Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to deal with a request to review the suitability of her accommodation. Miss X also says the Council failed to assess information she provided it to relevant medical conditions. Miss X says this has resulted in her living in unsuitable accommodation and has affected her mental health. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for failing to complete a suitability review, review medical information passed to it and provide decision letters which included all relevant information. The Council has agreed to write to Miss X to issue an apology, pay her a symbolic payment and complete a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to deal with a request to review the suitability of her accommodation. Miss X also says the Council failed to assess information she provided it to relevant medical conditions.
2. Miss X says this has resulted in her living in unsuitable accommodation and has affected her mental health.

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. 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)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. Miss X has raised complaints which date back beyond 12 months. I have applied discretion to investigate these issues as Miss X was not given details of review rights and arguably believed a suitability review was going to take place and as such allowed the matter to continue without bringing it to the Ombudsman’s attention.

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 were invited to comment on my draft decision. I have considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

Homelessness

9. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. 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)

The main housing duty

10. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation.

Housing allocations

11. 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))
12. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

Decisions and Review rights

13. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
14. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:

• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

Suitability of accommodation

15. 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 (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
16. 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)
17. 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)
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:
19. the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district;
20. the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household; and
21. the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)

Tower Hamlets Allocation Scheme

22. The Council’s allocation scheme says if you disagree with a decision following a recommendation by a health advisor, a review will be carried out by another health advisor. The advisor will not have assessed your application for priority on health grounds.

What happened

23. Miss X contacted the Council in early 2022 requesting a review of her medical information. The Council responded in April 2022 and confirmed having reviewed the information her banding would remain at Band 2A Overcrowding Priority. The Council’s letter did not include any details about whether Miss X could request a review of the decision.
24. The Council accepted the Main Housing duty in early July 2022 and allocated Miss X temporary accommodation.
25. Miss X contacted the Council in late July 2022 and complained about mouse droppings in her accommodation. Miss X also called the Council again in September 2022 to say she had found further mouse droppings in her accommodation.
26. Miss X complained to the Council in December 2022 that her accommodation was not suitable due to the rodent infestation and raised issues with the front door to her accommodation. Miss X said she had tried to contact her housing officer but had not received a response.
27. The Council issued a complaint response in January 2023 and said it had contacted the agents of the property who had identified the source of the rodent infestation. It also said it would complete works on the front door.
28. Miss X submitted a medical assessment request in July 2023 and reported to the Council that someone had entered her property and disturbed her belongings. The Council passed Miss X’s medical assessment to a medical assessor who decided that self-contained accommodation would be appropriate when practicable. I have not been able to see the Council told Miss X the decision it made about her assessment request.
29. The Council visited Miss X’s property in mid-May 2024, and its notes record it found a mouse infestation.
30. The Council sent Miss X a medical self-assessment form in October 2024 which Miss X returned shortly after. Miss X again reported issues with mice, the front door to the property and a broken window to the Council.
31. The Council sent Miss X’s medical assessment form to the medical assessor towards the end of October 2024. The assessor decided self-contained accommodation was appropriate.
32. The Council wrote to Miss X in early November 2024 and said the medical assessor had decided accommodation up to the second floor would be appropriate. The letter advised how Miss X could challenge this decision if she did not agree. The Council also told Miss X it would follow up with the agent of the property in relation to pest control.
33. Miss X’s MP wrote to the Council in November 2024 and asked how she could review the decision not to allow her to move.
34. Miss X raised a stage two complaint with the Council in late November 2024 via the Ombudsman.
35. The Council wrote to Miss X’s MP in December 2024 and said it would pass Miss X’s request to review the suitability of her accommodation to the Housing Reviews Team.
36. The Council issued a stage two response two days later which said Miss X had not exercised her right to review the suitability of her accommodation. The Council also said Miss X’s medical information was reviewed by the medical assessor who concluded she did not meet the additional medical priority. The Council also said it would contact the agents of Miss x’s property about the rodent infestation.
37. The Council received the medical assessors advice in relation to Miss X’s assessment in mid-December 2024 which advised her accommodation was suitable on medical grounds but said this did not consider the infestation.
38. The Council moved Miss X to new temporary accommodation in January 2026.

Analysis

39. The Council told Miss X’s MP it would pass their request for a suitability review to the Housing Reviews Team in December 2024 which gave Miss X the impression the Council would complete a review. This then did not happen, and the Council did not tell Miss X a review would not be taking place. This is fault and would have caused Miss X distress and frustration.
40. The Council issued a medical assessment outcome letter in April 2022 but did not tell Miss X of her right to review the decision. This is fault and caused Miss X to be disadvantaged by not being aware of her right to review the decision.
41. Miss X sent a further medical assessment request in July 2023 and although the Council did review this, I cannot see it told Miss X of any decision the Council had made. This is fault and would have caused Miss X distress, frustration and inconvenience.
42. The Council reviewed a further medical assessment request from Miss X in October 2023. The Council issued a decision letter to Miss X following the medical review however this only contained the medical assessors reasoning. The Ombudsman published a good practice guide in July 2024 called medical assessment for housing applications. This said decisions should consider all evidence provided to the housing officer and should not just transpose the decision of the medical adviser. I cannot see the Council did so here and as such this is fault and would have caused Miss X distress and frustration.
43. A further medical assessment decision issued in December 2024 again provided only the medical assessors opinion.
44. In response to our enquiries the Council noted these faults and noted that medical reviews had been completed by the same medical advisor on more than one occasion. The Council’s allocation policy says that another medical professional will complete a review of a decision where an individual disagrees. While Miss X has not challenged the decision of each of the medical assessments, it would have been more appropriate to ensure opinions were sought from different professionals.

Back to top

Action

45. Within four weeks of a final decision, the Council should:

• Write to Miss X to apologise for the distress caused by the faults identified. 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 Miss X £750 to recognise the prolonged distress, inconvenience and frustration she suffered due to the faults identified.
• Review the Ombudsman’s Good Practice Guide: Medical Assessment for Housing Applications and advise the Ombudsman of what action it will take to ensure its practice is in line with the guide.
• Advise the Ombudsman what action it will take to ensure suitability review requests are picked up and actioned.

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

Back to top

Decision

47. I find fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman