Summary: The Council was at fault because it delayed responding to Mr X’s review request about the suitability of his temporary accommodation. Mr X was then left in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary. The Council has agreed a financial remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed reviewing the suitability of his temporary accommodation. He asked for a review in February 2023, but it did not consider this for five months. The Council accepted in July 2023 that his accommodation was unsuitable, but it did not provide suitable accommodation until October 2024. He says that his family’s health and wellbeing have been affected by the unsuitable accommodation.

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 investigated

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. Mr X complained in June 2024 regarding the Council’s delay from February 2023. This complaint is late as Mr X was aware of the Council’s delay more than 12 months before he complained. However, I consider there are good reasons to investigate the period from February 2023 because Mr X was taking the complaint through the Council’s complaint procedure and it delayed responding.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents it provided. Mr X 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

Relevant legislation and guidance

Temporary accommodation

7. 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)
8. 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 and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2).
9. 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)
10. Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the suitability of the accommodation (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. Review requests made after 21 days of the temporary accommodation being offered are classed as ‘out of time’ and are dealt with as a non-statutory review. An officer will assess the information provided and reach a decision.

The Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme 2013

12. This sets out the Council’s arrangements for allocating housing accommodation. The Council has four priority bands. Band A is the highest priority and D is the lowest.
13. Band B includes those with an urgent medical need to move. Band C (medium priority) includes those with a less urgent medical need. Band C has two levels. Statutory homeless households owed a full housing duty are in Level 1 of Band C. All others are in Level 2 of Band C.

What happened

14. Mr X had applied to the Council as homeless in 2021 The Council accepted Mr X was homeless and in priority need. It therefore owed Mr X the full housing duty. The Council provided temporary accommodation for Mr X and his family.
15. On 1 February 2023 Mr X complained that the temporary accommodation was unsuitable. He asked the Council to consider the suitability of his accommodation. He also submitted a medical assessment form for his mother, Mrs X, who had a condition which affected her mobility.
16. On 23 February the Council medically assessed Mrs X and agreed that the property was medically unsuitable for her because she had difficulty accessing the property and the bathroom due to stairs. The Council approved Mrs X for category C1 properties with a level access ground floor. But it did not apparently take any action to seek alternative suitable accommodation.
17. In April 2023 Mr X chased the Council for a response to his complaint in February. He said his mother’s condition had worsened and she was now housebound. He asked the Council to escalate his complaint to its second stage and urgently provide suitable accommodation.
18. The Council registered Mr X’s request as a suitability assessment.
19. In late May 2023 the Council replied to Mr X’s complaint. It apologised for the upset it caused. It said it had assessed Mrs X’s medical needs. As the accommodation was problematic for Mrs X due to stairs as well as access to the bathroom, it agreed it would add Mr X to its transfer list for a suitable alternative property. It explained it could not guarantee when he would be offered alternative accommodation due to the demand for housing far outweighing supply.
20. In mid July 2023 the Council completed an internal review of the suitability of Mr X accommodation. It wrote to Mr X and said it had recently referred the medical information regarding Mrs X to its medical advisor. The advisor had recommended ground floor or lifted accommodation and a shower, not a bath. The Council stated its decision was that the property was not suitable and it should transfer the family to alternative accommodation. It said it had asked its temporary accommodation allocation team to identify accommodation and allocate it.
21. The Council says it added Mr X’s application to its transfer list. However, it says that accommodation of the type and size required with a shower in Mr X’s priority areas are rare.
22. In March 2024 Mr X complained to the Council that it had failed in its statutory duty to ensure his family had suitable accommodation. It had accepted his accommodation was unsuitable, but it had not offered him alternative accommodation. He also said the Council delayed carrying out the review.
23. The Council replied to the complaint in April 2024. It acknowledged Mr X had been waiting a long time and apologised for this. But it said demand for accommodation far outstripped supply. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint and said that it would contact him when a property became available.
24. In late April 2024 the Council offered a property to Mr X. But this was not suitable due to its layout. The Council noted Mr X was willing to accept smaller properties with 3 rather than 4 bedrooms.
25. Mr X complained further that it had been 10 months since the Council accepted the property was unsuitable. He said this was causing his family hardship. Mr X referred to the legislation, guidance and caselaw regarding the provision of suitable accommodation. He said putting applicants on a witing list was not a lawful means of fulfilling the Council’s duty. He asked the Council to urgently provide suitable accommodation.
26. In May 2024 the Council replied to Mr X’s stage two complaint. It agreed the Council had accepted his accommodation was unsuitable in July 2023. It said it was trying to find suitable accommodation, but thousands of people were waiting to be rehoused. The Council apologised and said it was trying to find a resolution.
27. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in June 2024.
28. In September 2024 the Council made a direct offer to Mr X of suitable long term permanent accommodation. He accepted. The tenancy started in October 2024.

Analysis

29. The Council took too long to carry out the suitability review. Mr X requested this on 1 February 2023, but the Council did not review suitability until mid July I would have expected the Council to complete the suitability review within 8 weeks, so by the beginning of April 2023. But it took more than five months. I note the Council had already accepted the accommodation unsuitable due to Mrs X’s medical needs based on information it received in February 2023.
30. As the Council had decided the accommodation was unsuitable its duty to provide suitable accommodation was immediate. While there is a severe shortage of accommodation available particularly in London, the Council took far too long to provide alternative suitable accommodation.
31. Mr X’s family was left in unsuitable accommodation for 19 months. This affected Mrs X because she had difficulty accessing the bathroom and the property itself. This is injustice.
32. I made a recommendation to remedy the personal injustice to Mr X.
33. I note from previous complaints to the Ombudsman that the Council recognises the long delays in providing suitable temporary accommodation. It has produced an improvement plan and progress report on reducing the delays in providing suitable accommodation. It has also provided a report detailing its actions to prevent delays in the review process. I consider these are appropriate service improvements and so I have not made any further recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. Within one month of my decision the Council agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X for the frustration and distress caused by its delays. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Mr X £3800 for the injustice caused for the 19 months his family lived in unsuitable accommodation. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

35. There was fault by the Council causing injustice. It has agreed a remedy. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman