Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council has dealt with his family’s homelessness. He said the Council has failed to deal with his complaints that his family have been housed in unsuitable accommodation for an unreasonable amount of time. We found the Council is at fault and has caused an injustice to Mr B. The Council has agreed to provide a personal remedy to Mr and carry out service improvements to avoid a repeat.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council has placed him and his family in unsuitable accommodation, and that they have not been moved for an unreasonably long time. He says his accommodation has had a substantial impact on his family’s mental health.
2. Mr B says he wants the Council to make an immediate offer of suitable accommodation.

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 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)
5. 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

6. We do not investigate complaints about what the Council did more than 12 months ago unless there are good reasons to do so. Although I consider it reasonable to go back for a short time prior to 12 months before Mr B contacted this office, I have not looked at the issues Mr B has raised with the Council before his complaint of mid-2023.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered information provided by the Council and Mr B, alongside the relevant law and guidance.
8. Mr B and the Council were given an opportunity to comment on a draft decision before this final decision is made.

Back to top

What I found

Law and Guidance

9. 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.
10. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
11. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
12. 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)
13. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
14. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
15. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

What happened

16. By way of background, Mr B made a homelessness application to the Council in 2022. In September 2022, the Council accepted the main housing duty and placed him in temporary accommodation.
17. In July 2023, Mr B complained his bids for permanent accommodation had all been unsuccessful and the temporary accommodation provided by the Council was unsuitable for his family’s needs. He explained his child needed a separate bedroom for medical reasons and expressed concerns about other tenants in their building.
18. The Council considered the complaint under its complaints process. At stage one of its complaints process, the Council explained that it had considered the family’s needs against its allocations policy and remained satisfied they were in the correct priority band – emergency. It explained that although they were of high priority, there were a significant number of applicants with even greater need.
19. The Council agreed Mr B’s child requires her own room, and asked Mr B to continue to bid while explaining the reasons there was a significant wait. It also said it was taking action about the reported anti-social behaviour of other tenants in the building.
20. Mr B remained unhappy, and the complaint proceeded to stage two of the Council’s complaint process. Before the Council had issued its stage two response, Mr B placed a bid on a three bedroom property.
21. In the Council’s stage two response, it said that as Mr B remained unhappy with the temporary accommodation, it would look for alternative accommodation for him and his family. Two weeks later, the Council offered the property Mr B had bid on to him.
22. Mr B and his family were due to move to the new accommodation in December 2022, however, Mr B reported that there were issues which meant it needed to be repaired before they could move in. The Council agreed to deal with those issues and placed Mr B and his family in hotels in the interim.
23. After the family had moved into the property, Mr B complained it was unsuitable for his family size.
24. The Council reviewed the suitability of the property, and the panel upheld the review reasons. Although the property has three bedrooms, the third is too small to be classed as a bedroom. The Council reinstated Mr B’s homeless status and allowed him to bid for an alternative property.
25. Mr B was initially told the Council had information that his children were no longer living with him, and he could therefore only bid on one bedroom properties. Since that time, the Council has added his children to the application and Mr B is currently residing in the property he has been in since February 2024, which was accepted to be unsuitable at the end of April 2024. He can bid for three bedroom properties and is in the emergency band for allocation.

Analysis and Findings

26. The Council were aware by July 2023 at the latest that Mr B did not consider the temporary accommodation provided by the Council to be suitable for his family’s needs.
27. Mr B had a right to a suitability review when he first moved into that property, and at any point at which he felt the property was no longer suitable.
28. The Council is at fault here as Mr B specifically explained the property was not suitable for his family’s needs, and it failed to conduct a suitability review. Had this been done, the Council could have reached the point at which it agreed the property was unsuitable sooner. Looking at the time taken for the Council to carry out a suitability review in 2024, the Council’s stage two response took approximately three months longer.
29. Had the Council carried out a suitability review following Mr B’s complaint of July 2023, the best case scenario would have been that he would be moved to a different property. In this circumstance, the Council offered a property Mr B bid on five months after his complaint.
30. I have compared this to the time taken for the Council to carry out its suitability review in 2024. On that basis, the injustice here is the three months’ delay in reaching that outcome.
31. The Council moved Mr B and his family to hotel accommodation while it repaired the permanent accommodation following Mr B’s complaint about disrepair, so the family were moved from the unsuitable temporary accommodation within a reasonable period.
32. When the disrepair had been addressed, and Mr B complained the property was unsuitable, the Council took the correct action by carrying out a suitability review.
33. However, since the decision that Mr B is in unsuitable accommodation in April 2024, he had his family have remained there. This is fault.
34. Once the Council has agreed a property is unsuitable, it must move the family straight away.
35. Every month the family remain in the property since that time is fault and the Council should remedy the injustice caused. Mr B has been very clear that the impact this is having on his family is substantial. On this basis, I am recommending the Council make a payment of £200 per month from the end of April 2024, until the date Mr B is offered suitable accommodation.
36. In addition to this, the Council should address the injustice caused by its failure to carry out a suitability review following the complaint of July 2023. I recommend a further payment of £300 in that regard.
37. I have also recommended the Council make service improvements to ensure that this situation is avoided in future.

Back to top

Agreed action

38. Within one month of the decision, the Council should:

• Apologise to Mr B for the faults identified, in accordance with our guidance on apologies;
• Make a payment of £1,000 for the delay in offering suitable accommodation up to the end of September 2024, and a further £200 per month for every month until the Council makes an offer of suitable accommodation;
• Make a payment of £300 for the delay identified.

39. Within three months of the decision, the Council should:

• Review its process when it receives notification that a property is unsuitable, and ensure all relevant staff are reminded of the Council’s duty to carry out a suitability review.

40. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

41. We found the Council is at fault and has caused an injustice. The Council has agreed to a personal remedy and to carry out service improvements.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman