Summary: Ms K complains the Council failed to provide suitable temporary accommodation. The Council was at fault and it has agreed a remedy.

The complaint

1. Ms K complains the Council has provided unsuitable temporary accommodation and has not offered any suitable long term accommodation. She says the Council has taken too long to consider her circumstances and has not treated her case as a priority. In her view the Council has discriminated against her.

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

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated matters from October 2022 when the Council placed Ms K in her current temporary accommodation. I have not investigated matters before this as Ms K’s complaint is late.
5. 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).
6. Ms K complained to the Ombudsman in April 2024. I have investigated matters from October 2022 as Ms K has pursued a complaint about the suitability of her accommodation since then. However, I do not consider there are good reasons to investigate earlier matters.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have discussed the complaint with Ms K and her representative. I have considered the information she provided. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents it provided. Ms K and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

The main housing duty

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 their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Suitability of accommodation

9. 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 Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
10. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
11. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider, among other matters:
• the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district;
• the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household; and
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)
12. Wherever possible, Councils should avoid using bed and breakfast accommodation. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.33)
13. Bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation can only be used for households which include a pregnant woman or dependent child when no other accommodation is available and then for no more than six weeks. B&B is accommodation which is not self-contained, not owned by the council or a registered provider of social housing and where the toilet, washing, or cooking facilities are shared with other households. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.35).

What happened

14. Ms K had previously approached the Council as homeless in 2021. It had accepted the main housing duty and had applied priority band B based on social hardship grounds. However, Ms K refused an offer of permanent accommodation. The Council discharged its housing duty in January 2022.
15. Ms K had approached the Council as homeless again in June 2022.
16. In October 2022 the Council accepted the main housing duty to Ms K. The Council wrote to Ms K and confirmed its decision. It explained it had awarded priority band D (homelessness applicants who do not satisfy the 10 year continuous residence rule), with a priority date of June 2022.
17. The Council said it had set up autobids for permanent accommodation. It would make weekly bids on her behalf for up to three suitable properties in the Council’s area if she did not make three bids herself. The Council provided a link to details of its choice based letting scheme. It said Ms K could bid by telephone, text or online.
18. The Council placed Ms K in a hotel. However, after a few days Ms K said it was unsuitable for her medical needs. The Council noted Ms K’s wishes and considered the accommodation may be negatively affecting Ms K’s mental health.
19. The Council says it then offered Ms K a one bedroom property in Ruislip which would meet her medical needs as it was either on the ground floor or had a lift. But it says Ms K refused this accommodation and asked whether she could move back into a previous temporary accommodation ground floor room. This was B&B accommodation with a shared kitchen. The room had a sole use shower room and toilet and limited cooking facilities.
20. The Council’s notes made after the event show that it tried to arrange the same ground floor room, but it was not available. It said a room on the first floor was available and Ms K accepted this rather than extend her stay in the hotel or accept the temporary accommodation in Ruislip. The accommodation did not have a lift to the first floor.
21. Ms K says she accepted the room because the Council’s letting officer said it would only be for a short period of time. The Council confirms it did not send Ms K a formal letter offering the accommodation and setting out her right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation.
22. In November the Council started a care assessment of Ms K’s needs. The social worker contacted the temporary accommodation team and stated that a previous occupational therapy report had recommended a property with level access and a shower that could have a shower stool. The occupational therapy report referred to the ground floor room. The social worker advised that she considered the current room was unsuitable.
23. In December 2022 Ms K contacted the Council and asked when it would move her. She said her health was declining. An advice agency asked the Council about how it had considered Ms K’s homeless approach and when she would receive a suitable offer. It said that the Council needed to consider the suitability of B&B accommodation in accordance with the Homelessness Code of Guidance.
24. The Council replied that it had offered Ms K a self contained one bedroom flat in Ruislip or the option to stay in the hotel, but she preferred the B&B accommodation in the same building she had previously lived in. The Council said its resettlement team would look for suitable accommodation that met Ms K’s needs, but it could not give a timescale for this.
25. In January 2023 the Council completed its social care assessment and arranged a small package of care to assist Ms K with weekly shopping. The social worker passed medical information regarding Ms K’s health conditions, and medication. The documents included supporting letter from consultants making recommendations for a level access shower, access to a suitable kitchen and washing machine facilities. The Council confirms that it did not pass this information to its medical adviser.
26. In February 2023 Ms K contacted the Council and said that she was living in an unsuitable property. The Council replied it was still looking and would contact her when it found available accommodation.
27. In March 2023 the Council advised Ms K that she should be looking for suitable affordable accommodation herself. It said it could assist her with a deposit and a months rent in advance. It asked Ms K to provide supporting income and residency information.
28. In mid March Ms K provided the information the Council had requested and submitted a completed medical assessment form. She told the Council that she wanted to stay in the same area she was living in for her support network. The Council added the information it had received to it file and it also added the documents it had received in January regarding Ms K’s health conditions.
29. In April 2023 Ms K’s GP wrote to the Council asking it to rehouse her urgently. Ms K also called the Council and asked when it would rehouse her.
30. In May the Council asked Ms K for further information from her GP about her housing needs. Ms K said she had already provided this information. She also emailed the Council with a list of postcodes she would consider. These were near her current home or along the bus routes to her hospital Some of the places were outside the Council’s area.
31. Later in May the Council received Ms K’s GP’s letter which gave more detail about her housing needs. The Council passed this information to its medical adviser. The Council wrote to Ms K and said that it accepted Ms K’s accommodation was unsuitable. It said it was trying to find suitable accommodation but there was a shortage of adapted properties.
32. At the end of May 2023 the Council’s medical adviser completed his assessment. He recommended that the accommodation should be ground floor with level access and a level access shower. But the recommendation did not change Ms K’s banding. The Council wrote to confirm that Ms K was priority band D. It explained it would make auto bids for her and how she could bid herself.
33. Ms K complained to the Council about her current accommodation and the delay in offering her suitable accommodation. The Council replied that there was a severe shortage of accommodation. It said that its resettlement team was looking for private accommodation. It encouraged Ms K to look for affordable private accommodation.
34. The Council noted Ms K had initially stated she only wanted housing in the same area. It said that only one property had become available in that area. It noted that she had recently referred to areas on bus routes. It said it had amended the autobid to cover these areas. The Council noted Ms K said she had provided an occupational therapist report. However, it said this related to her previous room, not the current room. It did not consider there was evidence of discrimination as Ms K had suggested.
35. In June 2023 the Council’s hardship panel considered whether it should award a higher priority band due to hardship. The Council note that it had previously applied a hardship priority band in 2021. The Council agreed to reinstate the hardship banding based on Ms K’s complex medical needs and potential difficulty in maintaining a private tenancy. The Council wrote to Ms K and confirmed that it had applied band B priority back to June 2022 when she applied as homeless.
36. The Council replied to Ms K’s complaint about its handling of her housing situation. It said it had reinstated band B priority from June 2022. It apologised for any confusion caused. However, it said that there were far more people in need of accommodation than there were properties available.
37. In July 2023 Ms K complained further that the Council had repeated the same things. She said she was in overcrowded unsuitable B & B accommodation which did not meet her medical needs. The Council had asked for the same information that she had already provided. In her view other tenants had been rehoused before her. She said the Council should award Band A.
38. In July the Council replied to Ms K’s complaint at the final stage of its complaint procedure. It said that in October 2022 Ms K had asked for the room she had previously lived in on the ground floor. This was not available so she had agreed to the room on the first floor. It said it had also offered her self contained accommodation in Ruislip as well but Ms K preferred the room on the first floor. The Council had bid on accommodation in the same area but only one property had become available. It had now amended the autobids to more areas and its partner areas. However, it said that limiting the areas meant it was harder to find properties. The Council asked Ms K to provide an occupational therapist report regarding her current accommodation.
39. In September 2023 Ms K provided and occupational therapist report regarding her current room.
40. In December 2023 the Council safeguarding social worker wrote to the resettlement team. She advised that Ms K’s accommodation was unsuitable because she was at risk of falls, fire hazards and unintentional self neglect.
41. In February 2024 the Council arranged a viewing of a one bedroom ground floor flat. However, Ms K said that she was not available and that it was too far to the hospital.
42. In March 2024 the Council submitted all the medical information to its medical adviser. He recommended a Band C based on Ms K’s housing needs. The Council did not change the banding as Ms K had a higher priority band B due to hardship.
43. In June 2024 Ms K complained to the Council via her MP that the Council was discriminating against her. She said the Council had stated it would include partner areas, but it had not offered accommodation. She said the Council had not provided her bidding details. The Council had failed to find a property and was now telling her to seek private accommodation.
44. In June 2024 the Council offered Ms K a Council tenancy. The property was on the ground floor and had a wet room. Ms K refused to attend the viewing because she said it was not close to her support network. The Council sent Ms K a final offer letter explaining that it could discharge its housing duty. It explained how she could request a review of the suitability of the property. It appears Ms K responded but the Council did not accept the reasons she gave.
45. In August 2024 the Council completed a suitability review of Ms K’s temporary accommodation. It accepted that the accommodation was not suitable.
46. The Council offered Ms K further Council tenancy of a ground floor flat in August. Ms K refused this offer.

Analysis

47. I note Ms K says she felt forced into accepting the accommodation. However, I have not seen evidence of this. The Council offered three options and it appears Ms K preferred to move to her current accommodation. I note that Ms K did this on the basis that she would receive an offer of suitable permanent accommodation. However, the Council could not say when an offer was likely to be made. This would depend on many factors. As Ms K was seeking a very limited area this meant that very few properties became available. Only one potential property in Ms K’s area became available which was offered to an applicant with higher priority. There is no fault here.
48. The Council did not send Ms K a formal offer of Ms K’s current temporary accommodation in October 2022 with her review rights. This is fault.
49. I consider it was clear that Ms K was requesting a review of suitability of the accommodation from at least December 2022. She then contacted the Council on a regular basis stating that the accommodation was not suitable and was affecting her health. So, Ms K was not prevented from seeking a review.
50. I consider there was fault by the Council in not carrying out a formal review of the suitability of the accommodation. The Council was aware of Ms K’s requests in December 2022, but did not complete a review until August 2024. It then confirmed the accommodation was unsuitable. This delay was fault. However, I note the Council accepted the accommodation was unsuitable from May 2023 when it emailed Ms K and stated this. In my view the Council should have considered suitability properly by March 2023, as it had received sufficient information from social care, and Ms K’s GP in January.
51. The Council sought permanent accommodation by bidding on Ms K’s behalf. But I have not seen evidence the Council sought alternative temporary accommodation. The Council had a duty to provide suitable accommodation as set out in paragraph 10. This is fault. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Ms K because she was in unsuitable accommodation which did not meet her needs. However, I consider the Council’s offer in June 2024 ended the injustice caused because Ms K refused the offer of suitable accommodation. It appears Ms K did not request a review of its suitability. Therefore, there was injustice to Ms K for 15 months.
52. The Council has provided details of the bids that it made on Ms K’s behalf. This shows that it made two bids in October and November 2022 which were unsuccessful. The Council then made bids on a regular basis between May 2023 and July 2024. Ms K was invited to view two properties but did not attend. Of the other properties, the successful applicants were either in a higher band or had an earlier priority date. I have not found fault with the Council’s actions here.
53. Ms K complained that the Council did not advise her how she could bid. But I have seen the letters setting out her priority and explaining how she could bid. It appears Ms K contacted the Council regarding preferred properties and officers bid on her behalf in addition to making auto bids. There is no fault here.
54. Ms K complained the Council did not contact partner organisations regarding potential offers. The Council has explained that it cannot place bids on partner local authorities’ properties unless they are advertised as a cross borough bid. These are rare and usually advertised by housing associations who are likely to prioritise their own tenants. There is no fault here.
55. The Council has provided evidence that it contacted Hounslow Council regarding private accommodation for Ms K. But it replied there were no suitable properties and that very few properties of that specification became available. There is no fault here.

Back to top

Agreed action

56. I recommend that within one month of my decision the Council should:
• Apologise to Ms K for failing to consider her request for a suitability review.
• Pay Ms K £2250, which is £150 per month for the 15 months she was in unsuitable accommodation and had not received a suitable offer of permanent accommodation.
• Issue a reminder to officers that they send a formal offer letter explaining how to request a suitability review and that they should carry out a suitability review when requested.
57. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

58. The Council has agreed the recommended remedies for the injustice caused by its faults. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman