Summary: Mr X complained the Council placed him and his family in unsuitable interim accommodation and failed to make a decision on his housing application within statutory timeframes. Mr X said the mould and the distance from his child’s school had a significant impact on his and his child’s physical and mental health. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, complained the Council placed him and his family in interim accommodation which was unsuitable because of damp and mould, and it was far away from his child’s school. He also complained the Council failed to make a decision on his housing application within statutory timeframes.
2. Mr X said this had a significant impact on both his and his child’s mental and physical health. He said he had to spend a lot of money on storage and travel.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. Part of Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman is that the Council failed to make a decision on his housing application within statutory timeframes. This was not part of the complaint he made to the Council.
9. As I have said above, we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply.
10. In this case, the Council has agreed to allow the Ombudsman to investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint even though it has not had an opportunity to consider it through its own complaints procedure.
11. For this reason, I have investigated this part of Mr X’s complaint along with the other parts of his complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.
13. I considered the relevant legislation and statutory guidance, set out below. I considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies. I also considered the Ombudsman’s focus report, ‘More Home Truths: learning lessons from complaints about the Homelessness Reduction Act’, published in March 2023.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Interim accommodation and suitability

14. A council must secure accommodation for applicants 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, and is referred to as the ‘relief duty’. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
15. The relief duty comes to an end for various reasons. One of these reasons is that 56 days have passed since the council’s duty began, whether or not the applicant has secured accommodation. In these cases, the council will owe the applicant the main housing duty after the 56 days.
16. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
17. In determining whether accommodation is suitable for a person, the local housing authority must take into account the location of the accommodation, its physical condition (state of repair and safety of utilities), and landlord conduct. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation (England)) Order 2012, sections 2 & 3)

Storage of personal belongings

18. Where the council owes or has owed certain housing duties to an applicant, it must protect the applicant’s personal property if there is a risk it may be lost or damaged. A council may make a reasonable charge for storage and reserve the right to dispose of the property if it loses contact with the applicant. (Housing Act 1996, section 211, Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 20)
19. The law says a council’s duty to protect personal belongings ends when the council finds there is no longer any reason to believe there is a risk of loss or damage to the person’s belongings because of the person’s inability to protect it or deal with it.
20. The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities makes it clear that ‘inability’ does not just mean physical incapacity or illness. It also includes if someone cannot afford to do what is necessary to protect their belongings (section 20.6).

What happened

21. Mr X applied to the Council for housing. The Council decided it had a relief duty and provided Mr X and his family with interim accommodation in July 2023. This property was outside the borough.
22. In October, Mr X formally complained to the Council about the state of repair of the property (that it was mouldy and damp). He also complained that it was a very long way to and from his child’s school. He reminded the Council that he and his child have disabilities. Mr X said the Council had not responded when he complained about the property.
23. The Council spoke to Mr X and then issued its first complaint response. The Council said it had explained to Mr X about its difficulties sourcing suitable accommodation, and that there was a chronic shortage of affordable housing. The Council said it would arrange an urgent visit to the property.
24. The Council said when it spoke to Mr X, he said he had complained to the case officer numerous times about the condition of the property. The Council said it could see that the case officer had not responded to an email Mr X sent them in early October. This email had a letter from the Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) which set out the significant impact the property was having on Mr X’s child.
25. The Council apologised that the case officer did not respond to Mr X’s email and upheld this part of the complaint.
26. In November, the Council visited the property.
27. In January 2024, the Council sent its second complaint response. It said it was not satisfied the accommodation met the family’s needs. It said it was clear the property was below standard, and recognised the substantial distance to travel to get the child to and from school.
28. The Council said it would ask for Mr X and his family to be transferred to a different property. It upheld Mr X’s complaint.
29. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.
30. In February, the Council told Mr X it had accepted the main housing duty.
31. In March, Mr X and his family were moved to a different property.

Analysis

Suitability of interim accommodation

32. Mr X complained the Council placed him and his family in interim accommodation which was unsuitable because of damp and mould, and it was far away from his child’s school.
33. Mr X said he had started complaining to the Council about the condition of the property as soon as they moved in in July 2023. He said he called the case officer and sent numerous emails. Mr X said the Council ignored him.
34. As this was interim accommodation, Mr X did not have a statutory right to a review of the suitability of the property.
35. The Council says the first time it was made aware of any concerns about the property was in August 2023 when Mr X’s child’s school raised concerns. Mr X told me he began complaining about the property’s condition as soon as he moved in. He also told the Council this when discussing his complaint.
36. The Council’s complaint response accepts that the case officer did not respond to an important email Mr X sent with evidence of how the property was negatively affecting his child. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that it is more likely than not that Mr X did raise concerns about the suitability of the property immediately after moving in.
37. The Council visited the property in November. The Council said this visit influenced its final decision that the property was unsuitable, "bearing in mind the observed factors”. Ultimately, the Council found the property was unsuitable because of the disrepair issues and the distance to Mr X’s child’s school.
38. The Council accepted this property was unsuitable for Mr X and his family but only at last stage of the complaints procedure.
39. Overall, I find the Council could reasonably have reached its view (that the property was unsuitable for the family) considerably sooner than January. This is fault. This undue delay acknowledging unsuitability meant the family lived longer with the injustice of unsuitable accommodation.

Storage of personal belongings

40. Mr X complained that he spent a lot of money on storing his personal belongings. He said the interim accommodation was a small flat with no room to store his belongings. He said he stored his belongings in a self-storage facility at great cost. He said when he asked the Council for help, it told him to find his own storage, and that it was his problem. Mr X said this has put him in debt with friends and family.
41. The Council said it told Mr X it could help with these costs, but Mr X did not ask for it. The Council has provided no evidence to show how, when or who told Mr X this.
42. Without evidence, I am not persuaded the Council told Mr X it could help him. On a balance of probabilities, I find it more likely than not that Mr X would have taken the Council up on this offer rather than spending thousands of pounds on self-storage. In arriving at this finding, I have taken into consideration the poor communication from the case officer, which the Council has already acknowledged.
43. I find this is fault. This caused Mr X injustice in that it caused uncertainty and a lost opportunity for the Council to have helped.

Decision on the housing application

44. Mr X complained the Council failed to make a decision on his housing application within statutory timeframes.
45. The Council accepted it had relief duty for Mr X in early July. This means the relief duty came to an end 56 days after this (at the end of August). The Council did not accept it had the main housing duty until February 2024.
46. The Council accepts there was a delay making this decision. It said part of the delay was because it was making inquiries about whether the family was intentionally homeless.
47. The Homelessness Code of Guidance says:

“Housing authorities should not delay completing their inquiries as to what further duties will be owed after the relief duty. In cases where significant further investigations are required, it is recommended that housing authorities aim to complete their inquiries and notify the applicant of their decision within a maximum of 15 working days after the 56 days have passed.”

48. The Council has not said it was making significant inquiries, which would allow 15 additional working days. Even if the Council had been making significant inquiries, it should have accepted the main housing duty by mid-September.
49. The Council made its decision at least five months late, even giving the Council the maximum time allowed. This is fault.
50. I find this fault caused injustice, in that it caused uncertainty.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X in writing for the injustice caused by:
• the delay deciding the property was unsuitable;
• failing to tell Mr X it could help him with storing his personal belongings; and,
• failing to make a decision on Mr X’s housing application within statutory timeframes.
52. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making this.
53. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X of £2150. This is made up as follows:
• the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies recommends a payment of between £150 and £300 per month for families living in unsuitable accommodation. If the Council had acted promptly on Mr X’s complaint and visited the property within the first two months, it could have reached its decision that the property was unsuitable six months before it did so. I consider a figure of £225 per month is appropriate and proportionate in this case. In arriving at this figure, I have considered Mr X’s and his child’s disabilities, the disproportionate impact on the child’s health and wellbeing, and that the school was an hour and half away (meaning the child’s mother spent six hours a day taking her child to and from school). £225 per month multiplied by six months is £1350;
• our guidance recommends a payment of up to £500 to remedy distress. ‘Distress’ includes uncertainty and lost opportunity. Given the level of uncertainty and lost opportunity caused by failing to tell Mr X about storage help the Council could offer, I consider a payment of £500 is proportionate and appropriate to the level of injustice caused; and,
• I consider £300 is an appropriate and proportionate remedy for the level of uncertainty caused by failing to make a decision on Mr X’s application within statutory timeframes. I do not consider the level of injustice here is as significant as other injustice caused by the faults. For this reason, I consider a mid-range figure is appropriate.
• £1350 plus £500 plus £300 is £2150.
54. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

55. I have completed my investigation. I uphold Mr X’s complaint because I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman