November 2022, and moved into a privately funded hotel. This was done on Mr W’s own accord, without input from the Council as to whether they would continue to accommodate him while it carried out its review.
15. In January 2023, the Council spoke to Mr W and asked whether he would arrange a GP assessment to support his review request. This was agreed. The Council asked whether it could extend the deadline to conclude its review by two weeks, which it said would take them to 23 February 2023.
16. On 24 February, the Council emailed Mr W asking for confirmation of his address so it could assess whether he was still homeless. Mr W did not respond that day, and the Council emailed him again to extend the deadline unilaterally until 28 February.
17. On 28 February 2023, the Council concluded its review and confirmed it now accepted Mr W was in priority need of accommodation.

Analysis and Findings

18. The Council’s review response was due to be provided by 19 December 2022. This is because it should have provided its decision on Mr W’s review request within eight weeks of his October 2022 request. The Council may have chosen not to review its decision, if it was satisfied Mr W did not request the review within 21 days of the original decision. As it did not, it should have done so within eight weeks. The fact this deadline was not met is fault.
19. The Council had the power to arrange accommodation for Mr W following his review request in October 2022, but it did not have a duty to do so. It was therefore entitled to decide whether it would arrange his accommodation or pay the costs for the accommodation Mr W arranged, for the eight week period its review should have taken to conclude.
20. Although the Council agreed an extension to the deadline, by the time this extension was agreed, the fault already existed.
21. The extension was agreed to allow Mr W to arrange a GP assessment. The need for this assessment was known by the Council prior to Mr W’s review request of October 2022. There is no reason the Council could not have asked him to arrange this as soon as it received the request in October 2022. If the Council had done this, there is no reason to believe the Council could not conclude its review by 19 December 2022.
22. The Council has therefore caused a delay here of almost six weeks. Mr W was paying for a hotel during this period. This is an injustice caused to Mr W by the Council’s fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

23. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mr W by the Council’s fault, the Council will, within one month of this decision:

• Apologise to Mr W in accordance with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies;
• Make a payment to Mr W of £200 in recognition of the injustice caused by its delay;

Within three months of the final decision:

• Review its process to ensure reviews are conducted within statutory timescales, and remind relevant staff of the statutory deadlines in writing.

24. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

25. The Council is at fault for the delays it caused when reviewing Mr W homelessness review request, causing him an injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman