Summary: Mr B complained that the Council failed to properly consider his medical condition when considering the suitability of his current accommodation. We found the Council delayed in carrying out a review of its decision but we do not consider this caused Mr B an injustice as the decision remained the same.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that Southampton City Council (the Council) failed to properly consider his mental health needs when reviewing the decision to end the relief duty and considering the suitability of his current accommodation. In particular, it has failed to place him in private rented sector accommodation. This caused Mr B distress and frustration as he believes his current property affects his mental health negatively.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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)
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

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr B 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

Suitability of accommodation

5. 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)
6. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of a decision to bring a housing duty to an end and the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193).

Review procedure

7. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)

What happened

8. Mr B approached the Council in 2021 as his landlord had given him six months’ notice to leave the property. He was struggling to find alternative accommodation in the private sector and said he was having problems with estate agents.
9. The Council had accepted him as homeless, and he joined the housing register for one-bedroom accommodation. The Council had given him information about various housing schemes and offered to contribute towards a deposit if he found privately rented accommodation. Mr B said he needed a three bedroom property, and the Council asked him for medical evidence. Mr B completed a vulnerability form.
10. In May 2022 the Council considered medical priority and gave Mr B priority on the housing register for a one-bedroom accessible flat, maximum first floor height or with a lift. Mr B said repeatedly he wanted private sector accommodation and asked the Council to liaise with estate agents to find one. The Council said it could not do this but said it could provide financial help with a deposit and rent in advance if he found his own accommodation in the private sector. It asked him to complete an expenditure form so it could assess affordability of any one-bedroom accommodation in the private sector which came up.
11. In October 2022 Mr B, with assistance from the Council, bid on a one-bedroom housing association flat. In November 2022 he accepted the property but continued to complain he had not been offered property in the private sector and had been treated unfairly.
12. In December 2022 the Council ended its housing duty towards him. Mr B requested a review of the decision on the grounds that the property was not suitable for him. The Council did not start the review.
13. In April 2023 Mr B made a formal complaint to the Council. He said the Council had forced him to take the flat and had been able to find accommodation in the private sector for other people. In May 2023 he said the property was unsuitable for him and his medical evidence had been ignored.
14. In June 2023 the Council responded to his complaint. It partially upheld the complaint as the Council had not carried out the review requested by Mr B in December 2022.
15. The Council sent Mr B’s review to the medical advisor in July 2023 with a letter from his GP dated December 2022. This letter said that living in a one bedroom flat would have a negative impact on his mental health as he would feel trapped and concerned about people living around him. He also needed a property in a quiet area to reduce his stress and anxiety around social interactions. The medical adviser considered Mr B was adequately housed but could still look for accommodation in the private sector if he preferred this.
16. Mr B escalated his complaint to stage two in July 2023. The Council responded in August 2023 but did not uphold the complaint as the review had been done and concluded he was adequately housed. Mr B complained to us in June 2024.
17. In response to my enquiries the Council has sent copies of contact with the medical adviser in June and July 2023, which gave a detailed analysis of Mr B’s mental health needs in relation to his current accommodation.

Analysis

18. I understand Mr B is unhappy with his current accommodation and believes it makes his mental health condition worse. However, we are not an appeal body and we do not review or retake decisions the Council has made. Our role is to look at the way the Council made a decision. If we do not find fault with that process, we cannot change the decision. If we do find fault, we are likely to ask the Council to make the decision again.
19. Mr B bid on a property, accepted the offer, signed a tenancy and moved in. He then requested a review of the decision to end the housing duty because the accommodation was unsuitable for him. I have not found fault with this process and there is no evidence that Mr B was forced to accept the property.
20. The Council was at fault for not responding to the review request until June 2023, after Mr B had formally complained. But I have not found fault with the review once it took place. The medical adviser properly considered the medical evidence and Mr B’s circumstances but concluded he was adequately housed in a one-bedroom flat. As a single person he was not eligible for larger accommodation and the only solution may be a one-bedroom house which rarely comes up and which Mr B is unlikely to be offered due to other households having priority.
21. There is no duty on the Council to find a particular type of accommodation such as privately rented accommodation and it is open to Mr B to source such accommodation himself. The Council offered him financial assistance if he was successful with this.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have completed my investigation into the complaint because I do not consider the delay by the Council in carrying out the review caused Mr B an injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman