Summary: Mr D complained the Council failed to offer homelessness advice and support and placed him in unsuitable interim accommodation. I have found evidence of fault by the Council causing Mr D to live in unsuitable accommodation for nearly six months. I have asked the Council to pay Mr D financial redress.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council failed to provide adequate support after becoming homeless. In particular, he complains:

1. he was not told about a lack of furnishings before moving into interim accommodation and was not told about possible financial assistance to obtain essential items (such as a bed)
2. he was not helped with the removal of a faulty washing machine at interim accommodation
3. the Council failed to deal with damp and mould at interim accommodation
4. there was a delay issuing the main housing duty decision
5. he was placed in unsuitable interim accommodation

2. In addition, he complains about the suitability of temporary accommodation and the suitability of a property offered as a discharge to the Council’s main housing duty. Mr D also challenges the number of points awarded to his housing register application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated what took place from when Mr D submitted his homelessness application in October 2023 through to May 20924 when the Council sent him its final complaints response. I cannot consider what happened after that date. I have advised Mr D that if he believes there has been fault in the actions of the Council for matters after May 2024, he will need to make a new complaint to the Council.
5. I have not investigated the suitability of temporary accommodation, or the property offered to him as the Council’s discharge of its main housing duty. Mr D had a statutory right of review where he could progress the case to court. The Ombudsman expects complainants to use that option. I have also not investigated the number of points awarded to Mr D’s housing register application. He can ask the Council to formally review its decision, and we would expect this to be completed before the Ombudsman will consider investigating.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. Mr D approached the Council for assistance on 31 October 2023, he was street homeless. The Council has failed to retain documentation for the initial contact with Mr D and its assessment of his case. I understand the Council carried out a suitability assessment on 31 October. Mr D told the Council he had limited mobility and received care assistance. Mr D was placed in interim accommodation in a first floor, furnished, B&B property.
9. On 13 December Mr D emailed the Council. He had mobility issues and could not manage the stairs to his property. He fallen on three occasions. He was also too far from his primary carer who assisted with daily tasks and medication. An Accommodation Solutions Officer replied asking Mr D to submit medical evidence which would be assessed. The next day the Accommodation Solutions Officer emailed a Housing Officer that it mentioned in Mr D’s suitability assessment he used a walking stick. They said “looks like could have been a mistake” placing Mr D in a first floor property. The same Officer also emailed another Housing Officer on 15 December. They thought the Officer “could have placed [Mr D] in unsuitable accommodation by mistake” and asked them to check Mr D’s suitability assessment to see if he needed to be moved. They stated, “if we placed him wrongly to begin with, we may need to move him urgently”. On 19 December Mr D sent the Council medical evidence.
10. On 12 February 2024 Mr D emailed the Council because he had not heard back about his accommodation. He had fallen on the stairs again and injured himself. He had also not been able to shower for a week because his carer was not on hand and his mental health was deteriorating. The Council replied the same day that it had his medical evidence. On 14 February a Housing Officer filled out a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) for Mr D’s case. They stated the Council accepted Mr D was eligible, homeless and in priority need. It owed him a relief duty. They also stated accommodation should be ground floor or accessible by a lift as Mr D had severe mobility issues and it should be a self-contained property. On 26 February Mr D asked the Council for assistance with different accommodation and repeated the request on 4 March.
11. On 7 March the Council issued a Health and Disability Assessment decision. It had considered Mr D’s medical evidence, and his current accommodation was unsuitable. The Council would find him alternative accommodation. It recommended any future accommodation be step-free, although Mr D could manage up to two steps with rails. It should be a ground floor flat because Mr D could not cope with a lift. Because he was single applicant, he was eligible for a studio flat. On 20 March Mr D complained to the Council, he had been telling it about the unsuitability of the interim accommodation since December, but his medical information had only recently been assessed. On 2 April Mr D told the Council he had received the Health and Disability Assessment decision. It wrongly stated he could not use a lift. He also said he needed a one bedroom flat on medical grounds. The next day the Council replied that it was unable to register a suitability review request because Mr D’s homeless application was still being considered. Only ‘accepted duty cases’ could ask for a review.
12. On 5 April the Council responded to Mr D’s complaint. It apologised for the delay progressing his homelessness application. It also accepted there had been a delay forwarding his medical evidence for assessment. In addition it said there had not been a timely response to contact about the unsuitability of his interim accommodation. An Officer would call Mr D to discuss what would happen next. I have no record of whether a call was made to Mr D.
13. The Council offered Mr D alternative, ground floor, interim accommodation which he moved to on 22 April. The tenancy agreement stated the property was unfurnished. Prior to occupation the Council inspected the property and noted it was unfurnished. The checklist completed by the Council had a tick list to show a cooker and fridge were included in the property. It did not ask whether a washing machine was also installed. The Council also took photographs of the property which do not show any disrepair. On 25 April Mr D asked the Council to look again at his complaint. He was in new accommodation without a bed or bedding. He had not been told there would be no bed. He did not have one or the funds to purchase furniture. He had slept on his clothing since he moved in. Also his washing machine was too dirty to use, he had told his Housing Officer who stated Mr D would have to get the machine removed and replaced at his own cost. He wanted financial redress for the delays by the Council and said he was being restricted to ground floor properties when he could use a lift.
14. The Council issued its final stage complaint response on 24 May. It said the main housing duty would be issued by 31 May and apologised for the delay. It said the Council did not supply beds or washing machines. If Mr D needed financial assistance he should speak to the Accommodation Solutions Team and an Officer would contact him by 7 June to explain about what grants were available. If Mr D felt he could use a lift he should get additional medical evidence, and the Council would consider it.

Events occurring outside of my investigation

15. I have no evidence to show whether an Officer contacted Mr D by 7 June. On 14 June the Council accepted a main housing duty towards Mr D. It approved his housing register application, awarded him 100 points and the start date was backdated to 31 October 2023.

What should have happened

Homelessness legislation and statutory guidance

16. 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.

The prevention duty

17. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

18. 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)

The main housing duty

19. 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 (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But 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)

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

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

Interim and temporary accommodation

21. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
22. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
23. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
24. 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)

Duty to provide Advisory Services

25. Councils must provide to anyone in their district information and advice free of charge on:

• securing accommodation when homeless.
• the rights of people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
• the duties of the authority.
• any help that is available from the authority or anyone else, for people in the council’s district who are homeless or may become homeless (whether or not they are threatened with homelessness), and
• how to access that help.

Review of housing register decisions

26. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

Financial assistance for homelessness applicants

27. The Council says at the initial interview, the applicant should be asked for proof of income. If the applicant says they are in financial hardship the Council should provide advice about the Local Support Fund and charitable resources.

Disrepair in interim and temporary accommodation

28. The applicant should report disrepair to the property agent responsible for maintenance. If the issue is not resolved they can notify the Temporary Accommodation Repair Service at the Council. They will contact the property agent to resolve the problem.

Disposal of white goods

29. If an applicant is in interim accommodation containing faulty white goods they should raise the issue with the property agent. If not resolved they can contact the Council. The Council says it is the responsibility of the property agent to liaise with the landlord and dispose of faulty items. It is not the responsibility of the applicant.

Suitability of interim accommodation

30. At the initial interview with an applicant the Council should carry out a suitability assessment to determine if the applicant has medical needs restricting the type of accommodation they can occupy. If an applicant says they have mobility issues an additional assessment by the Housing Health and Disability Team should be carried out taking account of any evidence provided by the applicant.
31. Where the Housing Health and Disability Team assessment finds an applicant’s interim accommodation is unsuitable the Council should view all available interim accommodation and offer the applicant a property meeting their assessed needs. If no accommodation is available, the Council will continue to check and should refer the case to the Procurement Team who can make requests to property agents to find a property.
32. An applicant cannot ask for a formal review on the suitability of interim accommodation. Once the Council accepts a main housing duty, the status of accommodation changes to temporary accommodation. At that point the applicant can ask for a suitability review.

Was there fault by the Council

33. The Council’s record keeping in this case is poor. It failed to retain all records of contact with Mr D. In addition it failed to keep a copy of the initial assessment and suitability assessment carried out on 31 October 2023. It also failed to produce a PHP until 14 February 2024; this appears to have only been completed after contact from Mr D. There was a delay of over 14 weeks producing the PHP. The Council also accepts the actions listed in the PHP ‘did not happen’ meaning Mr D did not receive a reasonable level of advice or assistance at a difficult time.
34. The Council placed Mr D in unsuitable interim accommodation. It failed to take account of his medical need, which it was clearly aware of at the initial assessment (as referenced in the December emails by an Accommodation Solutions Officer). The Council was aware Mr D could not manage more than a few stairs and needed to be near to his care support. Instead he was placed at some distance from his carer and in a first floor property. The evidence also shows the Council failed to consider Mr D’s reports about the property being unsuitable until early March 2024. I have minimal evidence to show the Council then looked regularly for alternative accommodation for Mr D. The faults meant Mr D had to occupy an unsuitable property for nearly six months which is unacceptable.
35. The Council failed to provide Mr D with advice and assistance; it did not give him information about sources of financial assistance. Given Mr D had been street homeless this was particularly important because he had limited possessions. I have no evidence the Council checked with Mr D about whether he needed help furnishing the property he occupied in April. Mr D told the Council soon after moving into the flat that he was sleeping on top of his clothes because he could not afford a bed. That situation could and should have been avoided had the Council provided Mr D with a reasonable level of support and assistance.
36. The Council says Mr D did not report any issues with a washing machine. That is incorrect. Mr D called and then emailed the Council in April. The Council should have explained that it was the responsibility of the property agent/ landlord to resolve any issues with white goods, and it failed to do so.
37. The Council delayed assessing Mr D’s homelessness application and delayed issuing it main housing duty decision. I have no evidence of any actions being taken on the case from 31 October 2023 through to early March 2024. When the Council did take action to progress the case this was only because of contact from Mr D. The Council accepts there was delay.
38. Mr D says there was mould and damp in his second accommodation. I have not found any contemporaneous records to show this issue was reported to the Council for it to inspect and see if remedial repairs were needed. I also see the inspection of the property, before it was let to Mr D, did not note any disrepair. I am unable to say the Council is at fault in this matter.

Did the fault cause an injustice

39. Mr D had to live in unsuitable accommodation for nearly six months. During that time he reported at least four falls on the stairs. He was not provided with a reasonable level of support and advice at a very difficult time and was caused avoidable distress.

Back to top

Action

40. The Council says it has provided training to the Officers involved in this case to avoid the errors reoccurring. I welcomed those steps but asked the Council to consider additional action. It agreed to:
• Pay Mr D £1,200 for the period spent in unsuitable accommodation
• Pay Mr D £400 for avoidable distress.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of this investigation ending.

Back to top

Decision

42. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Mr D.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman