Summary: Mr D complained the Council left him in unsuitable temporary accommodation. I have found fault by the Council, it has agreed to pay Mr D £450 for the three months delay moving him to suitable temporary accommodation.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council left him in unsuitable accommodation from July 2024 to January 2025. He says the Council failed to investigate his reports about safety concerns at the accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. Mr D refers to events going back to 2021. My investigation looks at what happened from when he submitted his homelessness application to the Council in July 2024 through to the end of January 2025 when he moved to alternative temporary accommodation. Any issues arising after that period would need be complained about to the Council before Mr D can bring them to the Ombudsman.

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. On 22 July 2024 Mr D applied to the Council as homeless. He was already residing in temporary accommodation provided by the Council (a second floor property with lift access). On 25 July the Council told Mr D the name of the Homelessness Prevention Officer (HP Officer) allocated his case, and the Council was making enquiries into his application. On 29 July Mr D emailed various people including some Council Officers that he was living in unsafe conditions, there was violence from his neighbours, and his health was deteriorating. He wanted the Council to reassess his housing need. The same day the Council asked Mr D to supply a range of documents needed to process his housing application and asked for medical evidence. The HP Officer also spoke to Mr D about his housing options and explained what assistance the Council could provide. Mr D said he had been promised a move to named alternative temporary accommodation (accommodation X). The HP Officer noted she would check this. Mr D also raised issues with mice and mould at his current accommodation. The HP Officer contacted the accommodation provider who stated Mr D had not reported any issues with the accommodation. The next day the HP Officer asked the accommodation provider to inspect Mr D’s room to check for problems. She also sent Mr D his personalised housing plan (PHP) and confirmed the Council accepted a relief duty towards him. On 31 July the HP Officer sent Mr D information to assist him finding private sector accommodation. On 1 August the HP Officer made a referral to see if Mr D could obtain sheltered accommodation. She also corresponded with Adult Social Care who confirmed the accommodation provider had not received any reports about safety or conditions from Mr D in the last year.
9. In August Mr D complained to the Council that he was living in an unsafe environment, he had been promised a move previously to accommodation X. His possessions had been stolen, and he was dissatisfied with his PHP but did not specify what he wanted changed. On 13 August the HP Officer checked with the accommodation provider about a room inspection and whether Mr D had reported threats and harassment. The accommodation provider responded that a dead mouse was found in the room but no evidence of ongoing rodent activity and no mould. They had spoken to Mr D who said he had no issues with the accommodation other than room size. On 15 August the Council responded to Mr D’s complaint. It said if he wanted to change the PHP he should speak to the HP Officer. It was kept under review and could be updated where necessary. In respect of safety at the temporary accommodation, it had checked, and Mr D had not reported any problems in the last year. The room inspection had not found any issues with the accommodation. The Council also stated it had never promised Mr D a move to accommodation X. The property was only made available to the Council in July, and the Council would not make offers to clients before the property was available to let.
10. On 19 September Mr D requested the Council reconsider his complaint. He reiterated he had been told he would move to accommodation X in April, and his current accommodation was unsafe. On 20 September the HP Officer asked Mr D to send in the documents she had requested in July. On 24 September Mr D told the Council he was still facing threats and violence at the accommodation. On 24 September the Council asked Mr D to submit any relevant medical evidence. On 25 September Mr D did not attend a scheduled meeting with the HP Officer. On 26 September the HP Officer asked Mr D about an alleged incident at his accommodation to see what support he needed. She asked for information on what happened. She also offered to contact support organisations. On the same day the HP Officer contacted the accommodation provider to check if there had been any recent reports of threats/ assault. The accommodation provider said no reports had been made. Later that day the HP Manager emailed Mr D. He had made an allegation of assault at the accommodation, but the accommodation provider had no reports. The Council needed to understand what happened to ensure the required actions were taken and provide support. She asked for details and if the Police had been contacted. She also offered a face to face meeting if it was easier to discuss in person. On 27 September the Council asked its Medical Advisor to carry out a suitability medical assessment.
11. On 30 September the Council accepted a main housing duty to Mr D and notified him about his right to request a suitability review of his temporary accommodation. On the same day the Council offered Mr D alternative temporary accommodation. At the start of October Mr D asked if the property had stairs as he could not manage them and he could not share a fridge because he stored medications in it. On 4 October the Council confirmed the property offered was ground floor but there was one flight of stairs to a dining room and there was a shared fridge. It had contacted the Medical Advisor about Mr D’s housing requirements and were advised a first floor property without a lift would be suitable. If Mr D had medical evidence, he should submit it so the Council could reassess. It also reminded Mr D about his right to request a suitability review and asked that he engage with the HP Officer. Later that day the Medical Advisor told the Council Mr D required a property with access to a fridge to store his medication. He could live on the first floor without a lift or any floor with a lift.
12. On 11 October the HP Officer updated colleagues. They were assessing longer term housing options for Mr D and whether independent accommodation was suitable yet. That day Mr D emailed some medical information to the Council and declined the offer of temporary accommodation because of the stairs and shared fridge. The Council noted it would request a medical assessment for housing medical need recommendations. On 14 October Mr D provided a completed health and disability questionnaire to the Council. The Council then referred the case for assessment. The Medical assessment was completed on 22 October and found Mr D was in a property with lift access, so medical priority did not apply.
13. On 17 October the Council replied to Mr D’s complaint. Throughout the response the Council incorrectly referred to Mr D having moved recently. It said the previous complaint investigation had been insufficient into the alleged threats and assault. The Council should have consulted Mr D when he first reported the allegations. Since then, the Council had made checks in September and there were no reports of the incidents. The Council could not establish the details of the alleged incidents. In respect of the alleged offer of a move to accommodation X the Council repeated there was no evidence an offer had been made and the timeframe suggested by Mr D was not possible. An offer could not be made three months before the Council received the accommodation. Mr D’s health concerns were subject to an ongoing medical assessment. The Council offered redress for the failure to promptly investigate his allegations about safety. It would pay him £100 for time and trouble and £300 for distress.
14. On 28 October the Council noted Mr D’s Social Worker had confirmed Mr D had decided to remain at the temporary accommodation. On 12 December Age UK emailed the Council about Mr D being in an unsafe environment. Thy asked if the Council accepted the accommodation was unsuitable and planned to move him. The email was forwarded to the HP Officer on 8 January 2025 and she replied the next day. To the question about unsuitability, she responded ‘yes’. Mr D was on the transfer list for temporary accommodation. On 10 January the Council offered Mr D new temporary accommodation which he subsequently accepted and moved into at the end of the month.

What should have happened

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. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
16. If a homelessness applicant tells the Council their temporary accommodation is not medically suitable the Council should ask the applicant to provide supporting evidence. It will then refer the case to a Medical Advisor to consider if the applicant has any specific medical needs (for example can they access stairs or use shared facilities). The Council will then assess if the accommodation meets those needs. If the Council decide the temporary accommodation is not suitable it should offer the applicant alternative accommodation that meets their assessed needs.
17. Where an applicant experiences assault or threats in their temporary accommodation, they should report the incidents to the Police and the accommodation provider. If they contact the Council the Council should check with the accommodation provider to see if there is any evidence to support the allegations and also to check support agencies have been engaged.

Was there fault by the Council

18. The Council already accepted some fault in its complaint response to Mr D in October 2024. It acknowledged its investigation into alleged assault and threats at the temporary accommodation had been insufficient. It had subsequently looked into the issue but found no corroborating evidence. I have considered this and agree the Council’s findings. It could not verify Mr D’s allegations and so was unable to take any additional action against the alleged perpetrators.
19. Mr D told the Council the accommodation did not meet his medical needs in July. The Council correctly requested he send in medical evidence and repeated that request in September. At the end of September the Council had medical information and was able to refer the case to its Medical Advisor. It has told me it accepted the accommodation was unsuitable because of the Medical Advisor’s assessment at the start of October. It also accepted the offer of accommodation made on 30 September was not suitable because Mr D would not have sole access to a fridge to store his medication. I cannot see the Council told Mr D abouts its decisions. Mr D did not move to alternative accommodation until January 2025 meaning he remained in unsuitable temporary accommodation for over three months.
20. Mr D refers to the Council promising to move him to a named property (accommodation X). There is no evidence to verify this happened. In the absence of any contemporaneous evidence I cannot corroborate Mr D’s recollection and do not find the Council at fault.

Did the fault cause an injustice

21. Mr D lost the opportunity to have his allegations fully investigated. He also had to stay in unsuitable accommodation for just over three months from October 2024 (after he had provided evidence to support his case) to January 2025.

Back to top

Action

22. The Council has already paid Mr D £400 relating to the failures investigating his reports of assault and threats. The Council has agreed to recommendations and will pay Mr D £450 for the time spent in unsuitable accommodation.
23. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action within four weeks of this case ending.

Back to top

Decision

24. I find fault causing injustice. I have closed the investigation because the Council agrees to take action.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman