Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of Mrs Y about the Council’s handling of events around Mrs Y’s homelessness application and provision of interim and temporary accommodation. We found the Council was at fault for failing to properly keep the suitability of Mrs Y’s accommodation under review, including after reports of anti-social behaviour and harassment. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic financial remedy for the distress caused by the time Mrs Y spent in unsuitable accommodation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on behalf of Mrs Y about the Council’s handling of events around Mrs Y’s homelessness application and provision of interim and temporary accommodation (TA).
2. Mr X said the Council ignored complaints Mrs Y was sexually harassed by the caretaker of her TA; on the basis the police did not prosecute, and failed to move Mrs Y to alternative TA. Mr X also said the Council evicted Mrs Y from her TA without warning or notice. Mr X said Mrs Y struggled to access mental health support and was self-harming, but the Council failed to support her and made the situation worse.
3. The process caused significant harm to Mrs Y’s mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
7. We made written enquiries of the Council and I considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. 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 have and have not investigated

9. I investigated the Council’s consideration of Mrs Y’s homelessness application and the suitability of her TA.
10. When the Council offered Mrs Y new TA on 28 August 2024, she expressed reservations about the location and shared facilities. The Council said it considered the new TA was suitable. The Council’s offer letter told Mrs Y about her right to ask for a review, regardless of whether she accepted or rejected the property. When Mrs Y did not accept the property, the Council ended its housing duty to her. Mrs Y asked for a review, which she later withdrew. I have therefore not considered this further.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness law and statutory guidance

11. 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.
12. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Council’s must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
13. Councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Interim and temporary accommodation

14. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
15. If a council ends its interim accommodation duty but then goes on to accept the main housing duty, it still has a duty to provide temporary accommodation.
16. 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)
17. Housing authorities will need to consider carefully the suitability of accommodation for households with particular medical and/or physical needs. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.5)
18. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider, among other matters:

• the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district;
• the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household; and
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)

19. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a council provides it. This is important because there is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.
20. Applicants who believe 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)
21. Housing authorities have a continuing obligation to keep the suitability of accommodation under review, and to respond to any relevant change in circumstances which may affect suitability, until such time as the accommodation duty is brought to an end. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.8)

The Council’s Temporary Accommodation Placements Policy

22. Where the Council determines that a placement does not meet the legally defined standards of suitability (such as though a change in circumstances or new information), it will seek to make an urgent offer of alternative accommodation as soon as something suitable is available.
23. Where the Council determines that a placement does meet the legally defined standards of suitability but considers an alternative offer of accommodation would better meet the needs of the applicant, it will seek to make an offer of alternative accommodation. Such an offer will only be made where a suitable property becomes available, and which is not required for someone with more urgent need.

What happened

24. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
25. Mrs Y presented as threatened with homelessness in early 2024. Her homelessness application states she suffers from depression, panic attacks and anxiety. It lists medication she taken and states she is waiting for therapy. Mrs Y said she needed a safe, quiet environment and nothing shared. She also wanted to be close to her support network.
26. The Council forwarded Mrs Y’s application to its medical team for assessment on Mrs Y’s suitability requirements and whether she is vulnerable due to her mental health.
27. The Council found Mrs Y TA, starting 13 March 2024. Mrs Y was very upset and angry with the TA, as she felt it was unsuitable. She expressed her feeling to the Council, and the Council recorded Mrs Y became abusive towards its staff over this.
28. The Council wrote to Mrs Y on 14 March confirming the Homeless Prevention Duty had ended. It was now supporting Mrs Y under the Homeless Relief Duty.
29. Mrs Y emailed the Council saying she did not feel safe in the TA and would snap, hurting herself or others. She said the Council knew what she needed but ignored her.
30. An internal email from Mrs Y’s housing officer asks if the Council could consider moving Mrs Y to something smaller, quieter and more self-contained.
31. The TA manager told the Council Mrs Y was screaming and shouting at its staff on 19 March because her heater was not working. She also smashed a window and said she had slit her wrists. The TA manager said staff tried to help Mrs Y, including the caretaker, but Mrs Y was abusive to them.
32. Mrs X’s doctor wrote to the Council on 11 April 2024 in support of her homelessness application. They say Mrs Y had been troubled with anxiety, insomnia and mental health issues for several months. She reported an unbearable living situation making her mental health and anxiety worse as she must share bathing, toilet, and laundry facilities with multiple residents and does not feel comfortable. Mrs Y reported feeling too nervous to leave her room, and had panic attacks when hearing loud noises. She was undergoing regular therapy to support her mental health. The doctor said they strongly believed Mrs Y would benefit from new accommodation where she did not have to share facilities with other residents.
33. Mrs Y emailed the Council on 19 April stating she called the Council’s out of hours number nine times the previous night. She also rang the police who called an ambulance as she was having a panic attack. A paramedic managed to turn off her heating as Mrs Y could not cope with it being on full, and nothing was done about it. She also said she called the Council seven times that morning. She said she had a broken window and had also been asking the caretaker for a key to open another window for weeks. She said her mental health was getting worse and the Council was leaving her in a dangerous place.
34. The Council’s medical advisor completed their assessment on 24 April 2024. They said Mrs Y’s depression and anxiety was treated at primary care level. They could not find anything indicating this currently significantly impedes her basic activities. They did not think Mrs Y’s specific medical issues rendered her significantly vulnerable.
35. The Council received an email the same day from Citizens Advice with concerns about Mrs Y’s mental state. She felt suicidal and had been self-harming. Her doctor was so concerned they wanted to section her, so Mrs Y saw a therapist from the crisis team. Citizens Advice said there were safeguarding issues and the Council needed to move Mrs Y to more suitable TA urgently. They mentioned debilitating panic attacks, resulting in aggression and violence toward herself and the property.
36. The NHS mental health crisis service wrote to the Council on 30 April 2024. They said Mrs Y was receiving treatment and had a diagnosis of anxiety and depression, made worse by her living situation. Said she was experiencing immense distress and safety concerns due to the unsuitable TA. They believed the Council should move Mrs Y to a female residency within Barnet with fewer residents.
37. Mrs Y’s housing officer emailed Citizens Advice. They asked for contact details of the crisis team and said all medical information went to the Council’s medical advisor. They felt the case would not meet the priority need threshold. However, the officer acknowledged Mrs Y’s health seemed to have deteriorated, so they would get input from current professionals to get an accurate assessment and decision.
38. The Council attempted a welfare visit on 2 May, but Mrs Y was out. It left her an anti-social behaviour (ASB) warning letter stating the TA managing agent reported Mrs Y was screaming and shouting at staff, was abusive to them over the telephone, and broke a window in her room. The Council said if the issues were not rectified, it could lead to Mrs Y losing her TA and the Council treating her as intentionally homeless.
39. Citizens Advice emailed the Council on 5 May about alternative TA. They were concerned Mrs Y’s mental health was deteriorating again after improving a little with help from the crisis team.
40. Mrs X contacted her local MP on 9 May about her struggles in the TA. She said her mental health had deteriorated and she was self-harming and having panic attacks. She referred to windows not opening, not having a key for them, and a broken fridge door. She said she broke a window when having a panic attack and the housing association refused to board it up. Mrs X also said she was under the mental health crisis team after attempting suicide in October. The MP referred this information to the Council.
41. Citizens Advice contacted the Council again on 14 May. They said a doctor from the crisis team assessed Mrs Y on 10 May and diagnosed complex post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and emotionally unstable personality disorder. They attached a letter in response to the Council’s allegations of ASB by Mrs Y. The letter states Mrs Y saw a therapist in hospital on 23 April, who immediately referred her to the crisis team, who met with Mrs Y every day to support her. Mrs Y was discharged by the crisis team as she has medication and is no longer suicidal. Mrs Y apologised for breaking a window in her room, she did this when having a severe panic attack and suffering overwhelming anxiety. She felt unsafe and trapped in her room. Citizens Advice said Mrs Y was in a hostel which was not suitable. It is challenging and stressful for her, detrimentally impacting her mental health and she has had several panic attacks. The thought of using the shared bathroom, toilet and laundry room causes anxiety resulting in self-harming. They said one window in her room does not open, and the other requires a key which has not been provided despite several requests to the caretaker. There are also issues with the heating, which would not turn off and now does not turn on, and the landlord did nothing to fix it. Mrs Y denied abusing them on the telephone, but said she may have been frustrated at their lack of action. Citizens Advice said there were mitigating circumstances around the broken window, and Mrs Y is vulnerable with complex mental health issues going through a period of crisis. They said the Council should not have placed her in TA with shared facilities and urgently needed to move her.
42. Another support organisation emailed the Council on 5 June. They said Mrs Y had been in TA for 9 months with shared facilities and mixed genders. They asked for an update on alternative TA and a new decision on suitability of the current TA.
43. Mrs X’s MP also emailed the Council on 6 June. They asked the Council to look into Mrs Y’s housing situation and take into account the impact her TA was having on her mental health. They referred to a diagnosis of personality disorder, depression, and complex PTSD, and that Mrs Y had to share toilet facilities with other tenants, exacerbating her mental health and resulting in self-harming.
44. The Council spoke to Mrs Y’s support worker on 14 June. They told the Council Mrs Y reported issues in the TA, such as heating being temperamental, the caretaker not responding but also harassing her, ASB from smoking/drugs, and her windows not opening.
45. The Council said it needed to see Mrs Y’s bank statements as part of her housing application before deciding which priority band to place her in. It also recorded it would request a TA transfer once it accepted the main housing duty. This was due to the issues reported and the effects on Mrs Y’s mental health.
46. The Council put Mrs Y forward for three rental properties on 24 June. It accepted the main duty and placed Mrs Y in priority band 4 on 27 June 2024.
47. The Council put Mrs Y forward for two more rental properties on 1 July. A housing officer left a message for Mrs Y’s support worker advising the Council could not transfer Mrs Y to new TA and she needed to focus on a move in the private rental sector. The officer also said Mrs Y needed to be mindful of her behaviour in TA after the complaints the Council received.
48. Mrs Y’s support worker emailed the Council on 9 July because it had not yet formally accepted the main housing duty. They said the relief duty ended on 9 May 2024.
49. Mrs Y’s housing officer said they were finalising her assessment before issuing the housing decision.
50. The Council wrote to Mrs Y accepting the main housing duty on 18 July 2024.
51. An employee at the TA emailed the Council on 31 July about a fridge replacement for Mrs Y. The caretaker needed to remove the old one first, but they said Mrs Y was not cooperating and was verbally abusive towards the caretaker. The caretaker said it was not the first time they had difficulty with Mrs Y. The Council issued Mrs Y a further ASB warning letter.
52. The Council issued Mrs Y a final ASB warning letter on 6 August. It said, despite warnings it was still receiving complaints of ASB. It included details such as screaming at staff and a smashed room window. Abusing staff on telephone. And refusing to cooperate with the caretaker and being verbally abusive to them. The Council said it would cancel the TA if it received further reports of ASB.
53. The Council officer who issued the final ASB warning made a safeguarding referral about Mrs Y on 14 August, citing concerns over Mrs Y’s wellbeing and the safety of others. This was after finding a hammer in her room, which the caretaker said she carried around the building.
54. The Council’s mental health team told the officer to ask Mrs Y how she is and find out why she had a hammer, or contact the police if there were significant risks to others. The officer recorded Mrs Y declined support when they reached out to her.
55. Mrs Y’s psychiatrist emailed the Council on 16 August to report that Mrs Y called the police about theft from her room. She thought it may have been committed by the TA caretaker.
56. A community mental health worker emailed the Council on 27 August advising Mrs Y felt the TA is unsuitable and making her mental health worse. Mrs Y also mentioned harassment by the TA caretaker, which the police were investigating. The mental health worker said Mrs Y started to self-harm and did not feel safe. They asked if the Council could move Mrs Y to alternative TA.
57. The Council confirmed Mrs X was on a list to be transferred to alternative accommodation on 28 August. It said the police were not taking further action due to lack of evidence.
58. The Council offered Mrs Y new TA on 28 August 2024. It tried to telephone her but go no answer.
59. Mrs Y emailed the Council asking if the TA was self-contained, without shared facilities, and if she could view before accepting. Mrs Y also worried about losing her mental health support (due to the location of the new TA). She asked if the Council had anything in North London.
60. The Council sent Mrs Y photographs of the new TA on 4 September and confirmed it was a self-contained second floor studio. It asked Mrs Y to respond by 5 September or it will treat this as a refusal. It also said it cancelled her previous TA for repeated ASB.
61. Mrs Y did not respond to the new offer of TA by 5 September, so the Council treated this as a refusal and ended its housing duty on 10 September 2024.
62. Mr X asked to escalate the complaint on 27 September. He said Mrs Y reported issues (about harassment from caretaker) on 19 April, 30 May, 4 June, 13 June and 29 July. He criticised the Council for its warning letter dated 6 August 2024, which included Mrs Y’s “failure to cooperate with the caretaker”.
63. The Council’s final complaint response referred to a medical assessment on 24 April 2024, which concluded suitable medical and support services existed in all areas, and it was not medically necessary for Mrs Y to reside in borough. The Council said the medical assessor could not find evidence indicating Mrs Y’s depression and anxiety significantly impeded her basic activities, and did not consider there were specific medical issues rendering Mrs Y significantly vulnerable.
64. Mrs Y asked for a review of the Council’s housing decision on 10 October.
65. The Council referred Mrs Y’s details to one of its medical assessors for a new assessment on 31 October.
66. The assessor said they considered Mrs Y’s notes, medical records, the previous medical assessor’s advice, a doctor’s letter (dated 11 April 2024), Citizens Advice emails, support worker emails, crisis team information (dated 30 April 2024), and emails with the NHS.
67. The assessor said Mrs Y not engaged with mental health services at the time of her housing application. She engaged with the mental health crisis team in April/May 2024 but stopped engaging with a psychologist. The assessor considered there was no clear evidence on file as to why shared accommodation would be unsuitable for Mrs Y’s needs. They also considered there was no essential reason why she would need to reside in a specific area. The assessor’s advice did not change from the previous assessment.
68. Mrs Y withdrew the review on 15 November.

Analysis

69. The Council recognised Mrs Y’s health seemed to have deteriorated at the end of April. An officer recorded they would get professional input for an accurate assessment and decision. However, I have not seen evidence of any further action or decision.
70. The Council again recognised the impact of the issues in TA, and the effect on Mrs Y’s mental health, on 14 June 2024. It recorded it would transfer her once it accepted the main housing duty. However, it then changed its decision and told Mrs Y’s support worker it would not transfer her. It said she must focus on private rental sector properties. I have not seen any evidence of any rationale for this change in decision.
71. The Council has a duty to keep suitability under review. The contact from Mrs Y’s doctor and the mental health Crisis Team in April, and the new diagnosis in May, provided new evidence and the Council should have considered whether the accommodation remained suitable. It cannot just accept the view of its medical advisor over other medical professionals who actually know the person without justifying why it gives them less weight. (Shala v Birmingham City Council [2007] EWCA Civ 624 and Guiste v Lambeth LBC [2019] EWCA Civ 1758). The Council’s case notes acknowledge this new information but, on the evidence seen, the Council failed to act on it. That was fault.
72. Mrs Y had no right of appeal about the suitability of her accommodation at that stage, because it was still interim accommodation. The Council’s TA policy states it can consider disputes in these circumstances informally, and the applicant may then complain. I did not see evidence the Council properly considered the suitability of the accommodation at this stage, or that it told Mrs Y she could complain. This is fault.
73. The Council acknowledged in its complaint response that it should have moved Mrs Y to new TA. I found the Council received supporting letters from Mrs Y’s doctor, and mental health crisis services. It also received concerning reports from her MP, support worker, and Citizens Advice. They all raised concerns with the suitability of TA and document Mrs Y’s mental health issues and vulnerability. There were also new diagnosis of PTSD and personality disorder that arose in May 2024 while Mrs Y was in TA. Despite this, the Council failed to take suitable and prompt action. That was fault.
74. The Council also delayed accepting the main housing duty, which is fault. This delayed Mrs Y’s right to ask for a review of her accommodation. When the Council wrote to Mrs Y in July accepting the main housing duty, it did include a standard paragraph telling Mrs Y about her right to ask for a review of the TA. While Mrs Y did not formally submit a review request, her support workers continued to ask the Council to move her to new TA after this point. The Council should have asked Mrs Y if she wished to ask for a formal review or signposted her to the review process. The Council’s failure to do so is fault.
75. During this time, the Council issued Mrs Y with several ASB warning notices. Citizens Advice gave the Council a letter explaining Mrs Y’s response to the allegations and the reasons for some of her actions. However, I have not seen evidence the Council properly considered whether there was a link between Mrs X’s mental health struggles and the alleged ASB, or whether continuing to issue ASB warnings was a suitable response in the circumstances to address the problems.
76. In addition, the Council’s final ASB warning listed one of the reasons as Mrs Y’s failure to cooperate with the accommodation caretaker. This was after Mrs Y’s support worker told the Council Mrs X complained the caretaker harassed her. Criticising Mrs Y for not cooperating with a person she felt was harassing her was a significant oversight by the Council, causing further avoidable distress.
77. The first time I saw evidence the Council was aware of harassment is on 14 June 2024, in a conversation with Mrs Y’s support worker. Mr X told me Mrs Y reported the harassment to the Council earlier by telephone. Unfortunately, this is not mentioned in the case notes, and I have not seen evidence any of the professionals or support workers working with Mrs Y reported it before this time.
78. I did not see evidence the Council made enquiries with the letting agent about harassment until August, when it became aware the police were investigating. This is fault. It should have made enquiries in June.

Injustice

79. Because the Council did not accept the main housing duty until July 2024, Mrs Y had no review rights when she was sending new evidence of her condition. I have therefore considered whether the accommodation was suitable so that I can determine the extent of Mrs Y’s injustice.
80. Mrs Y was referred to a mental health crisis service in April 2024. That was due to anxiety, panic attacks, and self-harming which Mrs Y said was brought on by her accommodation. She also had behavioural outbursts. Around that time, letters from professionals and support workers suggested Mrs Y needed to move due to unsuitable accommodation. On the evidence seen, I consider Mrs Y’s mental health worsened because of the accommodation, and was unsuitable by 14 May 2024 when Mrs Y received new diagnosis of PTSD and emotionally unstable personality disorder.
81. That meant Mrs Y was in unsuitable accommodation between 14 May and 3 September 2024, just over three months. This caused Mrs Y significant distress.
82. The Council evicted Mrs Y from TA on 3 September following ASB warnings. This caused further distress that could have been avoided if the Council had moved Mrs Y sooner.

Back to top

Agreed Action

83. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Mrs X for not properly keeping the suitability of her accommodation under review, and for the distress she suffered staying in unsuitable accommodation. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology
• Pay Mrs X £900 (a rate of £300 per month) for the distress caused by the time spent in unsuitable accommadation.
84. Within three months of my final decision, the Council will:
1. Review its policies and procedures on the assessment of the suitability of accommodation provided to homeless applicants and make any changes needed to ensure this includes clear guidance about:

• the steps officers must take to properly assess the suitability of accommodation offered to homeless applicants and record these assessments.
• the actions officers should take in response to concerns or complaints from applicants about the suitability of their accommodation.
2. Provide refresher training for officers to ensure they understand the Council’s duties to provide suitable accommodation for homeless applicants and to keep suitability under review.

85. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

86. I found the Council was at fault for failing to properly keep the suitability of Mrs Y’s accommodation under review, including after reports of anti-social behaviour and harassment.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman