Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his application for homelessness assistance. We find no fault with how the Council assessed the suitability of Mr X’s interim accommodation. We find the Council at fault for not making timely decisions and for not communicating decisions with Mr X, causing him frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment to recognise the injustice, and act to prevent recurrence.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his application for homelessness assistance. Specifically, Mr X says the Council:
• failed to provide him with suitable temporary accommodation, taking account of his medical needs;
• failed to make decisions on what duties it owed him or provide a personal housing plan (PHP) within statutory time limits;
• lost his personal medical information; and
• has not placed him in the correct banding on its housing register.
2. Mr X says this has caused him real uncertainty and distress and means he has had to stay in unsuitable accommodation for almost a year.

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. 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)
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner (ICO) if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
6. 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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint from the point he made his homelessness application in October 2023 up until the point the Council issued its final response to his complaint in July 2024.
8. I have not investigated events that have taken place since that time. This includes the Council’s decision to place Mr X in Band 3 of its housing register. If Mr X wishes to complain about events that have taken place since the Council’s complaint response of July 2024, he will first need to raise these concerns with the Council to give it an opportunity to respond.
9. I also have not investigated Mr X’s complaint that the Council lost his personal medical information. This is because the Ombudsman will not usually investigate complaints relating to data protection as the ICO was set up to adjudicate over complaints relating to personal data.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered all the information Mr X provided about his complaint. I also considered information received from the Council.
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

Relevant law and policy

12. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
13. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
14. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. (Housing Act 1996, Section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)
15. While a Council is carrying out inquiries in an applicant’s case, it must also secure accommodation for the applicant 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. (Housing Act 1996, Section 188)
16. Councils must take reasonable steps to help secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the relief duty.
17. The Homelessness Code of Guidance says that where the council is satisfied that the applicant has a priority need and has become homeless unintentionally, the relief duty comes to an end after 56 days.
18. If the applicant’s homelessness has not been successfully relieved by then, the Council will owe them the main housing duty. The Council must ensure suitable accommodation is available for the applicant and their household until that duty is completed. (Housing Act 1996, Section 192(2))

What happened

19. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
20. Mr X contacted the Council early in October 2023 to explain he had been ordered to vacate his property by 26 October and would become homeless. The Council completed a homelessness assessment which found Mr X was threatened with homelessness, was entitled to assistance from the Council, and had a priority need due to medical conditions.
21. The medical information Mr X provided at that time gave information about medical conditions he had but did not specify that he required a particular type of accommodation or specific amenities or adaptations. However, Mr X told the Council he his kidney issues affected his urinating, and other medical issues affected his mobility.
22. The Council provided Mr X with interim accommodation on 26 October. The accommodation was a private room in a property shared by four people, with two bathrooms.
23. Mr X contacted the Council on 28 October to say the interim accommodation was not suitable. Mr X said his kidney problems meant it was not suitable for him to share a bathroom.
24. The Council agreed to reconsider the suitability of the property, and Mr X provided copies of his medical records to support his position. The medical records specified which conditions Mr X had but did not say he needed sole use of a toilet.
25. The Council did not respond to Mr X.
26. Mr X Contacted the Council again on 22 February 2024 asking it to move him to new interim accommodation. The Council considered the suitability of the property but found it held no medical information to suggest it was unsuitable and made an urgent referral for an independent medical assessment.
27. The Council also offered Mr X new interim accommodation. This was a self-contained studio flat with its own toilet. Mr X rejected this as he said the bathroom was too small, and steep stairs made it inaccessible for him.
28. The Council received the outcome of the independent medical assessment on 26 February. The medical practitioner considered Mr X’s mental and physical health issues and concluded he was not significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary person and made no housing recommendations based on specific medical grounds.
29. The Council wrote to Mr X on 2 May to explain it had accepted a relief duty to him and provide a PHP. The Council asked that Mr X provide any updates on his medical conditions so it could reconsider these as necessary.
30. On 20 May Mr X asked the Council to review his PHP. The Council acknowledged this request and said it aimed to complete the review within five weeks.
31. Mr X complained to the Council on 26 May. Mr X said the Council had made mistakes in its handling of his application, had not considered his medical information and has not communicated with him properly.
32. The Council reviewed Mr X’s PHP with him on 3 July. The Council noted the relief duty had now come to an end and it now needed to decide whether it owed a further duty. It also noted it had no further evidence to suggest his medical conditions had changed.
33. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 5 July. It explained it had properly assessed Mr X’s case based on the information he had provided. The Council said it understood the importance of regular communication and apologised where it had fallen short of this. The Council also acknowledged there had been a delay in progressing Mr X’s application and said a caseworker would contact him now a main housing decision was due.
34. In response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed it had all the information to accept a relief duty to Mr X and issue a PHP on 16 October 2023. It has accepted it was at fault for not doing so until 2 May 2024. It has accepted the relief duty would then have ended on 15 December 2023. Since the complaint has been with us, the Council has accepted it owes Mr X a main housing duty and he has been placed in Band 3 of its housing register.

Analysis

35. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We are not here to substitute the Council’s opinion for our own, and it is not our role to take a second look at decisions to decide if they were right or wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decisions. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, and they were in line with the relevant law and guidance, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with it.
36. Mr X has said the interim accommodation the Council placed him in was not suitable for his medical needs as he did not have sole use of a toilet. The Council considered the medical evidence it held for Mr X and noted it referred to urinary issues, but did not state he needed sole use of a toilet. The Council was aware the accommodation had two toilets to be shared between four people and decided this was suitable, even when considering Mr X’s medical evidence. As the Council considered all the information available to it I do not find fault with its decision-making process.
37. However, I can see no evidence the Council wrote to Mr X with an outcome of the review in October 2023. This is fault and would have caused real frustration for Mr X, which is injustice.
38. In February 2024, after he contacted it again, the Council offered Mr X a self-contained studio flat. Mr X refused this as he felt the stairs were too steep, and the bathroom was too small. The Council requested an independent medical assessment which noted Mr X’s mobility and urinary issues but concluded he was not significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary person and had no specific housing needs as a result. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with this, but I do not find fault with the process the Council followed to make its decision.
39. The Council has agreed it had all the information to accept a relief duty to Mr X on 16 October 2023 but did not do so until 2 May 2024. This is a delay of around seven months, which is fault and would have caused uncertainty and frustration for Mr X, which is injustice.
40. Had the Council accepted a relief duty to Mr X on 16 October 2023, this would have come to an end on 15 December 2023. It is at this point that the Council would have had to give him an answer on whether it owed him the main housing duty. Mr X was still waiting for an answer by the end point of my investigation, in July 2024. This is a delay of seven months, which is fault and would have caused real uncertainty and frustration for Mr X, which is injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

41. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault identified above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions:
42. Within one month of my final decision:
• Provide Mr X with a written apology for failing to provide him with an outcome of his request to review the suitability of his interim accommodation in October 2023, and for the delays in deciding what duties it owed him.
• Pay Mr X £500 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty caused by the delays in making decisions and for failing to provide a written outcome to his October 2023 request to review the suitability of his interim accommodation.
43. Within three months of my final decision:
• Carry out a review of its process for assessing homelessness applications to ensure these are progressed in line with statutory time limits going forward.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I find the Council at fault for delays in the process of deciding whether it owed Mr X any housing duties and for failing to respond to his request to review the suitability of his interim accommodation. I do not find fault with how the Council decided the interim accommodation was suitable. The Council has accepted the recommendations above and I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman