Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complain about the way the Council dealt with their mother, Mrs Z’s housing situation causing distress. We found fault by the Council as it kept Mrs Z in unsuitable temporary accommodation for longer than it should. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs Z for the injustice caused so we are completing our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X and Ms Y complain for their mother Mrs Z about the way the Council has dealt with her housing situation. Mr X and Ms Y say Mrs Z is elderly, vulnerable and been caused distress, physical harm and financial loss because of the Council’s failure to provide her with enough support and a suitable property for her to rent.
2. In summary Mr X and Ms Y complain the Council:
• Wrongly closed Mrs Z’s homelessness application in 2019.
• Failed to act when their landlord served a notice to quit their rented property in 2022, so they incurred costs due to court proceedings. And did not recognise the request for help in 2022 as a homeless application so Mrs Z continued to live at the unsuitable rented property.
• Refused Mrs Z’s housing application in 2022, overturned the decision in March 2023 but downgraded her priority banding. And did not backdate it to 2019. Mr X and Ms Y consider Mrs Z should be allocated a higher priority banding.
• Made unreasonable demands for evidence including financial records and previous addresses before it would review Mrs Z’s applications for accommodation and social housing.
• Placed Mrs Z in unsuitable temporary accommodation on three occasions in 2023 which impacted onto her physical and mental health.
• Failed to protect Mrs Z’s belongings between March and November 2023.
• Failed to arrange an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment so they had to arrange their own at a cost.
• Poorly completed Mrs Z’s Personal Housing Plans (PHP) as it advised her to secure private sector housing. Mr X and Ms Y say the Council should have provided her with suitable social housing instead.
• Ignored Mrs Z’s request for the Council to place auto bids for her for social housing properties.
• Made an unclear decision in July 2023 about the housing duty owed to Mrs Z causing a delay in deciding the main housing duty until a decision was made in December 2023.
• Failed to provide information on rent and service charges which led to Mrs Z incurring rent arrears.
• Poorly dealt with their complaints by failing to provide timely and formal written responses at Stage 1 and 2. Mr X and Ms Y say the Council’s responses were delayed and failed to adequately address Mrs Z’s concerns.
• Failure to process Mrs Z’s Housing Benefit applications.
• The Council’s website did not provide all the relevant information Mrs Z needed.
• Did not respond to a request for Mrs Z’s housing file.
• Delayed dealing with an application for help from the Household Support Fund made in December 2023.

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. 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. 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/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
7. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
8. 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

9. I have read the documents submitted by Mr X and spoken to him about the complaint. I considered information from the Council and the supporting documents it provided.
10. Mr 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

11. 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)
12. Temporary accommodation is accommodation provided to homeless applicants as part of a council’s main homelessness duty.
13. 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)
14. 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)
15. 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
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decisions including:
• their eligibility for assistance.
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness.
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan (PHP) at the prevention duty stage.
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end.
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage.
• Giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end.
• 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). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.
19. Homeless applicants have a right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, s202)
20. 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)
21. 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

22. 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 2017

23. The Council’s Housing Allocations policy sets out how it will assess application for priority and who it will allocate homes it advertises through the choice-based lettings scheme to. It explains there are long waiting times for social housing in the borough due to the number of households in need and social homes that become available for lettings each year.
24. The Council determines the housing need of an applicant by assessing their current housing circumstances. It will then allocate a priority band according to the urgency of housing need. It uses four priority bands:
• Band 1 – Emergency priority – awarded if an emergency and very severe housing need.
• Band 2- Urgent priority – awarded if an urgent need to move.
• Band 3- Priority – there is a medium level of need/urgency. This will be the biggest band which reflects the level of need experienced by most households. It includes the applicants owed a homelessness duty by the Council.
• Band 4- applicants in this band either have no reasonable preference or have reasonable preference but do not meet the residence qualification.
25. The Council will consider awarding urgent medical priority. Applicants need to complete an online medical assessment and provide supporting information. The Council will seek advice from its Housing Medical Adviser and the Council will decide whether to award priority or not.
26. If the level of need in each band is similar the Council makes on offer to the person who has been waiting the longest in the band. This is known as effective date order. The effective date is awarded either on the date of the original application or on the date the Council was notified of a change in circumstances.
27. Applicants can request a review of decision on banding within 21 days of the decision. Reviews will be carried out and decision made within 56 days of the Council receiving the request. Review can take longer, and Council will explain the reason for needing more time.

Key events leading to the complaint

28. What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.

Background to the complaint

29. Mr X, Ms Y and Mrs Z lived in a privately rented property. In 2019 Mrs Z applied to the Council for housing assistance. The Council closed the application as it did not consider she qualified for help. Mrs Z approached the Council again in January 2020 because her landlord served a s 21 notice to leave the property. The Council closed the case in March 2020 as Mrs Z did not make any further contact. Mrs Z approached the Council again in August 2022 as she received another s 21 notice. The Council allocated Mrs Z’s case to a caseworker.
30. Mrs Z applied to join the Council’s Housing Register in October 2022. The Council rejected Mrs Z’s application and said she did not qualify. Mrs Z asked for a review of the Council’s decision.
31. The case worker completed a first assessment on Mrs Z’s potential homelessness in November 2022. The Council accepted a prevention duty towards Mrs Z and drew up a PHP in December 2022.
32. In January 2023 Mrs Z’s solicitor asked the Council to provide her with interim accommodation before a court order for possession by her landlord. The solicitor said it was not reasonable for Mrs Z to occupy the property due to her medical conditions and requested an OT assessment. The Council did not consider information from Mrs Z’s GP advised of any mobility issues, the need for special adaptations and/or her care needs especially in her current property. The Council asked the solicitors to explain why the accommodation was unsuitable, her future needs and requirement for an OT report. The Council did not receive a response.

Events from March 2023

33. The Council reviewed Mrs Z’s housing register application in March 2023 and decided she qualified for the housing register. It was now satisfied Mrs Z had Band 3 priority because it owed her a duty under homelessness legislation and gave an effective start date of 02 December 2022. The Council accepted a relief duty towards Mrs Z on 13 March 2023. It drew up another PHP for Mrs Z to look at private rented properties with the Council to provide advice and information.
34. On 19 March 23 the Council offered Mrs Z and her family temporary accommodation at Accommodation B, a hotel. The Council noted it was an emergency placement and considered it suitable at least for the short term.
35. The Council received a request to review Mrs Z’s PHP in May 2023 and to review her housing application banding on medical grounds. The Council acknowledged the requests and advised Mrs Z could submit information to support the medical review request, but none were received. The Council referred the review to an independent medical team for guidance according to its policy.
36. The Council decided the housing band review in June 2023. It said the independent medical team did not consider there was enough information to award Mrs Z a higher banding. The Council said Mrs Z could provide more medical information and it would reassess her case. Mrs Z was advised of her right to request a review of the decision.
37. On 23 June 2023 the Council accepted a main housing duty towards Mrs Z. It also completed a review of the PHP decision. The Council advised Mr X it overturned the decision and the Housing Options team now dealing with Mrs Z’s case. It advised of the right of appeal to the county court if they disagreed with decision.
38. The Council reviewed Mrs Z’s housing banding on 5 July 2023. It noted Mrs Z was being assisted by the Council following her eviction and been provided with accommodation. So, it considered the review redundant because it was based on an assessment of her circumstances at the rented property. The Council said it could not use the housing register to relieve homelessness. This was because it took many years for applicants to be offered social housing through successful bids due to the severe shortage of social housing in the borough and throughout London. The Council confirmed it was assisting Mrs Z to help her find accommodation under its homelessness duties. The Council said it was a final decision with no further right of review.
39. Mrs Z submitted a suitability review of the temporary accommodation at Accommodation B on 21 July 2023. Mr X said there were significant health and safety issues at property making her ill. Mr X said it was unsuitable and raised concerns about abuse and conflict at the hotel. The Council accepted the request as an out of time review of the suitability of Accommodation B.
40. The Council completed the review on 15 September 2023. The Council decided Accommodation B was unsuitable for Mrs Z and it would seek to provide her with alternative suitable accommodation once it became available. The Council could not say how long it would take as it depended on the availability of temporary accommodation and the needs of other homeless households. The Council said Mrs Z had the right of appeal to county court about the decision.
41. On 17 November 2023 the Council offered Mrs Z a ground floor, two bedroomed flat for four people as temporary accommodation, Accommodation C. The Council considered it suitable for Mrs Z’s household. Mrs Z submitted a suitability review on 20 November 2023 on the grounds of overcrowding, medical and care needs. Mrs Z signed for Accommodation C on 21 November 2023.
42. The Council reassessed Mrs Z’s housing register application on 20 December 2023 following a change of circumstances form. As a result, Mrs Z’s banding remained the same in Band 3 (homeless duty owed with a need for a 2- bed property) but it amended the effective date to June 2019. The Council told Mrs Z of her right to request a review of the decision.
43. Mr X complained to the Council about the service Mrs Z received. Mr X’s concerns including not addressing Mrs Z’s homelessness and housing applications since 2019. Mr X said the Council had not provided her with suitable temporary accommodation, and there were health and safety issues at the accommodation including pest infestation. Mr X said the Council made unreasonable demands for evidence from Mrs Z for her applications.
44. In January 2024 the reviewing officer told Mrs Z they were seeking medical information from her GP for the suitability review. But experienced delay as Mrs Z was no longer registered at the surgery. The officer asked for the details of Mrs Z’s new GP to request information. The Council said it would be unable to meet the agreed timescale for the stage 1 response due to the number of issues raised. But would respond by 15 January 2024.
45. The Council responded on 19 January 2024. It did not uphold Mr X’s allegation it had failed to address Mrs Z’s homelessness and housing applications. The Council explained the action taken. The Council did not consider it made unreasonable demands for evidence as it needed information and supporting information to assess a person’s priority needs. It noted Mrs Z had requested a suitability review which upheld Accommodation B was not suitable. Mrs Z had been moved to Accommodation C and submitted a suitability review due to be completed in February 2024.
46. The Council said it had reviewed Mrs Z’s housing register banding, and she now had an effective date of June 2019. The Council considered it unlikely Mrs Z would have missed any offers of accommodation because the average waiting time for a 2 bedroomed property was 10 years and 6 months.
47. Mr X responded in February 2024 as he was not happy with the stage 1 response and escalated to Stage 2. Mr X alleged the Council had failed to recognise Mrs Z’s situation as it did not help in 2022, so she remained in unsuitable accommodation awaiting a court order to evict her. Mr X said the accommodation provided in March 2023 did not meet Mrs Z’s needs. And it had failed to address the health and safety issues she raised at Accommodation B. This included lack of ventilation, poor toilet adaptations, mould, pest and electrical problems, rent arrears and storage costs. Mr X also referred to issues with Mrs Z’s Housing Benefit applications and delays in payments.
48. Mr X said Mrs Z had been in unsuitable accommodation at Accommodation C since November 2023 and needed an OT assessment. Mr X considered the Council allocated Mrs Z the wrong priority band for her housing application and wrongly set the effective date as December 2022.
49. In February 2024 Mrs Z had a private OT assessment carried out. The private report issued in March 2024 recommended Mrs Z be housed in the Council’s area near her support. The property should be 3 bedrooms, on the ground floor, with a level access throughout and a level access shower, drop down seat and raised height toilet.
50. The Council responded at Stage 2 of the complaint procedure in March 2024. It confirmed it was carrying out a suitability review of Accommodation C. The Council apologised for the delay as the review was due to be completed in February 2024. The delay was due to the reviewing officer’s caseload and trying to get medical information from Mrs Z’s GP. The officer requested the information in January 2024, but it could not be provided as Mrs Z was no longer registered with the surgery. The reviewing officer had contacted Mr X requesting the details of Mrs Z’s new surgery.
51. The Council noted Mrs Z had not logged a complaint with the managing agents of Accommodation B while there between March and November 2023. Or escalated a complaint directly to the Temporary Accommodation management team to give them an opportunity to investigate concerns first. While Mrs Z’s allegations about Accommodation B were made in the suitability review submission, the review was to reach a view on suitability not to resolve issues raised. The Council acknowledged there was information about disrepair which should have been passed to the Temporary Accommodation management team but unfortunately this did not happen. The Council apologised to Mr X and Mrs Z.
52. The Council acknowledged Mrs Z told the Temporary Accommodation team of pest issues in May 2023 and inspections were arranged to identify and resolve the issue. The Council partially upheld this part of the complaint as it did not follow what would have been best practice about disrepair issues. But said Mrs Z did not raise concerns using the appropriate process.
53. The Council said it had no evidence showing it failed to take account of Mrs Z’s medical information. It confirmed it considered all submissions made. It asked Mrs Z’s solicitors to provide an OT assessment in January 2023 to confirm why the private rented accommodation was not suitable but received no response. The Council made a referral for an independent assessment to a medical team who reported in June 2023. The Council said there was no suggestion in the report an OT assessment was necessary so it would only be beneficial. The Council stated OT reports were difficult, costly and only arranged when deemed necessary to assess appropriately. It was not considered necessary in Mrs Z’s case, so the Council did not uphold this part of complaint.
54. The Council confirmed it awarded Mrs Z band 3 priority in March 2023. This was reassessed in December 2023 due to a reported change of circumstances. Mrs Z remained in the same band, but the effective date backdated to 2019. The Council said it had not downgraded Mrs Z’s priority banding. And she had not missed being offered a property due to the acute housing crisis in the Council’s area and other London boroughs. The Council said Mrs Z would not have been successful with a bid even with the earlier effective date of 2019. The Council advised Mr X of other options for accommodation for Mrs Z including renting privately.
55. The Council said it had no evidence of rent arrears due to a fault by the Council’s handling of processes. It asked Mr X to provide evidence to support the claim so it could investigate the matter. The Council noted Mr X’s comment about storage and said it may be able to help with a storage grant. But Mr X would need to ask Mrs Z’s case worker or the Housing Options team. The Council said it had no evidence Mr X had asked about the need for help with storage.
56. The Council received medical advice in April 2024 about the temporary accommodation offered at Accommodation C. The advice considered the property suitable on medical grounds for Mrs Z. But the Council offered Mrs Z alternative temporary accommodation on 18 April 24 at Accommodation D. This was another two bedroomed ground floor flat.
57. In May 2024 the Council closed the suitability review for Accommodation C as it offered alternative temporary accommodation. Mrs Z had accepted Accommodation D and moved into it on 4 May 2024. The Council considered the review of Accommodation C become redundant. The Council told Mrs Z of the decision, and she had the right of review of the decision at the county court. Mr X complained to us in June 2024.

Events from July 2024

58. In July 2024 Mrs Z’s solicitors requested a suitability review of Accommodation D which the Council acknowledged. The Council issued a ‘minded to’ letter in August 2024 it intended to consider Accommodation D was suitable. The Council competed the review in November 2024. It decided Accommodation D was not suitable and would seek to offer Mrs Z alternative temporary accommodation. The Council said it had no timescale because it was dependent on what properties become available and requirements of other homeless families. The Council advised Mrs Z had the right to appeal the decision.
59. Mr X complained in November 2024 Mrs Z had been told she had a debt for charges at Accommodation B on her rent account.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

60. I have investigated some of Mr X and Ms Y’s complaints raised after March 2023 which is when the Council accepted a relief duty to Mrs Z and first offered her temporary accommodation. I have not investigated Mr X and Ms Y’s complaints about a homelessness application in 2019. I have also not investigated concerns about the housing register application submitted in 2022, issues around Mrs Z’s eviction and concerns the Council did not carry out an OT assessment in 2022. This is because I consider Mr X and Ms Y’s complaints about those events to be late and more than 12 months since they were first aware of them. I consider it reasonable to expect them to have complained to us before now about those issues. In addition, Mrs Z had the right of review of decisions made by the Council on her housing register applications, homelessness application and the PHPs issued to Mrs Z. I consider it was reasonable to expect Mrs Z to use those rights of review and appeal and go to court if necessary as they have been provided by housing legislation.
61. I have included information on events from 2019 in the decision statement to provide background to Mr X and Ms Y’s complaints.
62. I have also not investigated events after the Council offered Mrs Z alternative accommodation at Accommodation D in May 2024. This is because the events after that date and Mr X and Ms Y’s complaints to us in June 2024 are premature. This includes the suitability of Accommodation D offered in May 2024 as Mrs Z has the right to request a suitability review and has done so. Mrs Z needs to pursue any recent concerns about Accommodation D with the Council.
63. Mr X and Ms Y raised concerns in November 2024 about rent arrears from Accommodation B. However, the complaints about this matter are premature and they need to pursue this with the Council to give it an opportunity to respond first. Mr X and Ms Y also raised issues with storage costs. But there is no evidence they have pursued this further with the Council as it said it was not aware of any request for assistance on this issue. In view of this Mr X and Ms Y should pursue the matter with the Council first so it can consider a request for assistance should they make one.
64. The Council says it has no evidence of rent arrears for Mrs Z which occurred due to fault by it. The Council asked Mr X and Ms Y to provide evidence to support their claims so it can be investigated. Mr X and Ms Y need to do so and go through the Council’s complaints procedure first about this issue, so I consider their complaint to us is premature. Mr X and Ms Y should also pursue a complaint about requesting an auto bid on Mrs Z’s account if it has not been considered or activated.
65. With regards to housing benefit the Council says it received applications for two properties it placed Mrs Z in and were dealt with by the housing benefit service. The Council says there is no typical timescale to deal with them as it depends on when it receives the application form and has all information necessary to process the application. The Council confirms the housing benefit awarded covered the full eligible rent for both properties. I consider therefore if Mr X and Ms Y have any further concerns, they need to complain to the Council, provide evidence of any failings and complete the Council’s complaints procedure about the matter first.
66. Mr X and Ms Y complained the Council did not respond to request for Mrs Z’s housing file. However, this is a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office, and they should pursue a complaint with the Information Commissioner.
67. Mr X and Ms Y complained the Council delayed dealing with an application in December 2023 for help from the Household Support Fund. There is no evidence they have made a complaint to the Council about this matter and pursued a complaint through the Council’s complaints procedure. Mr X and Ms Y need to do so before approaching us as I consider their complaint about this to be premature.

My assessment of complaints I have investigated

68. I have investigated Mr X and Ms Y’s complaints the Council made unreasonable demands for evidence, financial records, previous addresses. It is unclear which dates and requests Mr X is referring to, but the evidence provided shows the Council made standard requests for information. The Council needs to have sufficient information in order to assess an applicant’s housing situation.
69. Mr X believes the Council placed Mrs Z in unsuitable temporary accommodation. The Council first placed Mrs Z in Accommodation B on 19 March 2023. The Council considered it suitable accommodation for the short term. Mr X, Ms Y and Mrs Z did not agree and could exercise their right for a review of the temporary accommodation on 21 July 2023. The suitability review, carried out within the eight-week timescale, found the accommodation was unsuitable on 15 September 2023.
70. The Council has explained difficulties with the severe shortage of properties in its area. We are mindful of the difficulties in procuring housing in Redbridge and nationally. 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.
71. I consider therefore there was fault by the Council as soon as it decided Accommodation B was unsuitable for Mrs Z. This is because it should have moved them to more suitable accommodation due to the immediate duty to rehouse. So, Mrs Z remained in the unsuitable temporary accommodation for eight weeks before the Council could offer alternative temporary accommodation. This has caused an injustice to Mrs Z and caused her distress.
72. Our Guidance on Remedies suggests a symbolic payment of £150-350 a month for being without suitable accommodation. The Council has acknowledged there were some issues with disrepair which were not addressed. I therefore consider a payment of £200 a month for living in unsuitable temporary accommodation is appropriate and a proportionate remedy in this case, a total of £400 for the eight weeks Mrs Z was housed in unsuitable accommodation.
73. The Council moved Mrs Z to the alternative temporary accommodation, Accommodation C on 17 November 2023. Mrs Z requested a suitability review on 20 November 2023. The Council should carry out the review within eight weeks but did not do so in this case. This was partly due to being unable to obtain information from Mrs Z’s GP. It is unfortunate there was a delay in carrying out the review, but the outcome was unknown as the Council offered Mrs Z alternative accommodation at Accommodation D. Mrs Z had the right of appeal to the courts if the review took longer than eight weeks. I consider it was reasonable to expect Mrs Z to use her right of appeal to the courts as allowed for in housing legislation. The courts would have been able to consider the Council’s actions and determine the suitability of the accommodation. Because I consider it was reasonable for Mrs Z to have exercised her right of appeal to the courts I am ending my investigation into this part of the complaint.
74. Mr X and Ms Y complained the Council did not arrange for an OT assessment in June 2023 so had to arrange a private OT assessment at a cost. The Council has explained it will only carry out an OT assessment if considered necessary. But based on the report from the medical team it was not considered necessary in Mrs Z’s case. I recognise this was disappointing for Mrs Z, but it is a decision the Council is entitled to make. As the Council took account of the advice from the medical team there are no grounds for us to question the merits of the Council’s decision.
75. The Council explained it accepted Mrs Z onto the housing register in March 2023. It awarded Mrs Z band 3 priority because it owed a homelessness with an effective start date of 2 December 2022. Mrs Z asked the Council to review the decision on medical grounds in May 2023. The Council referred the medical information to the independent medical team according to its policy who provided advice. In June 2023 the Council decided there was not enough evidence to warrant awarding Mrs Z a higher priority. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision, and it has assessed Mrs Z according to its Allocations Policy.
76. The Council did not consider it necessary to review Mrs Z’s banding in July 2023. The decision letter explains it why it did not do so as Mrs Z’s situation had changed. And she had been placed in band 3.
77. The Council reassessed the banding in December 2023 as Mrs Z submitted a change of circumstances form. The Council decided Mrs Z should remain in band 3 but with an effective date of 2019. If Mrs Z disagreed with decision, she had the right to request a review. I would expect Mrs Z to use that right to review the decision so it could be looked at again by the Council.
78. Mr X and Ms Y say the decision in July 2023 was unclear about the housing duty owed to her. But the decision was about a review of Mrs Z’s banding on the housing register. The Council had already accepted a main housing duty in June 2023 and told Mrs Z.
79. Mr X and Ms Y complain about poor complaint handling by the Council and delays to the stage 1 and 2 responses. The evidence shows Mr X made the Stage 1 complaint on 19 December 2023. The Council advised in January 2024 it could not meet the stated timescales so would take longer due to the number of issues being raised. The Council responded on 19 January 2024. I do not consider the timescale was unreasonable due to number of issues raised or there were significant delays. The Council’s response was robust and answered the issues raised by Mr X.
80. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s response and escalated to Stage 2. The Council said it would reply by 15 February 2024. The Council responded at Stage 2 on 14 March 2024. While the Council did take longer than it said I do not consider it was excessive due to the number of issues being raised by Mr X. Again, I consider the Council’s response was robust and responded to the issues raised.
81. Mr X and Ms Y complained the Council’s website did not provide Mrs Z with all the relevant information she needed. The Council has acknowledged their concerns and will share feedback with the relevant team. It is for the Council to decide what information it will include on its website, so I do not consider there are sufficient grounds for me to consider this part of the complaint any further.

Back to top

Agreed action

82. To remedy the injustice, I have identified in paragraph 71, the Council will, within in one month of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mrs Z for the delay in keeping her in unsuitable accommodation at Accommodation B in line with our guidance on Making an Effective Apology. 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.
• Pay Mrs Z a symbolic payment of £400 for the eight weeks she remained in the unsuitable temporary accommodation between September and November 2023.
83. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

84. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I recommended, and the Council has agreed to is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused in this case.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman