Summary: Mr B complained that the Council had delayed since June 2024 in finding him suitable accommodation which caused him distress and inconvenience. The Council has now found him a suitable property which he has accepted and does not wish to pursue his complaint. We have found some delay in the time taken to find alternative accommodation, but we do not consider this caused Mr B an injustice which warrants any further remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that the London Borough of Hackney (the Council) had failed to find him suitable alternative temporary accommodation since June 2024 when it confirmed his current accommodation was unsuitable. In addition to the daily struggles of mobilising around and living in a hotel room which is not wheelchair accessible, Mr B had to cancel scheduled operations on two occasions due to the lack of space to accommodate a carer for 24 hours after the operation. Mr B says he has been caused significant distress and inconvenience

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

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. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (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)
7. 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)

What happened

8. Mr B had been homeless since 2023. He has a number of health conditions which affect his mobility. The Council had provided him with temporary accommodation: a one bedroom ground floor flat with a bathroom. He had no kitchen facilities, the bathroom was not big enough to use his walking frame and the building had no wheelchair access.
9. Following a private occupational therapy assessment in March 2024 the Council reviewed the suitability of his accommodation. In June 2024 the Council concluded the accommodation was not suitable and said it would look for alternative accommodation for him.
10. In early July 2024 Mr B complained that he needed alternative accommodation which could accommodate a carer to look after him after an operation, which was due in less than two weeks. The Council agreed he needed to move urgently and confirmed he was on the list for moving.
11. The Council responded to the complaint at stage one of its procedure. It said due to the severe demand for housing it could not give a timeframe for moving him and apologised if the operation had been cancelled. It said that his current accommodation did not allow visitors so he would have to make his own arrangements for post-operative care. It also referred him to the adult social care team.
12. Mr B escalated his complaint to stage two. He believed his housing priority should be higher due to his circumstances. The Council had also referred him to the wrong social care team.
13. Mr B complained to us in September 2024 by which time another operation had been cancelled due to the unsuitability of his accommodation to allow a carer for post-operative support.
14. The Council responded to his stage two complaint in late September 2024. It said it had liaised with his current accommodation provider and they had agreed to allow an overnight guest so that Mr B could have his operation. Mr B said the accommodation was too small to accommodate another person to provide care and said he needed the situation resolving by his next medical appointment in early October 2024.
15. The Council then offered Mr B permanent accommodation which he accepted on 14 October 2024. He says he is happy with the accommodation and does not wish to pursue his complaint.

Analysis

16. The Council has taken approximately four months to find Mr B alternative accommodation. I accept this was a long time for Mr B to wait and he experienced the inconvenience and distress of two cancelled operations. But given the severe demand for housing, the lack of supply of suitable housing particularly for those with specific needs, and the fact Mr B does not wish to pursue his complaint, I do not consider the injustice caused warrants any further remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have completed my investigation as I have not found fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council towards Mr B.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman