Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with Mr and Mrs Y’s housing situation. We found fault because the Council delayed moving Mr and Mrs Y from unsuitable temporary accommodation causing distress. We have recommended a suitable remedy for the injustice caused so have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains for Mr and Mrs Y about the way the Council dealt with their housing situation. In particular Ms X says the Council:
• Delayed in accepting the main housing duty towards Mr and Mrs Y without justification or notice.
• Failed to advise of a right to request a review about the suitability of their accommodation when it accepted the main housing duty.
• Failed to respond to requests to carry out a review of suitability and to provide information about potential offers.
• Failed to provide Mr and Mrs Y with suitable temporary accommodation for over a year.
• Failed to consider a request to award Mr and Mrs Y Band 1 housing priority.
2. Ms X says Mr and Mrs Y have been caused anxiety and distress about their housing situation which has impacted onto Mrs Y’s mental health.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), 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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information provided by Ms X. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with the relevant law and guidance.
7. I had regard to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.
8. Ms 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 legislation and guidance

Temporary accommodation

9. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) sets out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, it has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
10. Temporary accommodation is accommodation provided to homeless applicants as part of a council’s main homelessness duty.
11. Councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
12. Council’s must assess whether accommodation is suitable for each household individually. Whether accommodation is suitable will depend on the relevant needs and circumstances of the homeless person and their household. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, 17.4 and 17.9)
13. The duty to provide suitable accommodation is immediate, non-deferrable, and unqualified. Elkundi, R (on the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2022] EWCA Civ 601
14. As the duty to provide suitable accommodation is a continuing obligation, councils must keep the issue of suitability of accommodation under review. If there is a change of circumstances the council must reconsider whether the accommodation remains suitable.
15. Certain decisions council’s make about homelessness carry a statutory right of review. The review decision the carries a right of appeal to court on a point of law. Homeless applicants have a right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, s202)
16. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of receiving the review request. This period can be extended but only if the applicant agrees in writing. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202 and 204)
17. The council must advise applicant of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the Council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204

Housing Allocations

18. 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))

The Council’s Housing Allocations policy

19. The Council assesses housing applicants into one of four priority bands. Band 1 is the highest and Band 4 the lowest priority.
20. The Council’s allocations scheme is called HomeChoice Bristol and is part of a scheme run in partnership with a range of registered providers (housing associations) operating in the Council’s area. It aims to ensure all social/affordable housing is allocated fairly and objectively to those in the greatest housing need.
21. Applicants need to complete a HomeChoice Bristol application form and provide information. Priority is awarded within each band by the date the application was placed in that band. This date is known as the priority date.
22. Once the Council receives the application it will tell applicants of their date of registration, priority band assessment, priority date and application reference number. This enables applicants to manage their housing application including making bids for accommodation.
23. Applicants have the right to request a review of a decision by the Council. This includes a decision on the priority band an applicant is placed into. The decision will be reviewed by an independent officer not involved in the original decision.
24. The Council may intervene and make applicants a direct offer of accommodation to enable it to move people in critical situations into suitable accommodation faster.

What happened

25. What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
26. Mr and Mrs Y approached the Council for housing assistance in December 2022. The Council accepted a relief duty towards them in December 2022. The request for accommodation detailed Mr and Mrs Y’s needs for self-contained accommodation without a shared entrance due to Mrs Y’s mental health needs. And to be near their support network.
27. The Council offered them interim accommodation in a studio flat on 3 January 2023 after eviction from their previous accommodation. The flat was in an area next to their preferred area for support. Mr Y raised concerns about the interim accommodation and impact onto Mrs Y’s mental health. A Council internal email noted on 4 January 2023 it should ‘look for something more suitable ... not sure the studio flat is suitable for them’. The Council told Mr Y it was the best available accommodation then. The Council placed Mr and Mrs Y’s HomeChoice Bristol application in Band 3 Relief Duty according to the Allocations policy.
28. The Council accepted a main housing duty towards Mr and Mrs Y on 27 February 2023 and wrote to tell them of the decision. The Council explained:
• It was required to ensure it made suitable accommodation available for them to occupy. As it was already providing them with interim accommodation, then it would now provide the accommodation under another section of the Housing Act (and become temporary accommodation).
• It would continue to accommodate them until they were either made an offer of social housing or private sector accommodation. Or the Council ended its duty in another way.
• Awarded Mr Y’s application Band 2 Full Homelessness duty priority with an effective date of 16 December 2022. They could bid for one bedroomed properties advertised on the HomeChoice Bristol website.
• They had a right to request a review of any decision relating to the duty which the Council owed them under the homelessness legislation. And the right to request a review of the suitability of any accommodation which was offered to them.
• It may also decide to make them a direct offer of accommodation. But explained a severe shortage of accommodation in Bristol where demand outstripped supply, and it was unlikely the Council would be able to meet all their preferences when offering them accommodation.
29. In April 2023 officers asked Health and Housing services for property recommendations for Mr and Mrs Y. A housing officer dealt with the request. The officer noted Mr and Mrs Y were living in unsuitable accommodation as it was a communal building. Mr Y had no respite from his caring duties towards Mrs Y in the accommodation. And Mrs Y needed a quiet and isolated property due to her mental health needs. The officer recommended they move to a ground floor property or bungalow in a low-density area with no shared facilities.
30. Mental Health Services contacted the Council as Mr and Mrs Y were struggling in the temporary accommodation. The service asked if the Council could make a Direct Offer of accommodation to Mr and Mrs Y to move them. The Council explained it had completed a housing needs assessment, Mr and Mrs Y were on a waiting list to move to alternative accommodation and should continue to bid for properties. The Council contacted Mr and Mrs Y, and they completed a Direct Offer form. The Council told Mr Y he was on the waiting list for a move to alternative temporary accommodation.
31. In April 2023 a social worker contacted the Council about the suitability of Mr and Mrs Y’s accommodation. The Council arranged a sitting service for someone to come in to support Mrs Y’s mental health needs. The Direct Offer team were asked to consider more areas for Mr and Mrs Y.
32. Mr Y contacted the Council in May 2023 asking for an update on a Direct Offer and raised concerns about Mrs Y’s health. The Council told Mr Y to keep bidding for properties. In July 23 an occupational therapist put in an urgent request for Mr and Mrs Y to move due to Mrs Y’s mobility problems. The Council confirmed management had agreed a move but there were pressures due to the limited availability of accommodation.
33. Mr Y contacted the Council again in July 2023 about a move, issues with Mrs Y’s mobility and conditions at the accommodation. The Council advised Mr Y officers had requested they move to more suitable accommodation. Mental Health Services reported in September 2023 Mrs Y’s mental health was worsening. The Council said Mr and Mrs Y were still on the urgent transfer list and the case already escalated to management. Mr Y also contacted the Council several times for an update.
34. A housing adviser contacted Mr Y in October 2023 and apologised for being on an extended absence so unable to reply. The adviser said based on the recommendations from Health and Housing it had a suitable family unit for them to move to. But the property needed void works before being available.

Ms X’s complaint to Council

35. Ms X complained to the Council in November 2023 for Mr and Mrs Y. Ms X said Mr and Mrs Y had been in unsuitable accommodation since 3 January 2023. Ms X asked why the Council had not made Mr and Mrs Y an offer of suitable accommodation and to explain the action taken so far to move them. The Council said it could not move Mr and Mrs Y because it had no accommodation to meet their needs. However, the Council was waiting to move them into a one bedroomed property which needed repairs. It could not say when the property would be available or offered to Mr and Mrs Y.
36. In January 2024 the Council updated Mr and Mrs Y’s HomeChoice Bristol banding to Band 1 due to their exceptional need to move.
37. Ms X raised further concerns about the impact of the temporary accommodation onto Mr and Mrs Y. Ms X said:
• The Council failed to carry out a review of Mr and Mrs Y’s housing needs despite Mr Y telling the Council it was unsuitable, material changes in their circumstances and various requests from professionals. And it failed to make a fresh decision on the suitability of accommodation. But despite this the Council did not offer alternative accommodation so Mr and Mrs Y had been struggling in their accommodation for 10 months.
• The Council had delayed issuing main duty decision to Mr and Mrs Y in February 2023, so they missed being able to bid for properties.
• The Council had not told Mr and Mrs Y of their rights to request a review so they were unaware they could do so until Ms X’s involvement.
• The Council failed consider a request for housing priority band 1 for Mr and Mrs Y due to their exceptional circumstances.
38. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaints. The Council said it:
• Had acknowledged the current temporary accommodation did not meet Mr and Mrs Y’s needs due to their medical needs and impact the accommodation was having on them. It did not consider it had failed in its duty and had taken appropriate action by trying to source alternative accommodation.
• Advised Mr Y in November 2023 of the extensive searches made to source suitable accommodation to meet their housing need. This had proven difficult given Mr and Mrs Y’s specific needs and the shortage of available accommodation either permanent or temporary. In addition, nothing suitable had become readily available and there was demand on properties. The Council noted Mr and Mrs Y were bidding for properties and been awarded Band 2, the second highest banding priority.
• Confirmed it considered Mr and Mrs Y’s case at Direct Offer meetings. It could transfer them to hotel accommodation but recognised this was far from ideal for them.
• Had matched Mr and Mrs Y for a property, but void works needed completing. The Council said it was pushing for a timescale for completion.
• Had matched Mr and Mrs Y to a Direct Offer flat while the void works were being done to the property. The Council said it was waiting for surveyors to sign off the flat. It would then update and formalise the offer in writing to Mr and Mrs Y.
• Apologised for a 3-week delay in issuing main duty letter in February 2023. But did not consider this prejudiced Mr and Mrs Y as it had backdated their effective date on HomeChoice Bristol to 16 December 2022, the date it accepted the Relief Duty towards them. The Council said considering the circumstances of the case and severe shortage of accommodation it was unlikely Mr and Mrs Y would have been successful in bidding for suitable accommodation and rehoused sooner
• Recognised the temporary accommodation did not meet their needs. It had already considered the medical information and letters of support provided before Ms X’s involvement. But explored several options including hotel accommodation which were not ideal for Mr and Mrs Y. The Council confirmed it told Ms X in November 2023 it had been unable to move Mr and Mrs Y because it had no accommodation to meet their needs. But they were waiting for a move to a direct offer property identified as suitable but undergoing repairs.
• Moved Mr and Mrs Y in the one bed property on 2 February 2024. This was a permanent offer of accommodation because of a Direct Offer. The Council said considering prevailing housing demands and waiting times for social housing in Bristol this had been a good result.
39. The Council apologised for difficulties and upset caused to Mr and Mrs Y since their move to temporary accommodation in January 2023. But consider its housing services had taken their health needs seriously and did all within their control to secure accommodation for them that met their needs as soon as it could. The Council said it had secured permanent accommodation for them more swiftly than for many other people waiting to be rehoused.
40. Ms X sought compensation for Mr and Mrs Y alleging there had been failures, and delays by the Council. The Council responded it had upheld the complaint Mr and Mrs Y were in unsuitable temporary accommodation. But did not agree with Ms X’s allegations about its handling of Mr and Mrs Y’s case. The Council says it gave Mr and Mrs Y advice on private renting help, placed them on a Direct Offer list for a quicker final offer. It made a transfer request with the Accommodation team for further emergency accommodation. And highlighted to the Family Commissioned Temporary Accommodation Coordinator for a potential move. The Council offered Mr and Mrs Y a goodwill payment of £350 to acknowledge the inconvenience caused to them.
41. The Council confirms it is planning to move away from hotels and purchasing from private landlords who provide unsupported emergency accommodation. But since the COVID 19 pandemic the number of households in temporary accommodation has increased in the Council’s area and nationally with increasing costs. The Council proposes to take some action including transferring some of its general needs housing stock each month to use for temporary accommodation. This will provide emergency while the Council assesses a person’s needs, and they wait for a more permanent home. The Council will trial and review the scheme. It also proposes to buy former Council properties from the open market for use as general needs and temporary accommodation.

Assessment

42. Mr and Mrs Y were at the accommodation provided by the Council from 3 January 2023 until 2 February 2024. The accommodation was interim accommodation between 3 January 2023 until 27 February 2023 when the Council accepted a housing duty towards them. While the accommodation was interim accommodation Mr and Mrs Y had no statutory suitability review and appeal rights. Nevertheless, the Housing Act 1996 requires that the interim accommodation must be legally suitable for the individuals.
43. The accommodation became temporary accommodation from 27 February 2023 onwards when the Council accepted a main housing duty towards Mr and Ms Y. Ms X complained the Council did not advise Mr and Mrs Y of their review and appeal rights about the suitability of the temporary accommodation. Or that the Council did not carry out a suitability review once there was a change of circumstances and information from professionals about Mr and Mrs Y.
44. I am satisfied the Council’s letter explaining about the decision to award the main housing duty did advise Mr and Mrs Y of their right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation. However, the evidence shows the Council did not consider the accommodation was suitable for Mr and Mrs Y for most of the time they lived there. Therefore, while I note Ms X’s concerns about review and appeal rights the unsuitability of the accommodation had been established. So, there was no dispute for Mr and Mrs Y to review/appeal against.
45. The Council accepted Mr and Mrs Y were in unsuitable accommodation and says it was due to not having anywhere suitable for them. The Council has explained the difficulties in finding temporary accommodation in its area. We are mindful of the difficulties in procuring housing in Bristol and nationally and note the action being taken by the Council to increase the availability of interim and temporary accommodation. But the Council’s legal duty (Housing Act 1996, s206) is to provide suitable interim or temporary accommodation immediately, not just to try to do so or to wait until something suitable becomes available from Council’s usual supply. We therefore regard councils leaving people in admittedly unsuitable interim or temporary accommodation as service failure and this is fault. Recent case law supports this view.
46. I consider therefore there was fault by the Council as soon as it decided the property was unsuitable for Mr and Mrs Y as it should have moved them to more suitable accommodation. The Council has not specified when it first considered the accommodation was unsuitable. Mr Y and a social worker contacted the housing department in March and April 2023 implying they did not consider the accommodation was suitable. So, it is likely the Council’s decision on suitability was made before 24 April 2023 because the Council said then it had put Mr and Mrs Y on a waiting list for alternative temporary accommodation.
47. However, the Council the Council should have considered the suitability of the accommodation before it offered it to Mr and Mrs Y. The Council noted on 3 January 2023 the interim accommodation was the best it could do, which implies it was not suitable. Mr Y emailed the Council immediately on getting to the accommodation saying it was not suitable. A Council internal email on 4 January 2023 asked if officers could ‘look for something more suitable’ and ‘not sure a studio flat is suitable for them’. So, the Council at least suspected it was not suitable then, but replied saying it had very limited supply. However, the Council’s duty is to provide immediate suitable accommodation.
48. So, on the balance of probabilities, I consider the Council left Mr and Mrs Y in unsuitable accommodation from January 2023 until February 2024, a total of 13 months. This has caused an injustice to Mr and Mrs Y and caused them distress.
49. Our Guidance on remedies suggests £150-350 a month for being without suitable accommodation. So, I consider the Council’s offer of £350 in total is insufficient to remedy the injustice caused to Mr and Mrs Y. The evidence shows Mr and Mrs Y were being supported by professionals while living at the accommodation. And council officers were taking action to try and find alternative accommodation. I therefore consider a payment of £150 a month for living in unsuitable temporary accommodation is appropriate and a proportionate remedy in this case. So, recommend payment of £1950 in total for the 13 months Mr and Mrs Y were housed in unsuitable accommodation.
50. Ms X has also raised concerns about a 17-day delay in the Council making a decision to accept a main housing duty towards Mr and Mrs Y. The Council has accepted a delay but considers it did not prejudice Mr and Mrs Y. This is because it was unlikely they would have been successful in bidding for a property during that time, which I would also consider to be the case. Ms X says the additional time taken also delayed Mr and Mrs Y’s right to request a suitability review. However, as I considered the issue of unsuitability was already established by February 2023, the Council’s delay has not caused a significant injustice to Mr and Mrs Y to warrant further investigation on this issue.
51. Ms X complained the Council failed to consider a request to award Mr and Mrs Y Band 1 priority to enable them to move quickly. The Council’s document show the Council did consider Mr and Mrs Y’s situation, awarded them band 1 priority and made a direct offer of accommodation. This enabled Mr and Mrs Y to move to permanent accommodation.

Back to top

Agreed action

52. To remedy the injustice, I have identified in paragraph 48 within one month of my final decision the Council will:
• Send a written apology to Mr and Mrs Y for the delay in moving them from unsuitable temporary accommodation. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Make them a payment of £1950 in recognition of the distress caused by the delay.
53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council as it delayed moving Mr and Mrs Y into more suitable accommodation and this cause injustice. I have recommended a suitable remedy for the injustice caused in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman