Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to move him from unsuitable accommodation, wrongly closed his homeless application, failed to tell him about his right to request a review, delayed awarding medical priority and delayed responding to his complaint. The Council delayed providing Mr B with suitable accommodation, failed to follow the right process when closing his homeless application, failed to tell him about his review rights, failed to properly consider his medical priority and delayed responding to his complaint. That meant Mr B stayed in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary which caused him distress. An apology and payment to Mr B, alongside a reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained the Council:
• failed to move him from unsuitable accommodation;
• failed to tell him he could ask for a review of the suitability of the accommodation provided;
• wrongly closed his homeless application;
• failed to tell him he could ask for a review of the Council’s decision not to award him medical priority in 2022;
• delayed awarding him medical priority; and
• delayed responding to his complaint and failed to respond to his correspondence and contacts.
2. Mr B says the Council’s actions left him having to stay with friends as the accommodation the Council provided was unsuitable and caused him significant distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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.
7. 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

8. I am exercising the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate what has happened since the offer of accommodation to discharge the Council’s duty in March 2022. That is because I am satisfied Mr B is a vulnerable adult and did not receive the right information about how he could challenge the Council’s decisions. I am also satisfied Mr B believed a solicitor was helping him when that was not the case.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
10. Mr B and the organisation 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

Legislative background

11. Under section 166A of the Housing Act 1996 a housing applicant has the right to request a review of a housing allocation decision and to be informed of the decision on the review and the grounds for it.

The homelessness code of guidance (code of guidance)

12. Section 15.17 says all accommodation provided under Part 7 of the 1996 Housing Act must be suitable for the applicant and their household.
13. Section 15.39 says where an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance and has a priority need for accommodation, the housing authority has a duty under section 193(2) to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). This is commonly known as 'the main housing duty'.
14. Section 15.40 says the accommodation secured must be available for occupation by the applicant together with any other person who normally resides with them as a member of their family, or any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with them. It must be suitable for their occupation.
15. Section 17.4 says space and arrangement will be key factors in determining the suitability of accommodation. However, consideration of whether accommodation is suitable will require an assessment of all aspects of the accommodation in the light of the relevant needs, requirements and circumstances of the homeless person and their household. The location of the accommodation will always be a relevant factor.
16. Section 17.5 says housing authorities will need to consider carefully the suitability of accommodation for households with particular medical and/or physical needs. Physical access to and around the home, space, bathroom and kitchen facilities, access to a garden and modifications to assist people with sensory loss as well as mobility needs are all factors which might need to be taken into account.
17. Section 17.7 says accommodation that is suitable for a short period, for example accommodation used to discharge an interim duty pending inquiries under section 188, may not necessarily be suitable for a longer period, for example to discharge a duty under section 193(2).
18. Section 17.9 says housing authorities are required to assess whether accommodation is suitable for each household individually, and case records should demonstrate they have taken the statutory requirements into account in securing the accommodation.
19. Section 17.57 says account should be taken of medical facilities and other support currently provided for the applicant and their household. They should also consider whether similar facilities are accessible and available near the accommodation being offered and whether there would be any specific difficulties in the applicant or person residing with them using those essential facilities, compared to the support they are currently receiving.
20. Section 17.62 says when making offers of accommodation to an applicant a housing authority should make clear in the offer letter why they consider the property to be suitable, taking into account the needs of the applicant and their household. If any members of the household have health problems the authority should state how their medical needs may be met in the district where the accommodation is located.
21. Section 17.70 says applicants may ask for a review of the housing authority's decision that the accommodation offered to them is suitable.

The Council’s homelessness accommodation policy

22. This says the Council's homelessness prevention approach is aimed at reducing the need to place households in temporary accommodation and instead moving them onto settled and sustainable accommodation. It says this approach means families should spend little or no time in temporary accommodation and should not face repeated moves and disruptions.
23. It says for an applicant owed the statutory homelessness prevention or relief duty who can sustain a tenancy the Council will make a maximum of three reasonable offers of affordable private rented housing. In making those offers the Council will consider individual circumstances including timescale, affordability, household preferences and needs. An acceptance of any suitable offer will end the Council statutory duty.
24. When deciding if a property is suitable the Council will complete a suitability assessment and will take the following factors into account:
• affordability;
• location;
• services, amenities and transport;
• employment;
• children;
• education;
• childcare and other caring responsibilities;
• medical and health issues (including any current ongoing treatment and support and the possibility of transferring to a new healthcare provider closer to the property);
• family and community support.
25. Temporary accommodation is usually allocated on the day the household needs it. The Council considers the same factors for deciding what accommodation will be offered as for procuring private rented accommodation.
26. Due to affordability the Council's main source of in borough temporary accommodation is in hostels. Where a hostel is not suitable the Council will normally procure nightly rated annex accommodation which is a self-contained flat or house in the private rented sector.
27. Households are informed of any housing duty owed to them and any decision to house them in temporary accommodation in writing. An offer of accommodation will include a copy of the household’s suitability and disruption form. That form considers the individual circumstances of the household in relation to the property offered to them and any necessary mitigation to its suitability.
28. Applicants have a right to request a review of the suitability of accommodation offered to them under homeless legislation.

The Council’s housing allocation scheme 2018

29. This says the Council must give ‘reasonable preference’ to various groups when allocating housing, including:
• those who need to move due to a medical condition or disability;
• those who need to move for health related or welfare reasons, including care leavers and people with high level support needs,
• those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.
30. It says a housing applicant will be eligible for 100 points when they are owed the main homelessness duty under homelessness law.
31. For medical priority it says there are two levels. Category 1 attracts 500 points if the applicant’s medical condition and housing circumstances are having a serious impact on their health and wellbeing and they are in urgent need of rehousing. Category 2 attracts 150 points if their medical condition and housing circumstances are having a serious impact on their health and wellbeing and rehousing would be necessary.
32. It says the Council will assess applications for medical priority within 21 working days.
33. Annex B lists the type of circumstances when category 1 and category 2 will apply.

Background

34. Mr B became homeless in November 2021. The hospital he was in contacted the Council to arrange a homeless application. The hospital told the Council Mr B could manage one flight of stairs but ideally needed a lift and self-contained accommodation. The Council placed Mr B in hostel accommodation. Mr B did not access that accommodation and told the Council he was staying with a friend as he needed looking after.
35. The Council accepted the main housing duty on 9 February 2022.
36. The Council identified shared accommodation for Mr B in February 2022 and Mr B visited it and signed the tenancy agreement. On 2 March 2022 the Council discharged its duty.
37. Mr B contacted the Council on 18 March as he had understood the property was temporary accommodation but the tenancy was for 12 months. Mr B said staying in the property with other people was impacting on his mental health due visible medical issues. Mr B said he had difficulty accessing the accommodation on the third floor.
38. Mr B’s friend contacted the Council on 23 March. Mr B’s friend told the Council Mr B was struggling to live with other people and not eating properly. The Council told Mr B’s friend Mr B had 21 days to ask for a review of the suitability of the accommodation.
39. A Council officer visited Mr B on 29 March. Following that Mr B provided the Council with medical evidence. The Council consulted an occupational therapist who recommended self-contained accommodation.
40. The Council reviewed Mr B’s case in April 2022. The Council noted as Mr B did not receive a personal independence payment (PIP) he only qualified for benefits for shared accommodation. The Council therefore considered Mr B suitably housed. The Council told Mr B that.
41. On 16 May Mr B asked the Council to review the decision to end its homelessness duty.
42. The Council wrote to Mr B on 5 July to tell him following the review it had decided to withdraw the decision on his homeless application. The Council told Mr B it would look for alternative accommodation.
43. In July 2022 Mr B told the Council he had applied for PIP. The Council provided Mr B with a medical assessment form on 29 July.
44. Mr B completed a suitability form on 12 August 2022. The Council noted on that form the benefit cap did not apply to the complainant as he was receiving PIP.
45. The Council emailed Mr B on 16 August to outline his options. The Council told Mr B under the benefit regulations he could only afford shared accommodation. The Council suggested accommodation in the supported housing pathway where after six months Mr B would become exempt from the shared room rate. Mr B declined as he did not consider shared accommodation suitable. The Council said unless he received PIP he could only get benefits for shared accommodation. The Council outlined Mr B’s options.
46. The Council’s medical adviser gave an opinion on Mr B’s medical priority on 7 September 2022. The medical adviser said as Mr B was living in accommodation with normal facilities medical priority did not apply. The Council accepts it did not write to Mr B to tell him that or give him the right to seek a review of that decision.
47. In November 2022 Mr B told the Council he was receiving PIP.
48. There is no further documentary evidence of contact between the Council and Mr B until the Council noted Mr B’s case needed to be referred into the hostel pathway in July 2023.
49. The Council tried to contact Mr B in October 2023. Following that contact Mr B provided the Council with further medical evidence.
50. In November 2023 Mr B told the Council he visited his accommodation once every two weeks as he could not access the third floor due to mobility issues. Mr B said he had applied for medical points but had heard nothing. Mr B asked for a further medical assessment.
51. The Council asked Mr B for medical information. Mr B provided further evidence on 5 January 2024. Mr B’s psychologist also contacted the Council on 11 January to say Mr B needed to move from his accommodation as living with other people was triggering his PTSD.
52. On 25 January the Council made a referral for temporary accommodation in the supported accommodation pathway. That included self-contained accommodation.
53. Mr B provided further medical information in February 2024 when he also confirmed he had fallen down the stairs at his temporary accommodation.
54. In April 2024 the Council suggested hotel accommodation. Mr B raised concerns about that given two years had passed. Mr B said he needed a self-contained unit. Mr B also said he did not want further temporary accommodation.
55. On 15 May the Council received advice from the occupational therapist. The occupational therapist said Mr B needed a property with a lift or no more than five steps and that he may also need a shower. The occupational therapist said a room in a hostel may not be the answer because Mr B did not need to be reminded of what had happened to him by being asked questions when he saw anyone.
56. The Council made a further referral for accommodation in the supported accommodation pathway on 28 June.
57. On 22 August the Council offered Mr B alternative temporary accommodation. Mr B refused that accommodation as the location was unsuitable and he was concerned about having another temporary accommodation.
58. The Council received further medical advice on 23 August. That medical advice said Mr B should receive 150 points for medical priority with first floor maximum or lifted, noting out of borough and private rented were suitable.
59. On 27 August the Council offered Mr B self-contained temporary accommodation which had 12 steps. Mr B refused due to the stairs, the fact it was temporary and because the kitchen was in the same place where there would also be a bed which would not be good for his mental health. Mr B said he would have to wait until better accommodation was found that fit his needs and medical conditions even if it was temporary.
60. On 2 September Mr B asked for a stage two review of his medical priority. Mr B said he wanted to continue bidding for a permanent property as he could not live in a temporary place or a place that had a kitchen near the bed like both the studios the Council had offered him. Mr B’s psychologist also contacted the Council to outline why an open plan property would be an impossible environment for Mr B to live in due to his experience.
61. On 3 September the Council outlined Mr B’s options for him. They were:
• remain where he was while he bid;
• move to another temporary accommodation with a separate kitchen while he continued to bid; or
• ask the Council to look for private rented housing with a separate kitchen.
62. Mr B said he would prefer to move to another temporary property with a separate kitchen while he continued to bid. The Council asked the temporary accommodation team to look for suitable properties.
63. The Council received further medical advice on 23 October. That medical advice said provided the kitchen was separate there was no medical reason Mr B could not have a studio flat. The medical adviser said a one-bedroom property was not medically essential and the threshold for higher medical priority was not met.
64. On 29 October the Council asked Mr B if he would consider one-bedroom accommodation in Stratford. Mr B said that would be too far away from his support network and hospital.
65. Mr B provided more information in support of his medical priority review in November 2024. Mr B’s psychologist also provided further information and explained why Mr B needed to be near to his support network and in a self-contained property.
66. The Council suggested an open plan property to Mr B in November 2024, which he declined. The Council then offered self contained hotel accommodation. Mr B told the Council the location was not suitable.
67. Mr B provided further documentation for a review of his medical priority in December 2024 and January 2025. The Council completed its review in February 2025 and did not change the medical priority.
68. Mr B accepted a permanent self-contained property and moved in during March 2025.

Analysis

69. Mr B says the Council failed to move him from unsuitable accommodation. Mr B says because of his injuries he cannot stay in shared accommodation and the Council failed to recognise that and move him to self-contained accommodation.
70. I am satisfied Mr B raised concerns about the suitability of the property in March 2022. I am satisfied the Council considered those concerns given it sought advice from an occupational therapist and a manager then considered the case. Although I recognise the occupational therapist considered Mr B needed self-contained accommodation due to difficulty sharing with other people I am also satisfied the Council considered the fact Mr B could only get benefit to fund shared accommodation. The Council decided the property was suitable on that basis. I cannot criticise the Council for reaching that view. However, I have seen no evidence the Council wrote to Mr B to confirm that decision and that is fault.
71. The Council accepts when it closed Mr B’s homeless application in March 2022 it failed to send the letter outlining its view as to why the accommodation the Council had provided Mr B with was suitable. That is also fault.
72. Because of that I am satisfied the Council reopened Mr B’s homeless application in July 2022. At that point the Council should either have written to Mr B to tell him his accommodation was now temporary accommodation and give him the right to request a review of the suitability of that accommodation. Or, in the alternative, the Council should have sent a new discharge of duty decision correcting the technical errors with the first one. That would have given Mr B the right to request a review. Failing to do either left Mr B in a situation where the Council was obliged to provide him with suitable temporary accommodation but because the Council had not told Mr B he did not have the usual review and appeal rights. That is fault.
73. I note though when reopening Mr B’s homeless application the Council wrote to him to say it would look for an alternative property for him. I have seen no evidence the Council did that until 2024. That is fault. I recognise as Mr B did not have PIP he could only have secured benefits to pay for shared accommodation before August 2022. So, while I consider the Council at fault I do not consider that likely resulted in an injustice to Mr B before August 2022. That is because the Council could not have placed him in a property he could not afford and therefore any alternative accommodation would still have been shared.
74. The Council says it discussed various options with Mr B in August 2022 and he failed to get back to the Council to say what he wanted to do. However, the Council knew Mr B had applied for PIP and that his accommodation was unsuitable for his needs. In those circumstances I would have expected the Council to keep in touch with Mr B to confirm if and when he received PIP. I have seen no evidence the Council did that. I am satisfied though the Council knew in August 2022 Mr B was receiving PIP as that is recorded on the suitability form he completed. The Council should therefore have identified Mr B could now afford self-contained accommodation. Failure to recognise that and to seek self-contained accommodation for Mr B until 2024 is therefore fault.
75. I recognise the Council has referred to difficulties securing enough self-contained accommodation for those homeless applicants that need it. I do not underestimate that. However, the Council had sufficient information in Mr B’s case to show he needed self-contained accommodation and knew from August 2022 he could afford self-contained accommodation. The Council’s responsibility is to provide suitable temporary accommodation immediately rather than only when the Council can identify suitable accommodation. Failure to do that from August 2022 is therefore fault.
76. The Council says when it offered Mr B alternative temporary accommodation in 2024 he decided to wait for permanent accommodation instead. The Council says as Mr B did not want to move to alternative temporary accommodation and he could not have secured permanent accommodation before 2024 he has not suffered an injustice. The evidence I have seen though satisfies me although Mr B raised concerns about the accommodation offered in August 2024 being further temporary accommodation he also made clear he would consider better accommodation that fit his needs even if it was temporary.
77. In any event, I consider the situation in 2024 significantly different as by that point Mr B had received a medical assessment which gave him further priority on the Council’s housing register. Mr B had also been registered on the Council’s housing register for more than two years. In those circumstances it is not surprising Mr B would have chosen to stay in the allocated temporary accommodation until he secured permanent accommodation. That is because he was unlikely to have to remain in temporary accommodation for more than a few months.
78. That was not the same in 2022 and 2023 though. In both years Mr B had no immediate prospect of securing a permanent tenancy. I therefore consider it likely, on the balance of probability, if the Council had offered Mr B self-contained temporary accommodation in either 2022 or 2023 he would have accepted it. As the Council must ensure the accommodation provided to a homeless applicant is suitable and that responsibility is immediate, failure to do that is fault. That meant Mr B stayed in temporary accommodation for longer than he should have.
79. The Ombudsman normally recommends an amount between £150 per month and £350 per month for a person having to stay in unsuitable accommodation. In this case I recognise Mr B spent a large part of his time staying with friends rather than living in the temporary accommodation due to his difficulties. I therefore consider £150 per month a satisfactory remedy for the period August 2022, when the Council knew he had been awarded PIP, until March 2025 when he moved into a new property. That is 31 months and makes a total of £4,650. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.
80. I also recommended the Council remind officers dealing with temporary accommodation of the need to ensure suitability reviews are carried out when concerns are raised. The Council should also remind those officers it has a responsibility to provide suitable accommodation straightaway rather than just when a suitable property becomes available. I further recommended the Council ensure it has a process in place to monitor temporary accommodation cases where it has identified the accommodation provided is unsuitable to ensure alternative accommodation is identified promptly. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
81. Mr B says the Council failed to tell him he could request a review of its decision not to award medical priority in 2022. The Council accepts it did not send Mr B a letter in September 2022 when it made a decision on his medical priority. That is fault and denied Mr B his right to ask for a review.
82. I am also concerned about the decision not to award medical priority in September 2022. That is because there is no evidence the Council took into account Mr B’s medical circumstances and the information he provided in support of his application. As the decision reached in September 2022 did not consider the information Mr B provided I cannot be satisfied the Council considered his case properly. That is fault.
83. I cannot reach a safe conclusion now though about what decision the Council would have taken on medical priority had it properly considered Mr B’s case in 2022. That is because although the Council awarded medical priority in August 2024 it had received updated medical evidence by that point. Some of that medical evidence would not have been available in 2022. I therefore consider Mr B’s injustice is limited to his uncertainty about whether the outcome would have been different.
84. I am concerned though the Council delayed making a decision on Mr B’s medical priority when he requested a further assessment in November 2023. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Mr B had provided the requested medical evidence by February 2024. Under the Council’s allocations scheme it should have made a decision on his medical assessment within 21 working days. However, it failed to do that until August 2024. That delay is fault.
85. I therefore consider Mr B has suffered an injustice as he should have received an additional 150 points within 21 working days of 20 February 2024 when he provided his medical evidence to the Council. Given Mr B secured permanent accommodation within seven months I consider it likely, on the balance of probability, if the Council had not delayed completing the medical assessment Mr B would have moved into permanent accommodation earlier. I make no further recommendation for a financial remedy to reflect the additional time spent in unsuitable temporary accommodation though as I have already recommended the Council pay Mr B £150 per month for that.
86. I consider though Mr B has suffered an additional injustice as he experienced significant distress, had to go to time and trouble to pursue his complaint and is left with some uncertainty about whether his housing situation could have been resolved earlier. To reflect that I recommended the Council pay him an additional £500. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.
87. I further recommended the Council remind officers dealing with medical assessments to ensure decisions following medical assessments are sent to the housing applicant and they are provided with the right to request a review of that decision. I make no further recommendation around complying with timescales as I note the Council agreed to draw up an action plan to address delays completing medical assessments as part of a remedy for a different complaint. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.
88. Mr B says the Council ignored him when he tried to contact it. The Council accepts it did not communicate with Mr B regularly between August 2022 and October 2023. I do not have any evidence of attempts by Mr B to contact the Council during that period though. I outlined elsewhere in this statement the concerns I have about how the Council dealt with some of Mr B’s correspondence.
89. The Council accepts it delayed responding to Mr B’s complaint. The evidence I have seen satisfies me those delays were significant, particularly at stage one. That is fault. It is unlikely to have reassured Mr B the Council was taking his complaint seriously.

Back to top

Action

90. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mr B for the distress and uncertainty he experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• pay Mr £5,150;
• send a memo to officers dealing with homeless applicants in temporary accommodation to remind them of:
1. the need to ensure applicants are informed of their review and appeal rights;
2. the need to complete a suitability review if a person in temporary accommodation raises concerns about the suitability of it;
3. when the Council accepts temporary accommodation is unsuitable it needs to arrange alternative accommodation immediately rather than just try to do so or wait until something suitable becomes available.
• put in place a process to ensure management of those cases where a homeless applicant has been placed in unsuitable temporary accommodation to ensure alternative temporary accommodation is promptly sought;
• remind officers dealing with medical assessments of the need to ensure a formal decision is issued with review rights and that those decisions should ensure all the information the applicant has provided is taken into account.
91. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

92. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman