Summary: Miss X complained that the Council delayed in dealing with her request for a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation, delayed in dealing with her complaints of disrepair and prevented her from bidding on three bedroom properties. The Council was at fault as it delayed in deciding if Miss X’s temporary accommodation was suitable and did not deal with her complaints of disrepair. As a result, Miss X lived in unsuitable temporary accommodation for 12 months longer than necessary. The Council will remedy the injustice to Mrs X by apologising and making a symbolic payment of £2600.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that the Council:
1. Significantly delayed in dealing with her request for a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation and delayed in moving her to alternative suitable temporary accommodation.
2. Failed to deal with her complaints of disrepair at the property.
3. Prevented her from being able to bid on three bedroom properties despite the Council considering she had three bedroom need.
2. Miss X considers that as a result she lived in unsuitable temporary accommodation which presented a risk to her children and where she was at risk of domestic abuse for longer than necessary.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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

What I have investigated

6. I have investigated events between March 2023 and October 2024. I have not investigated Miss X’s complaint that she incurred costs due to the Council withdrawing alternative temporary accommodation at short notice. This is a new issue and is outside the scope of this investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and Guidance

9. 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)
10. The duty to provide suitable accommodation is immediate, non-deferable, and unqualified. (Elkundi, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2022] EWCA Civ 601
11. A Domestic Abuse, Stalking & Honour-based Violence (DASH) assessment may be carried out to assess the risks to a victim and the action needed to protect them. This is a standardised assessment, which produces a score out of 24.
12. The Code says applicants at risk of domestic abuse should not be expected to return home on the strength of an injunction - such as an occupation or non-molestation order – as these are not always effective. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 21)
13. The Council has a two stage complaints procedure. This provides that it should respond to stage one complaints within 20 working days or 10 working days if the complaint falls within the remit of the housing directorate. It should respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days.

What happened

14. Some years ago, Miss X made a homelessness application, and the Council accepted the main housing duty. Miss X has lived in temporary accommodation for some time. In February 2023, the Council offered property A to Miss X as it considered her previous temporary accommodation was unsuitable.
15. Shortly after moving into property A, Miss X notified the Council of disrepair at the property. The Council’s records show it forwarded Miss X’s concerns to the managing agent to deal with. The managing agent considered the disrepair was cosmetic and the Council had previously inspected the property and passed it.
16. In late March 2023, Miss X requested a review of the suitability of the accommodation as she considered it did not meet her children’s needs. The Council decided to carry out an assessment of the suitability of property A. This is because Miss X did not seek a review within 21 days of the Council offering the property to her.
17. Approximately three months later, Miss X chased the Council for an update on the suitability assessment. The Council’s records show the assessing officer sent an email to the temporary accommodation team asking it to inspect property A. The team did not respond. The assessing officer also contacted the Council’s repair team about the issues. The team did not respond.
18. Miss X continued to report disrepair at the property including sewerage overflowing from the toilet. The assessing officer continued to send emails to the repairs team but did not receive a response.
19. Miss X continued to chase the Council for the outcome of the suitability assessment. The assessing officer advised they were waiting for responses from other teams.
20. In October 2023, Miss X told the Council about a domestic abuse incident at the property. She also said she had been advised to obtain a non molestation order. The Council’s records show it advised Miss X that the landlord was refusing to carry out repairs to the property.
21. During the next few months Miss X continued to report disrepair at the property, including further incidents of sewerage overflowing from the toilet. She also reported concerns that she could not bid on three bedroom properties. The assessing officer continued to chase other teams for a response to the issues. The Council’s records also note the assessing officer told the other teams that they may consider the property to be unsuitable due to the disrepair issues if they were not resolved.
22. In February 2024, an officer advised the assessing officer that the property was unsuitable as the landlord would not carry out the repairs and Miss X should be offered another property. However, the Council did not complete the suitability assessment at this time.
23. In June 2024, Miss X and her Independent Domestic Violence Adviser (IDVA) notified the Council of an increased risk to her from domestic abuse. The IDVA also forwarded a DASH assessment for Miss X which showed her to be at high risk.
24. The Council issued its decision on the suitability of property A for Miss X and her children in mid July 2024. This was 16 months after Miss X requested a review. The Council considered the property was unsuitable due to the risk of domestic abuse and disrepair.
25. The Council offered alternative temporary accommodation to Miss X in October 2024. This was two and half months after deciding property A was unsuitable. The Council’s records show it identified three properties for Miss X and her children. But it did not offer the properties to her as they were unsuitable.

Housing register

26. Miss X was registered on the Council’s housing register and was eligible to bid on two and three bedroom properties. She told the assessing officer that she could not bid on three bedroom properties. The officer notified the housing registration team but did not receive a response.

Complaint

27. Miss X made a complaint to the Council about the delay in dealing with disrepair at property A, the delay in carrying out the suitability assessment and problems in bidding on three bedroom properties. In her complaint Miss X said property A was not suitable for her child’s additional needs. Four months later, the Council responded to Miss X at stage one of its two stage complaints procedure. It did not uphold her complaint. The Council said the bidding system had been updated for Miss X to bid on three bedroom properties and it would find alternative temporary accommodation for her.
28. Miss X requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two. The Council responded four months later. It said the managing agent had addressed the repair issues and there were no system issues reported which would prevent Miss X from bidding on two or three bedroom properties.
29. In response to my enquiries, the Council has apologised for the delays in dealing with Miss X’s stage one and two complaints. The Council has also said that a reorganisation of its services contributed to the time taken to deal with Miss X’s suitability assessment.

Analysis

Suitability assessment and disrepair

30. The Council took 16 months to complete the suitability assessment of property A. This is an excessive period of time and was fault. The evidence shows the delays were largely caused by the responsible teams failing to respond appropriately to the assessing officer’s emails about the disrepair. This also meant the Council did not properly investigate the disrepair at the property. The Council also let the matter drift. It should have made a decision on suitability based on the information that it had when it was unable to obtain responses to the disrepair issues in a timely way.
31. The Council has said that the reorganisation of services contributed to the delay in carrying out the suitability assessment. But the Council still had a responsibility to provide services during the reorganisation and a duty to provide suitable temporary accommodation. I therefore consider the delay to be fault.
32. The Council also failed to consider the suitability of Miss X’s property when she reported the incident of domestic abuse in October 2023. There is no evidence to show the Council carried out a DASH or other risk assessment to identify the risk to Miss X of staying in the property at that time. There is also no evidence to show the Council considered if property A remained suitable for Miss X to occupy in light of her disclosure. This was fault.
33. We have previously made a recommendation to the Council to remind officers to ensure they promptly consider if a property remains suitable for an applicant in the event they disclose domestic abuse. The fault identified above suggests officers are still not fully aware of the need to consider the risk and quickly decide if accommodation remans suitable. I will therefore make a further service improvement recommendation to address this fault.
34. The Council took two and half months to offer alternative temporary accommodation to Miss X following its decision that the property A was unsuitable. We are mindful of the significant challenges faced by councils in procuring temporary accommodation. But the courts have established that a council’s duty to provide suitable accommodation is immediate. So, the time taken to provide alternative temporary accommodation to Miss X was fault.
35. On balance, I cannot say the Council would have found Miss X’s property to be unsuitable when she first reported the disrepair. It would have been appropriate for the Council to have investigated the disrepair and consulted with the landlord to determine if repairs could be undertaken. This will have inevitably taken some time.
36. But I consider, on balance, the Council would have found property A to be unsuitable in October 2023 if it had considered the risk of domestic abuse. I am mindful that Miss X sought a non molestation order. But the homeless code of guidance is clear that applicants should not be expected to stay in a property on the basis of an injunction as they can be ineffective. The Council was also aware that the landlord was still unwilling to carry out the repairs to the property at this time. So, on balance, Miss X lived in unsuitable accommodation with disrepair, including issues with sewerage, and the risk of domestic abuse for 12 months longer than necessary. The Council should remedy this injustice by making a symbolic payment of £200 per month for 12 months to Miss X to acknowledge she lived with disrepair and the risk of domestic abuse for 12 months longer than necessary. This payment is in accordance with our guidance on remedies.

Housing register

37. There is no evidence to show the action taken by the Council to resolve Miss X’s problems in bidding on three bedroom properties. However, the evidence provided by the Council shows Miss X has been able to bid on three bedroom properties so I consider, on balance, it has resolved the issues. Even if the Council delayed in resolving the issues, I do not consider the delay will have prevented Miss X from successfully bidding on a three bedroom property. This is because Miss X’s bids on three bedroom properties have not been successful as she did not have sufficient priority to be shortlisted. So even if Miss X had been able to bid on three bedroom properties sooner it is unlikely she would have been successful.

Complaint

38. The Council’s complaints procedure provides it should respond to housing complaints at stage one within 10 working days and complaints at stage two within 20 working days. The Council took four months to respond to Miss X’s complaint at both stages. This was fault which will have caused uncertainty to Miss X and put her to avoidable time and trouble in chasing the responses.

Back to top

Action

39. The Council will:
1. Send a written apology to Miss X to acknowledge the distress, uncertainty and avoidable time and trouble caused to her by the delay in making a decision on the suitability of her temporary accommodation, for living in unsuitable temporary accommodation for longer than necessary, the failure to deal with disrepair and delay in dealing with her complaint. 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.
2. Make a symbolic payment of £2400 to Miss X to acknowledge she lived with disrepair and the risk of domestic abuse for 12 months longer than necessary.
3. Make a symbolic payment of £200 to Miss X to acknowledge the uncertainty and avoidable time and trouble caused to her by the Council’s delays in dealing with her complaint.
4. By training or other means, remind officers that they should promptly assess the risk to applicants and decide without delay whether their accommodation remains suitable to occupy in the event they disclose they are at risk of domestic abuse.
5. Ensure the Council has a process to identify and escalate complaints about homelessness and housing which have exceeded the corporate complaints procedure’s timescales for a response. This is to ensure the Council responds to complaints in accordance with the timescales set out in the Council’s corporate complaints procedure and without significant delay.
6. Share the learning from this complaint with officers responsible for temporary accommodation and repairs in the Council’s interim and temporary accommodation, including accommodation procured from private landlords. This is to ensure officers are aware that the failure to respond to requests for service or questions may hinder the Council’s duty to provide suitable interim and temporary accommodation.
40. The Council should take the action at a) to c) within one month and the action at d) to f) within two months of my final decision.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

I have completed my investigation and uphold Miss X’s complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman