Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing a suitability review of her temporary accommodation. The Council was at fault as it significantly delayed completed a suitability review. It has already apologised and made a payment through its complaints’ procedure. It has agreed to provide an additional payment to acknowledge the frustration, uncertainty and delay in appeal rights caused by its delay. It has also agreed to remind staff that extensions to deadlines for review requests should be agreed and confirmed in writing.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing a suitability review of her temporary accommodation which she says caused her distress and frustration and meant she and her family were in unsuitable accommodation for longer than they should have been.

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. 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)
3. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X and discussed the complaint with her on the telephone. I have considered the Council’s response to our initial enquiries.
6. I gave Mrs X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law and guidance

7. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
8. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to ensure that suitable accommodation is available to them. (Housing Act 1996, section 193). This is called the main housing duty, and the accommodation is called temporary accommodation.
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)
10. Councils must complete reviews regarding the suitability of accommodation within eight weeks of the date of the review request. These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
11. 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)
12. 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

13. The Council owed Mrs X the main housing duty and provided her with temporary accommodation from the private sector. In late 2023 she faced eviction from the property and so the Council arranged alternative temporary accommodation in another Council’s area. Mrs X raised concerns with the Council about the distance to her child’s school and the size of the property since one of her children was now attending university.
14. In mid December 2023 the Council sent Mrs X a letter acknowledging her review request and naming a reviewing officer.
15. Mrs X emailed the reviewing officer in early January 2024 explaining the impact of the property on her family. This included concerns about one of her children’s health conditions, the impact of travel and the distance to the hospital where they required regular treatment, the distance to one of her children’s school and the financial impact.
16. The officer responded that they were not aware they had been allocated the case. Mrs X sent the officer a copy of the letter she had received, and the officer responded requesting information from Mrs X.
17. In late February 2024 the officer wrote to Mrs X setting out their view that they were likely to uphold the suitability of the property. They set out how they had taken into account the medical information provided, the journey times involved for different family members and the cost.
18. Mrs X provided her representations and the reviewing officer requested further information from Mrs X which she provided. In mid-April 2024 the reviewing officer wrote again to Mrs X setting out why they were minded to find the property suitable. Mrs X responded setting out her concerns including why the location was difficult for her child who required regular medical treatment and that another child did not want to move to their third secondary school.
19. In May and June the reviewing officer wrote to Mrs X to say they needed to extend the deadline for their response due to staff shortages.
20. Mrs X complained to the Council about the delay in mid-June 2024. The Council responded that due to competing work demands the reviewing officer had been unable to finalise their decision and so had to extend the deadline. It apologised for the time taken and offered Mrs X £50 for the inconvenience caused by the delay. In July the reviewing officer again wrote to Mrs X to extend the deadline for the review to August 2024.
21. Later that month Mrs X accepted an offer of permanent accommodation from the Council after bidding successfully under its housing allocations scheme. The reviewing officer wrote to Mrs X closing her review request as obsolete given she had now accepted permanent social housing.
22. Mrs X remained unhappy and asked to go to the second stage of the Council’s complaints procedure. The Council responded in August 2024. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by the delay. It considered the £50 appropriate and closed the complaint. Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to us.

Response to enquiries

23. We asked the Council for information about others who were similarly affected. It said, in the last year, there were 26 people who waited over eight weeks for a review. Although the average time taken was seven to nine weeks, in one case it took 30 weeks.
24. The Council said this was primarily due to staff challenges. At the time of Ms X’s suitability review staffing in the review service was reduced by 50%. It was now back to full capacity.

Findings

25. The Council has a duty to provide suitable accommodation to those it owes the housing duty to. Mrs X requested a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation and there was a significant delay in the Council carrying out the review. This was fault.
26. There was some initial internal confusion within the Council about when it received Mrs X’s review request. However, it wrote to Mrs X in mid-December acknowledging the review request. The Council explained in its complaint response the delay was due to staff shortages. The Ombudsman can make findings of fault where there is a failure to provide a service, regardless of the reasons for that service failure.
27. Reviews should be carried out within eight weeks. In Mrs X’s case she initially requested a review in early December 2023. It was not completed by the time she accepted an offer of permanent accommodation from the Council in July 2024. That delay was fault.
28. Even on balance, I cannot say what the Council’s final decision on whether the property was suitable would have been. The Council had already made two decisions that it was likely to find the property suitable. However, had it made the decision sooner it is likely Mrs X would have appealed. The delay therefore caused her frustration and uncertainty and denied her a right of appeal.
29. The Council accepted it was at fault for the delay and has already apologised and paid Mrs X £50 for the inconvenience this caused. I do not consider this amount sufficient to remedy the frustration, uncertainty and delay in her appeal rights.

Others affected

30. The Council’s records show there were 26 people whose reviews took longer than they should have. It has explained this was due to staffing issues which have now been addressed. This should prevent a recurrence of the fault. Therefore, no recommendations for service improvements are necessary at this time, though we will continue to monitor this through our casework.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. pay Mrs X £200, in addition to the £50 it has already paid, to acknowledge the frustration, uncertainty and delay to her appeal rights caused by its delay in completing the review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation.
2. remind staff in its review team to ensure that s202 review case extensions are agreed with the applicant and confirmed in writing.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault causing injustice which it has agreed to remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman